DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-19 are currently pending. The effective filing date of the present application is 10/10/2022.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
4. A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Claims 11-16 need correction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
6. Claims 6-7, 11 , 13-14 and 17-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 6 and 14 depend from themselves. This requires further clarification. For examination purposes, claim 6 will be treated as depending from claim 1 and claim 14 as depending from claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
8. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claim, the examiner finds the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 10-11, 13, and 17-18 are processes (methods), and claims 1-9, 12, 15-16 and 19 are machines (systems or devices).
Step 2A – Prong 1: was there a Judicial Exception Recited
Claim 1 (similarly claims 10 and 19) recites the following bolded abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea”:
1. A retailer management system comprising:
a retailer database storing retailer information comprising:
a marketplace mapping comprising a mapping of retailer item identifiers employed by a retailer for items sold through the retailer to marketplace item identifiers employed by one or more electronic commerce marketplaces;
a vendor inventory mapping comprising a mapping of inventory information for the items sold through the retailer to vendor locations that service the marketplace; and
a vendor shipping mapping comprising a mapping of shipping cost information for the items sold through the retailer to vendor locations that service the marketplace; and
a retailer management portal system comprising:
non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising program instructions stored thereon that are executable by a processor to perform the following operations for fulfilling orders for items:
receiving, from an electronic commerce marketplace, a marketplace request indicating a request for a customer to purchase an item sold through the retailer, the marketplace request indicating:
a marketplace item identifier associated with the item;
a quantity of the item to be purchased; and
a customer location;
determining, based on the marketplace item identifier and the marketplace mapping, a retailer item identifier associated with the item;
determining, based on the retailer item identifier, the vendor inventory mapping and the vendor shipping mapping, one or more vendor locations to provide the quantity of the item the customer location; and
sending, to one or more vendors associated with the one or more vendor locations, one or more fulfillment requests to ship a given quantity of the item to the customer location.
Claim 1 (similarly claims 10 and 19) is directed to a series of steps for managing retail sales, which is a commercial/legal interaction and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.4(a).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Can the Judicial Exception Recited be integrated into a practical application
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the retailer database, retail management portal system, processor, electronic commerce marketplace, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium are merely generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply the abstract idea on a generic computer. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea beyond a generic computer. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Significantly More Analysis
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination the retailer database, retail management portal system, processor, electronic commerce marketplace, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claims 1, 10, and 18 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-17 fail to provide additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as the dependent claims only further the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 2-9 and 11-17 are rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection from independent claim from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
10. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatenable by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0078510 to Gadre et al. (“Gadre”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0128539 to Xu et al. (“Xu”).
11. With regards to claim 1 (similarly claims 10 and 19), Gadre disclosed the limitations of,
a retailer database storing retailer information (See [0188] discussing the database servers.) comprising:
a marketplace mapping comprising a mapping of retailer item identifiers employed by a retailer for items sold through the retailer to marketplace item identifiers employed by one or more electronic commerce marketplaces (See [0185] discussing the data exchange platform having descriptive information of the product and product association with buyers, sellers, and couriers [0124]-[0125] discussing the mapping module mapping data structures of the retailer inventory system..);
a vendor inventory mapping comprising a mapping of inventory information for the items sold through the retailer to vendor locations that service the marketplace (See [0124]-[0125] discussing the mapping module mapping data structures of the retailer inventory system.); and
a vendor shipping mapping comprising a mapping of shipping cost information for the items sold through the retailer to vendor locations that service the marketplace (See [0205]-[0207] discussing the delivery cost analysis that is performed for delivery of the item from the warehouse.); and
a retailer management portal system comprising:
non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising program instructions stored thereon that are executable by a processor to perform the following operations for fulfilling orders for items (See [0184] discussing the network system environment including online item purchases in the data exchange, [0210] discussing the buyer module, and [0240] discussing computer implementation of the examples.):
receiving, from an electronic commerce marketplace, a marketplace request indicating a request for a customer to purchase an item sold through the retailer, the marketplace request indicating (See [0120] discussing the information collected by the order management system/retailer inventory system.):
a marketplace item identifier associated with the item (See [0120] discussing the information on the items ordered during the transaction.);
a quantity of the item to be purchased (See [0120] discussing the information on the items ordered during the transaction and Fig. 11 depicting the flow chart of data received including the amount of merchandise selected (1108).); and
a customer location (See [0120] discussing the information including shipping addresses .);
determining, based on the marketplace item identifier and the marketplace mapping, a retailer item identifier associated with the item (See [0185] discussing the data exchange platform having descriptive information of the product and product association with buyers, sellers, and couriers.);
determining, based on the retailer item identifier, the vendor inventory mapping and the vendor shipping mapping, one or more vendor locations to provide the quantity of the item the customer location (See [0126] discussing factoring of choosing a warehouse.); and
Gadre is silent on the limitation of,
sending, to one or more vendors associated with the one or more vendor locations, one or more fulfillment requests to ship a given quantity of the item to the customer location.
However, Xu teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the fulfillment art to include sending, to one or more vendors associated with the one or more vendor locations, one or more fulfillment requests to ship a given quantity of the item to the customer location (See [0066] discussing the sending of a fulfillment request to a 3rd party fulfillment service.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the fulfillment art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Gadre to include sending, to one or more vendors associated with the one or more vendor locations, one or more fulfillment requests to ship a given quantity of the item to the customer location, as disclosed by Xu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to complete the transaction (Xu [0066]).
