DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. These papers have been placed of record in the file. A certified English translation is not currently required and has not been filed. Filing of a certified English translation may become necessary during prosecution of this application, such as in the event of an interference or intervening reference. Applicant is advised that should a certified English translation be required, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in order for applicant to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). See 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e) or 37 CFR 1.55 and MPEP § 201.15, respectively. In that event, failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application. Examiner suggests advance filing of a certified English translation in order to avoid potentially unnecessary rejections based on intervening prior art, and so to ensure compact prosecution.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment and remarks filed April 9, 2026, are responsive to the office action mailed January 13, 2026. Claims 1-17 were previously pending. Claims 1, 3, 10, and 17, have been amended and claim 11 has been cancelled. Claims 1-10 and 12-17 are therefore currently pending and considered in this office action.
Pertaining to objection in the previous office action
Claim 3 was objected to because of informalities. The amendment has rendered moot this rejection and it is withdrawn.
Pertaining to claim interpretation in the previous office action
Claim 10 was previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function claim. The amendment has nullified the need for this interpretation.
Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC § 101 in the previous office action
Claim 10 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention did not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. The amendment has overcome this rationale for one of the rejections under 35 USC 101.
Response to Arguments
Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC § 101 in the previous office action
Applicant's arguments filed April 9, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1-10 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applicant argues
“The Examiner characterized the claims as being directed to "certain methods of organizing human activity" because they recite steps of releasing, generating, sharing, selecting, checking, and ordering. Applicant respectfully disagrees. The claims, as amended, recite a specific computer-implemented method performed by "at least one processor executing instructions stored in at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium." The claims do not recite a purely abstract concept that could be performed entirely in the human mind or with pen and paper.” Remarks p.8.
This inaccurately represents the office action and does not address the expressed rationale for the determination of ineligible subject matter. It is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant argues “The Claims Integrate Any Abstract Idea into a Practical
Application,” by reciting generic computer elements and declaring that applying the abstract idea with those elements renders it statutory. This again ignores the rationale for the rejection. Applicant then identifies a problem described in the specification without any indication how or why it could be considered a technical problem. The problem and characterized solution are both described in abstract, conceptual terms, and so do not present persuasive argument that the claims are directed to statutory subject matter.
Applicant argues, “The specific three-plane hierarchy with defined roles-where a first-plane entity releases products, a second-plane entity generates a basket identifier and checks the basket, and third-plane entities select products-is not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity.” Remarks p.9. This argument misapplies the “well-understood, routine, or conventional activity” determination. Examiner notes that the determination in the present case is not based on a conclusion that additional elements represent well-understood, routine, or conventional activity, and no such conclusion has been stated. Elements that are not abstract are sufficient to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea unless they perform activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. When elements that are not abstract only perform activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional, they could be held insignificant, as in the case of extra-solution activity merely performed by computers performing well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. In that case they would be ineligible. Elements that are not abstract but only perform activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional, could still be eligible however if the elements and the activities they perform are directed to “significantly more” than an abstract idea, for instance if they are directed to a technical solution to a technical problem. This precedent is not applicable in the present case because there are no particular devices performing any specific activities. In the present case the claims and argument are entirely directed to abstract ideas claimed by describing abstract objectives performed by tangentially referenced generic devices. The determination of eligibility (or ineligibility) must however be made on grounds relevant to the claims at issue in each case and this consideration is not applicable in the present case.
Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC § 103 in the previous office action
Applicant's arguments filed April 9, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1-7, 10, 12-15, and 17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundaresan (Paper No. 20251223; Patent No. US 7,996,270 B2) in view of Marks (Paper No. 20251223; Patent No. US 6,876,977 B1).
Applicant’s argument relies on representations regarding a “structurally distinct organizational level” that is not claimed and does not appear to have been described in the specification. Applicant’s argument relies entirely on implications that require a heavy amount of imagination in interpreting the planes of a hierarchy. Unfortunately in examiner’s position, broadest reasonable interpretation does not allow examiner to imagine all of the subject matter required to establish these implied limitations. Applicant is welcome to amend the claims to establish these limitations, but as noted examiner has not found them described in the specification. It would be appreciated therefore if applicant identifies where in the specification they are described. Applicant’s argument does not address any of the portions of prior art relied upon and cited as disclosing the claimed features and does not indicate how those features are distinguishable therefrom.
