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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 filed February 26, 2024 are pending and are hereby examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a computer terminal comprising a processor, a memory, a display, a payment card reader a network communication medium and an inventory, customer and employee management application program stored in the memory, and a network communication medium.” This sentence is missing multiple commas, it should look like: “a computer terminal comprising a processor, a memory, a display, a payment card reader, a network communication medium, and an inventory, customer, and employee management application program stored in the memory, and a network communication medium.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
6. Step 1 Statutory Category: Claims 1-14 are directed to a system, all of which are statutory. Claims 1-14 are statutory classes of invention.
7. Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Nevertheless, independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea of merchant re-order and buying management for specialty retailers.
The independent claim 1 recites the following limitations which fall under commercial or legal interactions:
…;
… instructions are configured to implement a re-ordering and buying management system, comprising:
…;
… comprising merchant items having a plurality of selectable merchant item attribute for display…;
… invoked by user selection of one of the plurality of selectable merchant item attributes displayed on… for generating an inventory graphical representation of inventory data associated with the selected one of the plurality of selectable merchant item attributes;
… invoked by user selection of a one of a plurality of merchant item style attributes on… for generating a first order status graphical representation of items order data associated with the selected merchant item style;
… for generating a new purchase order form invoked by… receipt of a customer order of an ordered purchase item;
… comprising a customer identification data and historical customer purchase data uniquely associated with an individual customer account; and
… comprising employee data uniquely associated an individual employee,
wherein the historical customer purchase data is updated upon completion of a customer purchase,
wherein the employee data is updated upon the employee completion of a customer transaction.
8. According to the MPEP, "Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Clearly, re-order and buying management for specialty retailers falls under sales activities, therefore commercial or legal interactions. If the claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a commercial or legal interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
9. Step 2A – Prong 2: Practical Application: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole merely recites re-order and buying management for specialty retailers with generally recited computer elements such as a processing core, memory, non-volatile storage medium, computer terminal, processor, display, payment card reader, network communication medium, inventory, customer, and employee management application program, graphical user interface, inventory report generator, order report generator, new purchase order form generator, customer account database, and employee database, which in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and are merely invoked as tools for re-order and buying management system for specialty retailers. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computing environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea, and does not take the claim out of the Commercial or Legal Interactions subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
10. Step 2B – Inventive Concept: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processing core, memory, non-volatile storage medium, computer terminal, processor, display, payment card reader, network communication medium, inventory, customer, and employee management application program, graphical user interface, inventory report generator, order report generator, new purchase order form generator, customer account database, and employee database, to perform these steps 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. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered individually and as an ordered combination as there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claims are not patent eligible.
11. Regarding dependent claims 2, 4-9, and 12, these claim merely narrow the abstract idea of re-order and buying management for specialty retailers, and these claims neither integrate into a practical application nor contain additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
12. Regarding dependent claim 3, although this claim recites a generally recited order report generator and computer terminal, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of re-order and buying management for specialty retailers, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
13. Regarding dependent claim 10, although this claim recites a generally recited inventory database and computer terminal, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of re-order and buying management for specialty retailers, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
14. Regarding dependent claim 11, although this claim recites a generally recited order database and computer terminal, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of re-order and buying management for specialty retailers, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
15. Regarding dependent claim 13, although this claim recites a generally recited advertisement generator module, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of re-order and buying management for specialty retailers, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
16. Regarding dependent claim 14, although this claim recites a generally recited redundant data storage module, this claim merely narrows the abstract idea of re-order and buying management for specialty retailers, and this claim neither integrates into a practical application nor contains additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
17. Therefore, the limitations of the claims, when viewed individually and in ordered combination, are directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
21. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forgatch et al (US 2021/0012274) in view of Middlebrooks (US 2014/0244432).
22. Re Claim 1: Forgatch discloses comprising:
a processing core for executing computer instructions and accessing data from a memory (see [0034] processors and memory);
and a non-volatile storage medium for storing the computer instructions, wherein the processing core, the non-volatile storage medium, and the computer instructions are configured to implement a re-ordering and buying management system, comprising (see [0034, 0080] storage):
a computer terminal comprising a processor, a memory, a display, a payment card reader, a network communication medium, and an inventory, customer and employee management application program stored in the memory, and a network communication medium (see Fig. 1 discloses network and multiple computers with displays, inherently with processors and memories, see [0033] mobile applications);
a graphical user interface generator for generating interactive user screens comprising merchant items having a plurality of selectable merchant item attribute for display on the computer terminal (see [0037] graphical user interface);
an inventory report generator invoked by user selection of one of the plurality of selectable merchant item attributes displayed on the computer terminal for generating an inventory graphical representation of inventory data associated with the selected one of the plurality of selectable merchant item attributes (see [0035] inventory information and product information retailer account information);
an order report generator invoked by user selection of a one of a plurality of merchant item style attributes on the computer terminal for generating a first order status graphical representation of items order data associated with the selected merchant item style (see [0032] two different web interfaces);
a new purchase order form generator for generating a new purchase order form invoked by the computer terminal receipt of a customer order of an ordered purchase item (see [0038] order placement flowchart);
a customer account database comprising a customer identification data and historical customer purchase data uniquely associated with an individual customer account (see [0074] unique member identifier for customer); and
wherein the historical customer purchase data is updated upon completion of a customer purchase (see [0060] products individual customer previously purchased).
