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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
This final office action is responsive to Applicant’s submission filed 11/13/2025. Currently, claims 1-18 are pending. Claims 1-18 have been amended. No newly added and/or cancelled claims.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1-8 are sufficient to overcome the claim interpretation of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) as set forth in the previous action.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1-8 are sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as set forth in the previous action.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 17 are sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. §101 as set forth in the previous action.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 are allowed over prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the cited and/or relevant prior art teaches:
“logistics processing circuitry that:
processes a logistics process corresponding to one or more purchased products based on the fulfillment order information, wherein the preset fulfillment dataset includes consignee information,
wherein the logistics processing circuitry further,
transmits pre-shipment instruction information for the one or more products based on the fulfillment logistics information, and
perform, based on a cross-border consignee identifier information extracted from the fulfillment order information, a repackaging processing on the one or more products corresponding to a same cross-border consignee identifier information, and
wherein the repackaging processing comprises a three-dimensional shape build analysis circuitry configured to select a hexahedral model that is calculated as a value that minimizes a volume value of a hollow formed therein among the hexahedral models generated where one or more hexahedrons are positioned based on a highest priority and available space and the three-dimensional shape build analysis circuitry removes invalid space having a negative height or width value”,
as recited in claim 1.
Claims 9 and 17 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore are patentable over prior art.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims recite method, system and computer program product for processing and fulfilling a purchase order.
Exemplary claim 1 recites in part,
“…receives purchase information received from a purchaser terminal and transmitted via an e-commerce platform or the seller terminal, wherein the purchase information includes information such as orderer information; (receive purchase information from a purchaser)
…performs analysis for cross-border logistics processing based on order data corresponding to a preset fulfillment dataset on the basis of the purchase information and the logistics data configuration information, and acquires fulfillment order information as a result of the analysis; and (analyze order information for cross-border logistics and generate fulfillment order information)
…processes a logistics process corresponding to one or more purchased products based on the fulfillment order information… (initiate a logistics process based on fulfillment order information)
…transmitting pre-shipment instruction information for the one or more products based on the fulfillment logistics information, (transmit pre-shipment information)
performing… a repackaging processing on the one or more products corresponding to a same cross-border consignee identifier information, (repack purchased product)
and wherein the repackaging processing comprises a three-dimensional shape build analysis to select a hexahedral model that is calculated as a value that minimizes a volume value of a hollow formed therein among the hexahedral models generated where one or more hexahedrons are positioned based on a highest priority and available space and the three-dimensional shape build analysis circuitry removes invalid space having a negative height or width value.” (package/arrange ordered products within a space using a shape build analysis)
The above limitations describe the steps of, 1) acquiring purchase order (purchase information) (2) processing the acquired data to determine order fulfillment, 3) processing the purchase order based on fulfillment result, 4) fitting/arranging order products within a space.
The above steps describe the process of fulfilling a purchase order. The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" (marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements in the form of, “registration circuitry”, “management circuitry”, “receiving circuitry”, “order information analysis circuitry”, and “logistics processing circuitry”, to implement the limitations encompassing the abstract idea identified above. The additional elements represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the claim recites the additional elements of “registers product information transmitted from a seller terminal or a warehouse center terminal” and “manages logistics data configuration information corresponding to one or more products based on the product information”. These steps describe receiving and storing product information, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities that do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The recitation of additional elements is acknowledged as identified above. The discussion with respect to practical application is equally applicable to consideration of whether the additional elements amount to significantly more. The additional elements in the form of, “registration circuitry”, “management circuitry”, “receiving circuitry”, “order information analysis circuitry”, and “logistics processing circuitry”, represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the steps of “registering product information transmitted from a seller terminal or a warehouse center terminal” and “managing logistics data configuration information corresponding to one or more products based on the product information”, while amounting to insignificant extra-solution activities, amounts to courts’ recognized well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions of “transmitting/receiving data over a network” and “storing and retrieving information in memory”. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Therefore, there are no meaningful recitations, considered in combination, that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 9 and 17 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are rooted in computer technology
As discussed above under section 101, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claimed invention receives a purchase order for one or more products. The purchase order is analyzed and processed based on stored logistics data configuration (shipping information) and preset fulfillment dataset to generate a fulfillment order information. Logistics processing is performed to include using a three-dimensional shape build analysis to package/arrange the purchased products within a space. The claimed invention is directed to the process of fulfilling a purchase order, which covers “marketing or sales activities or behaviors and business relations”, that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
The claimed invention uses computer technology to perform the steps encompassing the identified abstract idea. The claims use computer technology to implement the business solution of fulfilling a purchase order. The claims fail to improve the functioning of a computer or underlying computer technology.