Applicant’s argument regarding “a deliberate act performed by a specific hierarchical entity” similarly relies on reading additional limitations into the claims. Even if examiner were to assume that applicant’s representation of the prior art is correct, there is no indication in the claims that the entity generating an identifier cannot be an automated one and an automated entity would be included in the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation. Examiner again would request that applicant identify where in the disclosure the “specific entity” is defined. Without more specificity, a defined role can still be an automated one. This applies to applicant’s second and third arguments.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As noted in the rejection, all elements were disclosed in the prior art, and the combination would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention because the cited prior art are directed to similar subject matter and merely describe different hierarchical entities that would have been obvious to combine. Applicants’ argument regarding three distinct planes is not valid in any case because as noted in the rejection the prior art teaches “entities of a third plane” (see at least Sundaresan c3:1-11, which would appear to disclose even applicant’s more narrow argued representation of a third plane). With regard to the use of a textbook as prior art, as noted above so long as the rejection is based on “knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-10 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (step 2A), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (step 2B). Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 189 L. Ed. 2d 296, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4303, 110 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1976, 82 U.S.L.W. 4508, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 870, 2014 WL 2765283 (U.S. 2014); MPEP 2106.
Step 1:
In the instant case claims 1-9 and 12-16 are directed to a process and claims 10 and 17 are directed to a machine. All claims are therefore within statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03, Eligibility Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
These claims also recite, inter alia,
“releasing a product for the basket by at least one entity of a first plane of the hierarchy; generating an identifier for the basket by at least one entity of a second plane of the hierarchy; sharing the identifier for the basket with a plurality of entities of a third plane of the hierarchy, by at least one entity of the second plane; selecting the product by at least one entity of the plurality of entities of the third plane as a position in the basket; checking the basket by at least one entity of the second plane; and ordering according to the result of the checking by at least one entity of the first plane or at least one entity of the second plane, wherein the releasing, the generating, the sharing, the selecting, the checking, and the ordering are performed ….” Claim 1.
A careful analysis of the limitations above, each on its own and all together combined, results in the conclusion that each on its own recites an abstract idea and in combination they simply recite a more detailed abstract idea. The recited abstract idea falls within the grouping of abstract ideas described as certain methods of organizing human activity, for example commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). See MPEP 2106.04(a); Eligibility Step 2A1. The claims must therefore be analyzed under the second prong of Eligibility Step 2 (Step 2A2; MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
In order to address prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step2A2) we must identify whether there are any additional elements beyond the abstract ideas and determine whether those additional elements (if there are any) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step 2A2. The additional elements in all claims is a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The claims are otherwise almost entirely a recitation of abstract ideas. The recitation ““wherein the releasing, the generating, the sharing, the selecting, the checking, and the ordering are performed by at least one processor executing instructions stored in at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium,” is essentially an instruction to “apply it,” i.e., apply the abstract idea.
The substantive process is recited only by descriptions of abstract intended results of steps without indicating any particular operations performed by any device or structural element to perform the steps or otherwise obtain the intended results. The claims do not improve the functioning of any computer or other technology or technical field, they do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, they do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing, and they fail to apply or use the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05.
If the disclosure describes any improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field this improvement would need to be identifiable as the subject matter appearing in the claims. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. The disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim limitations can integrate a judicial exception into a practical application by implementing the judicial exception with or using it in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. A general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception by use of generic computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2014); MPEP 2106.05(b),(f). There are no particular machines or manufactures identified in the present claims.
The claims do not affect the transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article. A new or different function or use can be evidence that an article has been transformed. Purely mental processes in which data, thoughts, impressions, or human based actions are "changed" are not considered a transformation. MPEP 2106.05(c).
The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in any other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. As a result the claim as a whole appears to be a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. MPEP 2106.05(e),(h).
The additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Although the additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application the claims could still be eligible if they recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more” than the judicial exception). MPEP 2106.05, Eligibility Step 2B.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they perform only an abstract process accompanied by recitation simply indicating it is broadly applied using generic devices. MPEP 2106.05(f). Simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2); see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9721, 115 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”). The elements fail to present a technical solution to a technical problem created by the use of surrounding technology. They do not identify any particular surrounding technology. Limitations that amount to merely identifying a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. See Ret. Capital Access Mgmt. Co. v. U.S. Bancorp, 611 Fed. Appx. 1007, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14351 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“It may be very clever; it may be very useful in a commercial context, but they are still abstract ideas,” said Circuit Judge Alan Lourie.). MPEP 2106.05(h).