an employee database comprising employee data uniquely associated an individual employee (see [0034] wholesaler or retailer can access, [0035] retailer account information),
wherein the employee data is updated upon the employee completion of a customer transaction (see [0039] updates in inventory and billing).
However, Forgatch fails to explicitly disclose reports. Meanwhile, Middlebrooks teaches:
reports (see [0057] reporting).
From the teaching of Middlebrooks, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Forgatch’s invention with Middlebrooks’s teaching of reports in order for “… data management and load balancing… (see Middlebrooks [0043]).”
23. Re Claim 2: Forgatch discloses wherein the selectable user item attribute comprises an item size, an item color, an item quantity, and an item supplier (see [0048] style number, sizes, detailed item description).
24. Re Claim 3: Forgatch discloses wherein the order report generator invoked by user selection of the one of the plurality of merchant item style attributes on the computer terminal for generating a second order status graphical representation of items order data associated with the selected merchant item style (see [0072] automatically updates).
25. Re Claim 4: Forgatch discloses wherein the first order status graphical representation of items order data associated with the selected merchant item style comprises a re-ordered merchant item (see [0032] two different web interfaces).
26. Re Claim 5: Forgatch discloses wherein the second order status graphical representation of items order data associated with the selected merchant item style comprises a special order merchant item (see [0032] two different web interfaces).
27. Re Claim 6: Forgatch discloses wherein generating an inventory graphical representation of inventory data associated with the selected one of the plurality of selectable merchant item attributes comprises generating comprises on-hand inventory data (see [0035] inventory information).
28. Re Claim 7: Forgatch discloses wherein generating an inventory graphical representation of inventory data associated with the selected one of the plurality of selectable merchant item attributes comprises generating comprises on-order inventory data (see [0035] inventory information).
29. Re Claim 8: Forgatch discloses wherein generating an inventory graphical representation of inventory data associated with the selected one of the plurality of selectable merchant item attributes comprises generating comprises special order inventory data (see [0071] unique and customizable prices and discounts).
30. Re Claim 9: Forgatch discloses wherein generating an inventory graphical representation of inventory data associated with the selected one of the plurality of selectable merchant item attributes a merchant item delivery date (see [0078] delivery information).
31. Re Claim 10: Forgatch discloses wherein an inventory data stored in an inventory database is updated upon completion of a transaction at the computer terminal (see [0039, 0057] automatic updates to inventory).
32. Re Claim 11: Forgatch discloses wherein an order data stored in an order database is updated upon completion of a transaction at the computer terminal (see [0039, 0057] automatic updates to inventory).
33. Re Claim 12: Forgatch discloses wherein the employee data comprises a workday start time of the employee, a workday end time of the employee, a quantity of merchant items sold by the employee, a quantity of customers serviced by the employee, a customer evaluation of the employee and a monetary value of merchant items sold by the employee (see [0035] retailer account information).
34. Re Claim 13: Forgatch discloses further comprising an advertisement generator module for generating an advertising content for delivery to a merchant customer according to a customer profile and a historical customer data (see [0034-0035] advertising).
35. Re Claim 14: However, Forgatch fails to disclose the following. Meanwhile, Middlebrooks teaches further comprising a redundant data storage module for storage of a backup file of transaction data (see [0043] data backup). From the teaching of Middlebrooks, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Forgatch’s invention with Middlebrooks’s teaching of data backup in order for “… data management and load balancing… (see Middlebrooks [0043]).”
Examiner Notes
36. The Examiner suggests how the customer, employee, and producer/wholesaler are interacting (different devices). The Examiner suggests clarifying what is meant by re-ordering (is it a repeat order or ordering when below a specific threshold). The Examiner suggests clarifying the terms of user attributes and employee data. Finally, the Examiner suggests incorporating more hardware from the Specification and any unique arrangements of hardware, unique hardware, or unique ways the hardware is communicating. The aforementioned claim suggestions, in combination together, is suggested to help advance prosecution forward, although further search, examination, and consideration is required.
Conclusion
37. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Abdullah et al (Notice of Retraction: The effect of inventory management, internal and external relationships on customer service in the retail industry, NPL) is found to be the most pertinent NPL prior art.
38. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAWAAD HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-7178. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 AM to 5 PM.
39. 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.
40. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Florian Zeender can be reached on 571-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
41. 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.
/FAWAAD HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627