Claims are directed to an improvement
Applicant’s published specification explained that, “…in order to solve the foregoing problems, a device according to an embodiment of the present disclosure may include a registration unit that registers product information transmitted from a seller terminal or a warehouse center terminal; a management unit that manages logistics data configuration information corresponding to one or more products based on the product information; a receiving unit that receives purchase information received from a purchaser terminal and transmitted via an e-commerce platform or the seller terminal; an order information analysis unit that performs analysis for cross-border logistics processing based on order data corresponding to a preset fulfillment dataset on the basis of the purchase information and the logistics data configuration information, and acquires fulfillment order information as a result of the analysis; and a logistics processing unit that processes a logistics process corresponding to one or more purchased products based on the fulfillment order information.” See paragraph 0010.
In addition, paragraph 0013 of Applicant’s published specification explains that “…in providing an overseas logistics service, multi-packaging and multi-shipping services may be provided through repackaging according to an identification value of shipping information, rather than shipping one or more purchased products for each single item, thereby providing cost reduction and efficient transportation processing. Besides, a multi-packaging method of products may be optimized while replacing inefficient packaging work based on the experience and subjective judgment of a person in charge of packaging through modeling a fitting arrangement of 3D solid shape objects using purchased products or a primary packaging form during multi-packaging and a load method that minimizes a hollow formed therein, thereby minimizing the waste of packaging material resources and costs due to excessive packaging.”
From the above paragraphs, the claimed invention provides a cross-border order fulfillment process that analyzes customer order information and processes a logistics process to fulfill the customer order. The claimed invention uses a three-dimensional shape build analysis to arrange or package the purchased products within a space for shipment. The claimed invention is directed to the process of fulfilling a cross-border purchase order. The claimed invention uses computer technology in implementing or automating the claimed business solution. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
The Ordered combination amounts to significantly more
In McRO, the court examined the specification, which described the claimed invention as improving computer animation through the use of specific rules, rather than human artists, to set morph weights (relating to facial expressions as an animated character speaks) and transition parameters between phonemes (relating to sounds made when speaking). As explained in the specification, human artists did not use the claimed rules, and instead relied on subjective determinations to set the morph weights and manipulate the animated face to match pronounced phonemes. The McRO court thus relied on the specification's explanation of how the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process.
In the instant case, the claimed invention uses a generic computer (comprising registration circuitry, management circuitry, receiving circuitry, order information analysis circuitry, and logistics processing circuitry) to perform the steps of fulfilling a purchase order.
Applicant’s published specification explained that, “…in order to solve the foregoing problems, a device according to an embodiment of the present disclosure may include a registration unit that registers product information transmitted from a seller terminal or a warehouse center terminal; a management unit that manages logistics data configuration information corresponding to one or more products based on the product information; a receiving unit that receives purchase information received from a purchaser terminal and transmitted via an e-commerce platform or the seller terminal; an order information analysis unit that performs analysis for cross-border logistics processing based on order data corresponding to a preset fulfillment dataset on the basis of the purchase information and the logistics data configuration information, and acquires fulfillment order information as a result of the analysis; and a logistics processing unit that processes a logistics process corresponding to one or more purchased products based on the fulfillment order information.” See paragraph 0010.
In addition, paragraph 0013 of Applicant’s published specification explains that “…in providing an overseas logistics service, multi-packaging and multi-shipping services may be provided through repackaging according to an identification value of shipping information, rather than shipping one or more purchased products for each single item, thereby providing cost reduction and efficient transportation processing. Besides, a multi-packaging method of products may be optimized while replacing inefficient packaging work based on the experience and subjective judgment of a person in charge of packaging through modeling a fitting arrangement of 3D solid shape objects using purchased products or a primary packaging form during multi-packaging and a load method that minimizes a hollow formed therein, thereby minimizing the waste of packaging material resources and costs due to excessive packaging.”
Thus, the claimed repackaging/multi-packing process, using a three-dimensional shape build analysis, simply automates the process of packaging purchased products during multi-packaging. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 OLUSEGUN GOYEA whose telephone number is (571)270-5402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-5pm EST.
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 5712703324. 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.
/OLUSEGUN GOYEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627