No technical problem is indicated and the claims are not directed to a technical solution to such a problem. The method claimed is a nontechnical series of steps taken to practice an entrepreneurial activity. The claimed invention is patent ineligible because the innovative aspect (if there is one) is an entrepreneurial rather than a technological one. Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 3245; 177 L. Ed. 2d 792, 822; 2010 U.S. LEXIS 5521, 73; 95 U.S.P.Q.20 (BNA) 1001 (2010) (citing Merges, Property Rights for Business Concepts and Patent System Reform, 14 Berkeley Tech. L. J. 577, 585 (1999)); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014) (“A rule holding that claims are impermissibly abstract if they are directed to an entrepreneurial objective, such as methods for increasing revenue, minimizing economic risk, or structuring commercial transactions, rather than a technological one, would comport with the guidance provided in both Alice and Bilski.” Mayer, J, concurring).
Finally, it is reiterated that dependent claims 2-9 and 12-17 do not contribute any additional elements and do not add "significantly more" to establish eligibility because they merely recite additional abstract ideas that further describe the data and manipulations of data used in implementing the abstract idea. A more detailed abstract idea is still abstract. PricePlay.com, Inc. v. AOL Adver., Inc., 627 Fed. Appx. 925, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 611, 2016 WL 80002 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2016) (in addressing a bundle of abstract ideas stacked together during oral argument, U.S. Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore said, "All of these ideas are abstract…. It’s like you want a patent because you combined two abstract ideas and say two is better than one.").
All of the above leads to the conclusion that additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the claimed subject matter into significantly more than an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05; Eligibility Step 2B. As a result the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because they recite an abstract idea without being directed to a practical application, and they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05, supra..
The preceding analysis applies to all statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, claims 1-10 and 12-17 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 USC 101 based upon the same analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-7, 10, 12-15, and 17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundaresan (Paper No. 20251223; Patent No. US 7,996,270 B2) in view of Marks (Paper No. 20251223; Patent No. US 6,876,977 B1).
Sundaresan teaches a method for ordering products by using a shared electronic basket with a hierarchy wherein entity of a first plane of the hierarchy releases a list of items and members of the community and entities of a third plane select them. Sundaresan discloses, regarding
Claim 1. A method for ordering products by using a shared electronic basket with a hierarchy, comprising:
● releasing a product for the basket by at least one entity of a first plane of the hierarchy (see at least Sundaresan abstract “system receives item data corresponding to an item list from a user. The item list may include one or more items,” fig. 3, c1:15-25 “user may register with a website and create a personal item list for items that friends and family may use to purchase those items,” c3:25-45 “generation and maintenance of an item list … a shared electronic shopping cart…. relating one or more item lists to selected community groups, and providing a shared electronic shopping cart for the community groups to purchase items from the shared item list”).
Sundaresan teaches the above as noted and discloses a) a shared shopping cart, b) identification of a shopping cart, and c) sharing the identified shopping cart with third plane entities, but does not explicitly disclose generating an identifier for the basket by at least one entity of a second plane of the hierarchy and sharing the identifier for the basket with a plurality of entities of a third plane of the hierarchy, by at least one entity of the second plane.
Marks also teaches a) a shared shopping cart, b) identification of a shopping cart, and c) sharing the identified shopping cart with third plane entities, and further discloses
● generating an identifier for the basket by at least one entity of a second plane of the hierarchy (see at least Marks figs.2-3, 11, c4:65-c5:5 “Each basket is uniquely identified for later retrieval,” c6:30-40 “The shopping cart 223 object is preferably available to the shopping group, preferably with an order number appended …. The cart then may be archived 70 with the order for later retrieval should a problem arise. Any suitable approach for uniquely identifying the cart may be used. For example, a Basket ID”);● sharing the identifier for the basket with a plurality of entities of a third plane of the hierarchy, by at least one entity of the second plane (see at least Marks figs.2-3, 11, 17, c6:30-40 “The shopping cart 223 object is preferably available to the shopping group”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (for pre-AIA applications) or filing (for applications filed under the AIA ) to modify the method of Sundaresan to include generating an identifier for the basket by at least one entity of a second plane of the hierarchy, as taught by Marks since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would result in an improvement. This is because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features even from a variety of technical fields into methods and systems implemented using similar technological structures (i.e., generic computer and/or network hardware such as processors, servers, etc.). In this case the areas of technical endeavor are nonetheless similar and overlapping.