12. With regards to claim 2 (similarly claim 11), Gadre disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the marketplace mapping comprises, for each of different items sold through the retailer, a mapping of a retailer identifier employed by the retailer for the item to a marketplace identifier employed by an electronic commerce marketplace that services sales of items for the retailer (See [0185] discussing the data exchange platform having descriptive information of the product and product association with buyers, sellers, and couriers and [0124]-[0125] discussing the mapping module mapping data structures of the retailer inventory system..).
13. With regards to claim 3 (similarly claim 12), Gadre disclosed the limitations of,
obtaining, from one or more marketplaces that service the retailer, marketplace identifier information comprising an indication of marketplace identifiers employed electronic commerce marketplaces that service the retailer (See [0185] discussing the data exchange platform having descriptive information of the product and product association with buyers, sellers, and couriers.); and
generating, based on the marketplace identifier information obtained, the marketplace mapping (See [0124]-[0125] discussing the mapping module mapping data structures of the retailer inventory system.).
14. With regards to claim 4 (similarly claim 13), Gadre disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the vendor inventory mapping comprises, for each of different items and vendor locations that service the item, a mapping to inventory information comprising a quantity of the item available at the vendor location and a price of the item at the location (See [0124]-[0125] discussing the mapping module mapping data structures of the retailer inventory system, [0120] discussing the information on the items ordered during the transaction and Fig. 11 depicting the flow chart of data received including the amount of merchandise selected (1108) and [0086] discussing price and description data as part of the listing item information.).
15. With regards to claim 5 (similarly claim 14), Gadre disclosed the limitations of,
wherein the vendor shipping mapping comprises, for each of different vendor locations that service the retailer, shipping cost information that indicates cost to ship items from the vendor location to customers (See [0205]-[0207] discussing the delivery cost analysis that is performed for delivery of the item from the warehouse.).
16. With regards to claim 6 (similarly claim 15), Gadre disclosed the limitations of,
obtaining historical shipping cost information for the vendor locations that service the marketplace (See [0206] discussing tracking historical data to determine geographic and estimated delivery cost. See also [0212] discussing historical data including sizing of the item as a factor of shipping.); and
generating, based on the historical shipping cost information for the vendor locations that service the marketplace, the vendor shipping mapping (See [0205]-[0207] discussing the delivery cost analysis that is performed for delivery of the item from the warehouse.).
17. With regards to claim 7 (similarly claim 16), Gadre disclosed the limitations of,
receiving, from one or more vendors that service the retailer, shipping cost information for vendor locations that service the marketplace (See [0126] discussing the data received to calculate of the cost analysis based on shipping cost.); and
generating, based on the shipping cost information for the vendor locations that service the retailer received, the vendor shipping mapping (See [126] discussing calculation of the cost analysis based on shipping cost.).
18. With regards to claim 8 (similarly claim 17), Gadre is silent on the limitations of,
wherein the one or more vendors associated with the one or more vendor locations are configured to send the given quantity of the item to the customer location in accordance with the one or more fulfillment requests.
However, Xu teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the fulfillment art to include the one or more vendors associated with the one or more vendor locations are configured to send the given quantity of the item to the customer location in accordance with the one or more fulfillment requests (See [0062] discussing fulfilling of the order.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the fulfillment art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Gadre to include wherein the one or more vendors associated with the one or more vendor locations are configured to send the given quantity of the item to the customer location in accordance with the one or more fulfillment requests, as disclosed by Xu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to complete the transaction (Xu [0066]).
19. With regards to claim 9 (similarly claim 18), Gadre disclosed the limitations of,
receiving vendor inventory information (See [0124]-[0125] discussing the mapping module mapping data structures of the retailer inventory system.);
determining, based on the vendor inventory information, a local inventory indicative of a quantity of items available for purchase by way of a vendor (See [0120] discussing the information on the items ordered during the transaction and Fig. 11 depicting the flow chart of data received including the amount of merchandise selected.);
providing, to one or more marketplaces, inventory information corresponding to the local inventory (See Fig. 11 discussing updating of the electronic storefront based on the amount of each item(1112) and [0235] discussing the electronic storefront.);
fulfilling an item purchase request (See [0236] discussing customer picking up the item.);
updating, based on the fulfilling of the item purchase request, the local inventory to generate an updated local inventory (See [0236] discussing customer picking up the item and then updating the electronic storefront amount of items.);
providing, to the one or more marketplaces, updated inventory information corresponding to the updated local inventory(See [0236] discussing customer picking up the item and then updating the electronic storefront amount of items.);
receiving second vendor inventory information (See [0124]-[0125] discussing the mapping module mapping data structures of the retailer inventory system, [0099] discussing the implementation of multiple temporary warehouses in the inventory platform, and [0086] contemplating multiple storefronts.); and
updating, based on the second vendor inventory information, the updated local inventory (See [0236] discussing customer picking up the item and then updating the electronic storefront amount of items, [0099] discussing the implementation of multiple temporary warehouses in the inventory platform, and [0086] contemplating multiple storefronts.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited, PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL JARED WALKER whose telephone number is (303)297-4407. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00 AM -5:00 PM CT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fahd Obeid can be reached at (571)270-3324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL JARED WALKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627 Michael.walker@uspto.gov