Applicant has not disclosed that the added feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose beyond the performance of the functions they performed separately and since each element and its function are shown in the prior art the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. It would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the feature from Marks in the method of Sundaresan. Furthermore the combination solved no long felt need. Incorporating cumulative known features is additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so increases commercial use of a method by attracting users that previously might have chosen between one of the previously known methods.
Sundaresan in view of Marks further discloses
● selecting the product by at least one entity of the plurality of entities of the third plane as a position in the basket (see at least Sundaresan abstract “member data is associated with the one or more items on the item list,” figs.5A, 7, c1:20-25 “a couple may register for their wedding gifts on the website and invited guests may go to the website and select and purchase items”); ● checking the basket by at least one entity of the second plane (see at least Sundaresan c9:1-25 “item list creator or another member (if granted sufficient access) may create a rule to put a limit on a price or quantity for a given item” (please note: “another member” is a second plane entity) in view of Marks abstract “providing the users with various selected levels of access to the basket, i.e., to prevent unauthorized purchases, figs. 1, 3, 5A-12. Please note: Marks gives a member of the group greater authority to administer the basket, as indicated in the figures.); and ● ordering according to the result of the checking by at least one entity of the first plane or at least one entity of the second plane (see at least Sundaresan c9:1-25 “item list creator or another member (if granted sufficient access) may create a rule to put a limit on a price or quantity for a given item,” c9:25-42 “Once a list has been returned to a user, the user may then have the option to purchase,” c:13:60-65 “automatically purchasing the product or the service available from the one or more vendors based on a single input received from one of the user and a member of the one or more members of the community group”),
● wherein the releasing, the generating, the sharing, the selecting, the checking, and the ordering are performed by at least one processor executing instructions stored in at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (see at least Sundaresan fig. 9, c12:18-40, and Marks c3:5-25).Claim 2. The method according to claim 1, whereby the generating of the identifier comprises: ● defining attributes for the basket by at least one entity of the second plane (see at least Marks abstract “an electronic shopping basket which is selectively actuatable into various states. An additional step includes enabling two or more remote users to simultaneously access the shopping basket,” figs. 3-4. Please note that group attributes are also basket attributes because the basket is shared by the group.).Claim 3. The method according to claim 2, whereby the defining of attributes for the basket comprises: ● defining a threshold value for the quantity, which is to be ordered, of the product (see at least Sundaresan c9:1-25 “item list creator or another member (if granted sufficient access) may create a rule to put a limit on a price or quantity for a given item”).Claim 4. The method according to claim 1, further comprising: ● registering for the shared basket by the at least one entity of the third plane (see at least Sundaresan abstract “system then receives member data from one or more members of the community group,” c2:25-35 “receiving and processing data from a multitude of users. The data may include, but is not limited to, … shared electronic shopping carts,” c6:5-15 “user table 304 may contain a record for each registered user of the network-based marketplace 112, and may include identifier, address and financial instrument information pertaining to each such registered user. In one embodiment, a user operates as … a member of a community group”).Claim 5. The method according to claim 1, further comprising: ● closing the basket by the at least one entity of the second plane (see at least Sundaresan c6:65-c7:5 “rules may include authorization to allow or forbid a member from adding new members to the community group, deleting members, or distributing the item list,” c9:25-42 “Once a list has been returned to a user, the user may then have the option to purchase,” c:13:60-65 “automatically purchasing the product or the service available from the one or more vendors based on a single input received from one of the user and a member of the one or more members of the community group,” Marks abstract “providing the users with various selected levels of access to the basket, i.e., to prevent unauthorized purchases, figs. 1, 3, 5A-12. Please note: closing the basket can be interpreted as purchasing the items or as preventing certain actions by certain users with regard to the basket.).Claim 6. The method according to claim 1, whereby the checking of the basket comprises at least one of: ● rejecting a position in the basket, prioritizing a position in the basket, holding back a position in the basket, and releasing a position in the basket (see at least Sundaresan c7:20-30 “the bowling team 408 (in its entirety) has not been granted access (or authorization) to allow its members to grant access to the item list to other entities,” c9:1-25 “The electronic shopping cart display 580 includes sections or fields pertaining to a specific item 582 (as described above), a description 584, a quantity 585, a threshold value such as a max price 586, a search button 588, and a bulk purchase button 590. The item list creator may also create rules for how a electronic shopping cart is configured. For example, a member may not be able to purchase an item until all or a predetermined amount of items from the item list 402 have been put into the electronic shopping cart. The item list creator or another member (if granted sufficient access) may create a rule to put a limit on a price or quantity for a given item. … For example, a limit or threshold value of 5,000 USD (United States Dollars) has been established for the Sony SN2345P plasma television, as indicated under max price 586. In one embodiment, the quantity (e.g., quantity 585) may be an input field editable by a member of the community group but the underlying program may automatically limit the quantity amount according to a rule created by the item list creator,” in view of Marks abstract “providing the users with various selected levels of access to the basket, i.e., to prevent unauthorized purchases, figs. 1, 3, 5A-12, c5:35-57 (whole paragraph)).
Claim 7. The method according to claim 1, further comprising: ● notifying the at least one entity of the plurality of entities of the third plane according to the result of the checking (see at least Marks abstract “Notification of any change of the state of the shopping basket is automatically sent to all of the users,” c2:40-50 “automatically notifying each of the members of a shopping group of any change of state of a basket,” c5:35-57 (2 & 3)).Claim 12. The method according to claim 2, further comprising: ● registering for the shared basket by the at least one entity of the third plane (see at least Sundaresan abstract “system then receives member data from one or more members of the community group,” c2:25-35 “receiving and processing data from a multitude of users. The data may include, but is not limited to, … shared electronic shopping carts,” c6:5-15 “user table 304 may contain a record for each registered user of the network-based marketplace 112, and may include identifier, address and financial instrument information pertaining to each such registered user. In one embodiment, a user operates as … a member of a community group”).Claim 13. The method according to claim 2, further comprising: ● closing the basket by the at least one entity of the second plane (see at least Sundaresan c6:65-c7:5 “rules may include authorization to allow or forbid a member from adding new members to the community group, deleting members, or distributing the item list,” c9:25-42 “Once a list has been returned to a user, the user may then have the option to purchase,” c:13:60-65 “automatically purchasing the product or the service available from the one or more vendors based on a single input received from one of the user and a member of the one or more members of the community group,” Marks abstract “providing the users with various selected levels of access to the basket, i.e., to prevent unauthorized purchases, figs. 1, 3, 5A-12. Please note: closing the basket can be interpreted as purchasing the items or as preventing certain actions by certain users with regard to the basket.).Claim 14. The method according to claim 2, whereby the checking of the basket comprises at least one of: ● rejecting a position in the basket, prioritizing a position in the basket, holding back a position in the basket, and releasing a position in the basket (see at least Sundaresan c7:20-30 “the bowling team 408 (in its entirety) has not been granted access (or authorization) to allow its members to grant access to the item list to other entities,” c9:1-25 “The electronic shopping cart display 580 includes sections or fields pertaining to a specific item 582 (as described above), a description 584, a quantity 585, a threshold value such as a max price 586, a search button 588, and a bulk purchase button 590. The item list creator may also create rules for how a electronic shopping cart is configured. For example, a member may not be able to purchase an item until all or a predetermined amount of items from the item list 402 have been put into the electronic shopping cart. The item list creator or another member (if granted sufficient access) may create a rule to put a limit on a price or quantity for a given item. … For example, a limit or threshold value of 5,000 USD (United States Dollars) has been established for the Sony SN2345P plasma television, as indicated under max price 586. In one embodiment, the quantity (e.g., quantity 585) may be an input field editable by a member of the community group but the underlying program may automatically limit the quantity amount according to a rule created by the item list creator,” in view of Marks abstract “providing the users with various selected levels of access to the basket, i.e., to prevent unauthorized purchases, figs. 1, 3, 5A-12, c5:35-57 (whole paragraph)).
Claim 15. The method according to claim 2, further comprising: ● notifying the at least one entity of the plurality of entities of the third plane according to the result of the checking (see at least Marks abstract “Notification of any change of the state of the shopping basket is automatically sent to all of the users,” c2:40-50 “automatically notifying each of the members of a shopping group of any change of state of a basket,” c5:35-57 (2 & 3)).
Pertaining to system claims 10 and 17
Rejection of claims 10 and 17 is based on the same rationale noted above. In addition Sundaresan teaches, regarding
Claim 17. The system according to claim 10 wherein the system is at least partially cloud-based (see at least Sundaresan fig.1, c2:10-45 “FIG. 1 is a network diagram depicting a network system 100, according to one embodiment, having a client-server architecture configured for exchanging data over a network. For example, the network system 100 may be a trading/commerce system where clients may communicate and exchange data with the trading/commerce system, …. A data exchange platform, in an example form of a network-based provider 112, provides server-side functionality, via a network 114 (e.g., the Internet) to one or more clients. The one or more clients may include users that may utilize the 25 network system 100 and more specifically, the network-based provider 112, to exchange data over the network 114”).
Claims 8-9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundaresan (Paper No. 20251223; Patent No. US 7,996,270 B2) in view of Marks (Paper No. 20251223; Patent No. US 6,876,977 B1) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Laguna (Paper No. 20251223; Laguna, “Business process modeling, simulation and design,” Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2018).
Sundaresan in view of Marks teaches all of the above as noted and discloses a) shared product purchasing shopping cart, b) identification of a purchase order for combined goods, and c) sharing the purchase order with third plane entities, but does not explicitly disclose analyzing an ordering behavior of the at least one entity of the plurality of entities of the third plane by using artificial intelligence and creating an order proposal based on a result of the analyzing of the ordering behavior.
Laguna also teaches a) shared product purchasing shopping cart, b) identification of a purchase order for combined goods, and c) sharing the purchase order with third plane entities, and further discloses regarding
Claim 8. The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
● analyzing an ordering behavior of the at least one entity of the plurality of entities of the third plane by using artificial intelligence (see at least Laguna p.3, p5:1.1.2.2, p.12. Please note: claim 1 recites ordering by at least one entity of the first plane or at least one entity of the second plane. Examiner therefore believes applicant may have unintentionally referred to the wrong entity, however since it is possible to implement this limitation as recited there is no rejection under 35 USC 112).Claim 9. The method according to claim 8, further comprising: ● creating an order proposal based on a result of the analyzing of the ordering behavior (see at least Laguna pp.10, 19).
Claim 16. The method according to claim 2, further comprising: ● analyzing an ordering behavior of the at least one entity of the plurality of entities of the third plane by using artificial intelligence (see at least Laguna p.3, p5:1.1.2.2, p.12. Please note: claim 1 recites ordering by at least one entity of the first plane or at least one entity of the second plane. Examiner therefore believes applicant may have unintentionally referred to the wrong entity, however since it is possible to implement this limitation as recited there is no rejection under 35 USC 112).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (for pre-AIA applications) or filing (for applications filed under the AIA ) to modify the method of Sundaresan in view of Marks to include analyzing an ordering behavior of the at least one entity of the plurality of entities of the third plane by using artificial intelligence, as taught by Laguna since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would result in an improvement. This is because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features even from a variety of technical fields into methods and systems implemented using similar technological structures (i.e., generic computer and/or network hardware such as processors, servers, etc.). In this case the areas of technical endeavor are nonetheless similar and overlapping.
Applicant has not disclosed that the added feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose beyond the performance of the functions they performed separately and since each element and its function are shown in the prior art the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. It would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the feature from Laguna in the method of Sundaresan in view of Marks. Furthermore the combination solved no long felt need. Incorporating cumulative known features is additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so increases commercial use of a method by attracting users that previously might have chosen between one of the previously known methods.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
● Ballaro et al., Patent No.: US 8,065,202 B1: teaches procurement operations of an organization setup in a multi-level structure with a group of individuals who make requests for requisitions and an authorizing entity (e.g., manager) who approve such requests based on the organization's procurement policies. The authorizing entity may itself include multiple levels of authority with each higher level having more control over the procurement operations.
● Mikurak, Patent No.: US 9,922,345 B2: teaches a three tiered customer support process.
● Kadayam et al., Patent No.: US 11,163,846 B1: teaches a procurement recommendation framework to cause a display of multiple types of recommendations to a user with buyer organization hierarchies that include a company, a division, a region, or a department, and include a level of an organizational hierarchy in which the buyer account fits.
● Ren, Patent No.: US 8,635,123 B2: teaches procurement operations setup in a multi-level structure wherein individuals are assigned as authorizing entity, that includes multiple levels of authority with each higher level having more control and procurement policies may define the levels of authority.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM LEVINE whose telephone number is (571)272-8122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am-7:30pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571.272.6764. 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.
/ADAM L LEVINE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 June 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights