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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 29, 2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
This first action on the merits is in response to the application filed on March 29, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The steps for determining eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 can be found in the MPEP § 2106.03-2106.05.
Under Step 1, the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, as claimed in claims 1-18, is directed to an article of manufacture. Additionally, the method, as claimed in claim 19, is directed to a process. Furthermore, the system, as claimed in claim 20, is directed to a machine.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claimed invention recites the abstract idea of making substitute product recommendations for purchase. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
presenting to a user;
receiving a selection of a product for adding to a shopping cart from the user based on a first interaction;
triggering a substitution evaluation for the selected product based on an attribute associated with the selected product;
performing the substitution evaluation to identify a substitute product for replacing the selected product in the shopping cart;
presenting both (i) an identification of the selected product as being in the shopping cart for purchasing, and (ii) an identification of the substitute product as being suggested for replacing the selected product in the shopping cart;
presenting the substitute product;
receiving a selection from the user based on a second interaction;
replacing the selected product in the shopping cart with the substitute product responsive to receiving the selection from the user based on the second interaction;
receiving an indication that the user has completed a checkout process to purchase the substitute product in the shopping cart; and
placing an order for the substitute product with a distributor associated with the substitute product responsive to receiving the indication the user has completed the checkout process to purchase the substitute product in the shopping cart.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in the guidance. When considering MPEP §2106.04(a), the claims recite an abstract idea. For example, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of making substitute product recommendations for purchase, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined in the MPEP as including “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” MPEP §2106.04(a)(2) subsection II. In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity because replacing the selected product in the shopping cart with the substitute product responsive to receiving the selection from the user based on the second interaction; receiving an indication that the user has completed a checkout process to purchase the substitute product in the shopping cart; and placing an order for the substitute product with a distributor associated with the substitute product responsive to receiving the indication the user has completed the checkout process to purchase the substitute product in the shopping cart is a sales activity. Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
The recited limitations of representative claim 1 also recite an abstract idea because they are considered to be mental processes. As described in the MPEP, mental processes are “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)”. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2) subsection III. In this case, presenting to a user; triggering a substitution evaluation for the selected product based on an attribute associated with the selected product; performing the substitution evaluation to identify a substitute product for replacing the selected product in the shopping cart; presenting both (i) an identification of the selected product as being in the shopping cart for purchasing, and (ii) an identification of the substitute product as being suggested for replacing the selected product in the shopping cart; presenting the substitute product; replacing the selected product in the shopping cart with the substitute product responsive to receiving the selection from the user based on the second interaction; and placing an order for the substitute product with a distributor associated with the substitute product responsive to receiving the indication the user has completed the checkout process to purchase the substitute product in the shopping cart are types of judgement. Additionally, receiving a selection of a product for adding to a shopping cart from the user based on a first interaction; receiving a selection from the user based on a second interaction; and receiving an indication that the user has completed a checkout process to purchase the substitute product in the shopping cart are types of observation. Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. See MPEP §2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements such as a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to implement operations, a user interface to a user via a user device, a first interaction between the user and the user interface, presenting a shopping cart page on the user interface, presenting a selectable user interface element on the shopping cart page, and a second interaction between the user and the user interface.
Although reciting additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., making substitute product recommendations for purchase) being applied on a general purpose computer. See MPEP §§2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. As such, representative claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). See MPEP §2106.05.
In this case, as noted above, the additional elements recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components ... ‘ad[d] nothing ... that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’ and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Also see MPEP §2106.05(f). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-18 do not aid in the eligibility of independent claim 1. For example, claims 7, 11, and 14-15 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim 1. Also, claims 2-6, 8-10, 12-13, and 16-18 merely provide further embellishments of the abstract limitations recited in independent claim 1.
Additionally, it is noted that claims 2-9, 12-13, and 15-18 do not include further additional elements. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Furthermore, it is noted that claim 10 includes further additional elements of a machine learning model; claim 11 includes further additional elements of train the machine learning model; and claim 14 includes further additional elements of an application program interface (API); a unified database; and presenting the user interface to the user via the user device upon authentication of the user. However, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. These additional elements are merely generic elements and are likewise described in a generic manner in Applicant’s specification. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Thus, dependent claims 2-18 are also ineligible.
Lastly, the analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. Although literally invoking a method and system, respectively, claims 19 and 20 remain only broadly and generally defined, with the claimed functionality paralleling that of claim 1. It is noted that claim 19 includes further additional elements of a computer; and claim 20 includes further additional elements of a system, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement operations. However, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. These additional elements are merely generic elements and are likewise described in a generic manner in Applicant’s specification. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. As such, claims 19 and 20 are rejected for at least similar rationale as discussed above.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avery, Jr. et. al. (US 20200272968 A1, herein referred to as Avery), in view of Bholse et. al. (US 8364559 B1, herein referred to as Bholse).
Claim 1:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to implement operations comprising {Avery: [0028] non-transitory computer readable medium containing computer executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform}:
presenting a user interface to a user via a user device {Avery: [0059] a user interface that a user can access to view a full list of products available; [0064] provide a user interface for ordering items that are needed at a particular facility; [0083] computing device 430 can be used to present a user interface that can be used to initiate queries to server 402};
receiving a selection of a product from the user based on a first interaction between the user and the user interface {Avery: [0060] receive one or more selections of items; [0105] request can be initiated by selection of a user interface element associated with the item (e.g., an icon labeled “save,” “add,”)};
triggering a substitution evaluation for the selected product based on an attribute associated with the selected product {Avery: [0150] process can determine that an alternative to a first item is to be presented to a user in response to some triggering action; [0147] If process 800 determines that the preferred instance of the item is not available for shipment to that facility from a node of the distribution network corresponding to that facility, process 800 can determine which of the alternatives in the product group is available and/or whether a next most preferred instance of the item is available from that node. Process 800 can determine the preferred instance of the item based on a one or more rules specified by the organization. For example, the organization can select a rule based on explicit priority assigned to each instance of the items.};
performing the substitution evaluation to identify a substitute product for replacing the selected product {Avery: [0148] process 800 can use any suitable factor(s) to determine which item from the master list to substitute for a most preferred item. For example, process 800 can select the alternative that would produce the lowest cost.};
presenting a user interface, the user interface comprising both (i) an identification of the selected product as being for purchasing, and (ii) an identification of the substitute product as being suggested for replacing the selected product {Avery: 0083] computing device 430 can be used to present a user interface; [0149] process 800 can present one or more alternatives that are available for the particular facility, and the user can indicate which (if any) to include, and/or whether the selected item is to be added};
presenting a selectable user interface element associated with the substitute product {Avery: [0149] process 800 can present one or more alternatives that are available for the particular facility, and the user can indicate which (if any) to include, and/or whether the selected item is to be added; [0105] request can be initiated by selection of a user interface element associated with the item (e.g., an icon labeled “save,” “add,”); [0188] selection of a “compare” user interface element while searching for items can cause such a user interface to be presented in response to any action that triggers presentation of alternatives};
receiving a selection of the selectable user interface element from the user based on a second interaction between the user and the user interface {Avery: [0105] request can be initiated by selection of a user interface element associated with the item (e.g., an icon labeled “save,” “add,”); [0023] receiving feedback indicating that a request was received to add the second item subsequent to the second item being presented as a potential substitute for the first item};
replacing the selected product with the substitute product responsive to receiving the selection of the selectable user interface element from the user based on the second interaction between the user and the user interface {Avery: [0023] receiving feedback indicating that a request was received to add the second item subsequent to the second item being presented as a potential substitute for the first item; [0165] a cost difference can be presented based on how much of the first item must be replaced with an alternative};
receiving an indication that the user has completed a process to purchase the substitute product {Avery: [0147] If, when an order is being submitted for a particular facility, process 800 determines that the preferred instance of the item is not available for shipment to that facility, process 800 can determine which of the alternatives in the product group is available; [0143] a user can be presented with a first user interface for ordering items, and when that is complete can be presented with another user interface}; and
placing an order for the substitute product with a distributor associated with the substitute product responsive to receiving the indication the user has completed the process to purchase the substitute product {Avery: [0143] a user can be presented with a first user interface for ordering items, and when that is complete can be presented with another user interface; [0199] process 1200 can receive an order for a particular facility including a list of items to be delivered; [0110] submission to an application and/or service can be used to place an order with one or more distributors based on the facility order}.
Although Avery discloses a medium for suggesting alternatives of items in an order, Avery does not disclose:
receiving a selection of a product for adding to a shopping cart from the user;
identify a substitute product for replacing the selected product in the shopping cart;
presenting a shopping cart page on the user interface, the shopping cart page comprising both (i) an identification of the selected product as being in the shopping cart for purchasing, and (ii) an identification of the substitute product as being suggested for replacing the selected product in the shopping cart;
presenting the substitute product on the shopping cart page;
replacing the selected product in the shopping cart with the substitute product; and
the user has completed a checkout process to purchase the substitute product in the shopping cart.
Avery does disclose an “add” interaction in the user interface (Avery: [0105]).
However, Bholse teaches:
receiving a selection of a product for adding to a shopping cart from the user {Bholse: [Col. 6, ln. 7-9] user 112 may then select the add-to-cart link 306 to add the item (using item details) to the cart 104.};
identify a substitute product for replacing the selected product in the shopping cart {Bholse: [Col. 8, ln. 52-58] interface 600 may include a deal-finder section 602 to enable the user 112 to comparison shop across at least a portion of the merchants 106 that offer similar items as an item listed in the item-view section 502 of the user's cart 104. Similar items may be substitute items (e.g., commonly substituted by the users)};
presenting a shopping cart page on the user interface, the shopping cart page comprising both (i) an identification of the selected product as being in the shopping cart for purchasing, and (ii) an identification of the substitute product as being suggested for replacing the selected product in the shopping cart {Bholse: fig 6; [Col. 8, ln. 44-45] FIG. 6 is an illustrative interface 600 of the cart 104 that includes offers or "deals" based on items in the cart; [Col. 8, ln. 52-58] interface 600 may include a deal-finder section 602 to enable the user 112 to comparison shop across at least a portion of the merchants 106 that offer similar items as an item listed in the item-view section 502 of the user's cart 104. Similar items may be substitute items (e.g., commonly substituted by the users)};
presenting the substitute product on the shopping cart page {Bholse: fig 6, section 602 presents potential substitute products; [Col. 8, ln. 52-58] interface 600 may include a deal-finder section 602 to enable the user 112 to comparison shop across at least a portion of the merchants 106 that offer similar items as an item listed in the item-view section 502 of the user's cart 104. Similar items may be substitute items (e.g., commonly substituted by the users)};
replacing the selected product in the shopping cart with the substitute product {Bholse: [Col. 9, ln. 4-7] The user 112 may substitute/swap one of the comparison items 604 into the item-view section 502 using the add-to-cart button 606.}; and
the user has completed a checkout process to purchase the substitute product in the shopping cart {Bholse: [Col. 15, ln. 53-57] The host 102 of the checkout process may receive information regarding an item from a merchant that offers the item. The host 102 may then notify the merchant when the item is purchased via the checkout process to initiate fulfillment of the element by the merchant.}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the shopping cart as taught by Bholse in the alternate product suggestion system of Avery in order to provide an enhanced user experience by leveraging transactional data captured by user interaction with the cart (Bholse: [Col. 8, ln. 41-43]).
Claim 2:
Avery and Bholse teach the medium of claim 1. Avery further discloses:
wherein triggering the substitution evaluation for the selected product based on the attribute associated with the selected product comprises triggering the substitution evaluation based on a selected quantity of the selected product {Avery: [0150] selecting one or more alternative items for presentation to a user based on availability. Process 900 can determine that an alternative to a first item is to be presented to a user in response to some triggering action; [0147] if the facility normally orders 100 units of an item, but only 25 units of that item are stocked, process 800 may select a different item, or may add alternatives (e.g., less preferred items) to a list of acceptable alternatives if that item is out of stock.}.
Claim 3:
Avery and Bholse teach the medium of claim 2. Avery further discloses:
wherein triggering the substitution evaluation based on the selected quantity of the selected product comprises triggering the substitution evaluation responsive to determining the selected quantity of the selected product is greater than an available quantity of the selected product {Avery: [0147] if the facility normally orders 100 units of an item, but only 25 units of that item are stocked, process 800 may select a different item, or may add alternatives (e.g., less preferred items) to a list of acceptable alternatives if that item is out of stock; [0150] selecting one or more alternative items for presentation to a user based on availability. Process 900 can determine that an alternative to a first item is to be presented to a user in response to some triggering action}.
Claim 4:
Avery and Bholse teach the medium of claim 1. Avery further discloses:
wherein triggering the substitution evaluation for the selected product based on the attribute associated with the selected product comprises triggering the substitution evaluation responsive to determining that the selected product is out of stock by querying a distributor database associated with the selected product {Avery: [0146] process 800 can query a unified database associated with the distributor's available inventory and/or a database associated with the particular node(s) corresponding to the subnetwork in which the distribution network is located to determine whether the preferred item is available; [0150] selecting one or more alternative items for presentation to a user based on availability. Process 900 can determine that an alternative to a first item is to be presented to a user in response to some triggering action; [0147] if the facility normally orders 100 units of an item, but only 25 units of that item are stocked, process 800 may select a different item, or may add alternatives (e.g., less preferred items) to a list of acceptable alternatives if that item is out of stock}.
Claim 5:
Avery and Bholse teach the medium of claim 1. Avery further discloses:
wherein:
triggering the substitution evaluation for the selected product based on the attribute associated with the selected product comprises triggering the substitution evaluation responsive to determining that the selected product is not on an order guide for a facility or for an organization associated with the user {Avery: [0150] process 900 can determine that an alternative to a first item is to be presented to a user in response to some triggering action. If an item of a particular class is to be included in an order, but there is not an approved instance of that class available from a particular node (e.g., distribution center) and/or in a particular region (e.g., if there is no master list, or if no items on the master list are in stock), process 900 can determine that an alternative is to be presented to a user; [0149] process 800 can alert a user that the item could not be placed on the facility order guide. Process 800 can automatically identify an alternative to be added to the facility order guide; [0093] order guide that can be associated with one or more facilities associated with an organization)}; and
performing the substitution evaluation to identify the substitute product comprises performing the substitution evaluation to identify the substitute product based on inclusion of the substitute product on the order guide {Avery: [0149] process 800 can present one or more alternatives that are available for the particular facility, and the user can indicate which (if any) to include in the facility order guide, and/or whether the selected item is to be added to the master list or product group.}.
Claim 7:
Avery and Bholse teach the medium of claim 1. Avery further discloses:
inferring a reason for replacing the selected product with the substitute product {Avery: [0159] If a user has identified two chicken breasts as being acceptable alternatives because the nutritional content is equivalent for the user's purposes, and has identified another chicken breast as not being an acceptable alternative because it has an unacceptably high sodium content, process 900 can utilize the information in determine whether other potential alternatives (e.g., other chicken breasts) are likely to be acceptable alternatives}; and
automatically approving a purchase order for the substitute product based on the reason {Avery: [0147] process 800 can determine the preferred instance of the item based on a one or more rules specified by the organization; [0150] selecting one or more alternative items for presentation to a user based on availability and an approved instance of that class available from a particular node (e.g., distribution center); [0111] reconcile available inventory information after the order is accepted by the distributor.}; or
providing the purchase order for the substitute product to a second user different from the first user for approval based on the reason, wherein placing the order for the substitute product comprises placing the order for the substitute product responsive to approval of the purchase order by the second user.
Although Avery discloses approving item alternatives based on organizational rules, Avery does not disclose:
replacing the selected product in the shopping cart with the substitute product.
However, Bholse teaches:
replacing the selected product in the shopping cart with the substitute product {Bholse: [Col. 9, ln. 4-7] The user 112 may substitute/swap one of the comparison items 604 into the item-view section 502 using the add-to-cart button 606.}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the shopping cart as taught by Bholse in the alternate product suggestion system of Avery in order to provide an enhanced user experience by leveraging transactional data captured by user interaction with the cart (Bholse: [Col. 8, ln. 41-43]).
Examiner notes that claim 7 recites a list comprising the word “or”. “When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art.” Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Therefore, Examiner is not required to demonstrate every alternative claimed.
Claim 8:
Avery and Bholse teach the medium of claim 1. Avery further discloses:
wherein performing the substitution evaluation comprises identifying an order guide for a facility or for an organization associated with the user and identifying the substitute product on the order guide for the facility as being defined as an acceptable alternative to the selected product {Avery: [0143] a facility order guide can include items available from different distributors. In such embodiments, when being used during an ordering process (e.g., via a procurement system), items available from different distributors can be presented in a unified user interface; [0110] particular items that are included in the facility order guide can be selected from a list of acceptable alternatives}.
Claim 9:
Avery and Bholse teach the medium of claim 1. Avery further discloses:
wherein:
the substitute product comprises a first substitute product and the attribute comprises a first attribute {Avery: [0153] a second item can be identified as an alternative to the first product based on various properties. For example, process 900 can determine whether two items are alternatives based on a comparison of the description and/or product category of the first item and a description and/or product category of other items.};
performing the substitution evaluation comprises performing the substitution evaluation to identify both the first substitute product and a second substitute product {Avery: [0153] process 900 can determine whether two items are alternatives based on a size and/or unit of measure of the first item and the other items. In a more particular example, where the first product is a gallon container of detergent from a first supplier, process 900 can identify containers of detergent of similar size from other suppliers as being potential alternatives};
the operations further comprise generating a ranking of the first substitute product and the second substitute product based on the first attribute and a second attribute associated with the second substitute product {Avery: [0149] process 800 can determine which alternative to add based on the products ranking in a list of identified alternatives to at least one item; [0156] Alternatives can be identified and/or ranked based on the product itself being similar; [0164] Such a ranking can take into account multiple factors such as comparisons of the description and/or product category, size and/or unit of measure, nutritional content, product specifications, properties of the items, past user actions, menu planning and/or selection activities, cost, and the like.}; and
further comprises an identification of the second substitute product as being suggested for replacing the selected product and an indication of the ranking of the first substitute product and the second substitute product {Avery: [0165] process 900 can cause one or more of the identified alternatives to be presented to the user based on the ranking at 906. For example, process 900 can cause a highest ranked alternative to be presented, and in some cases, one or more other less highly ranked alternatives.}.
Although Avery discloses approving item alternatives based on organizational rules, Avery does not disclose:
the shopping cart page further comprises an identification of the second substitute product as being suggested for replacing the selected product in the shopping cart.
However, Bholse teaches:
the shopping cart page further comprises an identification of the second substitute product as being suggested for replacing the selected product in the shopping cart {Bholse: fig 6 section 602 shows multiple suggested replacement products; [Col. 8, ln. 52-58] interface 600 may include a deal-finder section 602 to enable the user 112 to comparison shop across at least a portion of the merchants 106 that offer similar items as an item listed in the item-view section 502 of the user's cart 104. Similar items may be substitute items (e.g., commonly substituted by the users)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the shopping cart as taught by Bholse in the alternate product suggestion system of Avery in order to provide an enhanced user experience by leveraging transactional data captured by user interaction with the cart (Bholse: [Col. 8, ln. 41-43]).
Claim 10:
Avery and Bholse teach the medium of claim 1. Avery further discloses:
wherein performing the substitution evaluation comprises providing data associated with the selected product as input to a machine learning model and identifying the substitute product based on an output of the machine learning model {Avery: [0148] process 800 can select an alternative based on brand preferences, which can be made explicitly by a user or implied from past behavior of a user. In such an example, any suitable technique can be used to imply brand preference, such as machine learning techniques.}.
Claim 11:
Avery and Bholse teach the medium of claim 10. Avery further discloses:
using data associated with the selected product to train the machine learning model responsive to receiving the selection of the selectable user interface element from the user based on the second interaction between the user and the user interface {Avery: [0156] process 900 can use a trained model (e.g., trained using one or more machine learning techniques) that is provided information about which suggestions a user has adopted and/or which suggestions a user has declined as input, and provides output indicative of one or more alternatives to a particular item or items; [0023] updating the trained model based on the feedback such that the trained model is more likely to suggest the second item as a potential substitute for the first item}.
Claim 12:
Avery and Bholse teach the medium of claim 1. Avery further discloses:
wherein performing the substitution evaluation comprises identifying a distributor associated with the selected product and identifying the substitute product based on a substitute recommendation provided by the distributor {Avery: [0097] present items available from a specified distributor or distributors, and/or items available in one or more specified portions of a distribution network that includes one or more distributors; [0163] if a particular product is available via the particular distributor, process 900 can present a group of products as alternative where one or more of the products presented as part of the group is available from the distributor}.
Claim 13:
Avery and Bholse teach the medium of claim 1. Avery further discloses:
wherein performing the substitution evaluation comprises identifying a master item grouping associated with the selected product and identifying the substitute product based on inclusion of the substitute product within the master item grouping {Avery: [0149] process 800 can present one or more alternatives that are available for the particular facility, and the user can indicate which (if any) to include in the facility order guide, and/or whether the selected item is to be added to the master list or product group.}.
Claim 14:
Avery and Bholse teach the medium of claim 1. Avery further discloses:
receiving a set of login information associated with the user via an application program interface (API) {Avery: [0098] requiring that a user provide credentials (e.g., a username, a password, a token, a one-time code, and/or any other suitable credentials) associated with an authorized user in order to access the information; [0105] request can be received via an application program interface (API).}; and
responsive to receiving the set of login information, generating a request for authentication data associated with the user, the authentication data comprising credentials stored in a unified database {Avery: [0098] requiring that a user provide credentials (e.g., a username, a password, a token, a one-time code, and/or any other suitable credentials) associated with an authorized user in order to access the information in the unified database; [0085] computing devices attempting to connect to the network and/or transmit communications using the network can be required to provide credentials (e.g., a username, a password, a hardware-based security token, a software-based security token, a one-time code, any other suitable credentials, or any suitable combination of credentials).};
wherein presenting the user interface to the user via the user device comprises presenting the user interface to the user via the user device upon authentication of the user {Avery: [0098] process 600 can cause item/location information to be stored in a unified database (e.g., representing a master catalog) for each supplier and/or distributor, which can be used to present such information to an organization/user via a user interface. In some embodiments, one or more security measures can be used to protect information in the unified database, such as by requiring that a user provide credentials}.
Claim 15:
Avery and Bholse teach the medium of claim 1. Avery further discloses:
updating an order guide for a facility or for an organization associated with the user based on replacing the selected product with the substitute product {Avery: [0104] a request can be initiated in response to selection of a user interface element associated with editing an existing general order guide (e.g., an icon labeled “edit an order guide;” [0165] first item can be replaced with an alternative},
wherein updating the order guide for the facility or for the organization associated with the user comprises adding the substitute product to the order guide {Avery: [0104] a request can be initiated in response to selection of a user interface element associated with editing an existing general order guide (e.g., an icon labeled “edit an order guide;” [0149] process 800 can present one or more alternatives that are available for the particular facility, and the user can indicate which (if any) to include in the facility order guide, and/or whether the selected item is to be added to the master list or product group.}.
Although Avery discloses updating an order guide when a substitution is made, Avery does not disclose:
replacing the selected product in the shopping cart with the substitute product.
However, Bholse teaches:
replacing the selected product in the shopping cart with the substitute product {Bholse: [Col. 9, ln. 4-7] The user 112 may substitute/swap one of the comparison items 604 into the item-view section 502 using the add-to-cart button 606.}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the shopping cart as taught by Bholse in the alternate product suggestion system of Avery in order to provide an enhanced user experience by leveraging transactional data captured by user interaction with the cart (Bholse: [Col. 8, ln. 41-43]).
Claim 16:
Avery and Bholse teach the medium of claim 1. Avery further discloses:
wherein performing the substitution evaluation comprises performing the substitution evaluation to identify the substitute product for replacing the selected product based on a financial goal for a facility or a financial goal for an organization associated with the user {Avery: [0147] process 800 can determine the preferred instance of the item based on a one or more rules specified by the organization, which can be specified on an organizational level, a facility level, or a general order guide level. The organization can select a rule based on price (e.g., the lowest price per count can be selected).}.
Although Avery discloses suggesting item alternatives based on a price rule, Avery does not disclose:
replacing the selected product in the shopping cart.
However, Bholse teaches:
replacing the selected product in the shopping cart {Bholse: [Col. 9, ln. 4-7] The user 112 may substitute/swap one of the comparison items 604 into the item-view section 502 using the add-to-cart button 606.}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the shopping cart as taught by Bholse in the alternate product suggestion system of Avery in order to provide an enhanced user experience by leveraging transactional data captured by user interaction with the cart (Bholse: [Col. 8, ln. 41-43]).
Claim 17:
Avery and Bholse teach the medium of claim 1. Avery further discloses:
wherein:
the substitute product comprises a first substitute product {Avery: [0147] If, when an order is being submitted for a particular facility, process 800 determines that the preferred instance of the item is not available for shipment to that facility from a node of the distribution network corresponding to that facility, process 800 can determine which of the alternatives in the product group is available and/or whether a next most preferred instance of the item is};
performing the substitution evaluation comprises performing the substitution evaluation to identify both the first substitute product and a second substitute product {Avery: [0147] If, when an order is being submitted for a particular facility, process 800 determines that the preferred instance of the item is not available for shipment to that facility from a node of the distribution network corresponding to that facility, process 800 can determine which of the alternatives in the product group is available and/or whether a next most preferred instance of the item is; [0149] process 800 can determine which alternative to add based on the products ranking in a list of identified alternatives to at least one item; [0153] a second item can be identified as an alternative to the first product based on various properties. For example, process 900 can determine whether two items are alternatives based on a comparison of the description and/or product category of the first item and a description and/or product category of other items.}; and
the operations further comprise filtering out the second substitute product as being considered for replacing the selected product responsive to determining that a distributor associated with the second substitute product is out of stock of the second substitute product {Avery: [0078] order management system 302 can be configured to sort, search, filter, and the like, items available from the distributor; [0147] process 800 may select a different item if that item is out of stock; [0149] process 800 can present one or more alternatives that are available for the particular facility, and the user can indicate which (if any) to include in the facility order guide, and/or whether the selected item is to be added to the master list or product group.}.
Although Avery discloses suggesting multiple products and filtering based on their similarity to the first item, Avery does not disclose:
replacing the selected product in the shopping cart.
However, Bholse teaches:
replacing the selected product in the shopping cart {Bholse: [Col. 9, ln. 4-7] The user 112 may substitute/swap one of the comparison items 604 into the item-view section 502 using the add-to-cart button 606.}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the shopping cart as taught by Bholse in the alternate product suggestion system of Avery in order to provide an enhanced user experience by leveraging transactional data captured by user interaction with the cart (Bholse: [Col. 8, ln. 41-43]).
Claim 18:
Avery and Bholse teach the medium of claim 1. Avery further discloses:
wherein performing the substitution evaluation comprises determining that the substitute product is available to order by a facility associated with the user based on a location of the facility relative to a distribution network of a distributor of the substitute product and an availability of the substitute product for distributing by the distributor {Avery: [0075] distribution network connecting various suppliers to a single end user associated with multiple facilities in different geographic regions via a single distributor associated with a system for harmonizing procurement across distribution networks; [0106] facilities can be added to a group based on one or more characteristics of the facility or facilities. Such characteristics can include location of the facility; [0163] if a particular product is available from a particular distributor, process 900 can identify alternatives that are available from a different distributor or distributors in the same portion of the distribution network}.
Regarding claims 19-20, claim 19 is directed to a method, while claim 20 is directed to a system. Claims 19 and 20 recite limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 1, which is directed towards a medium. Therefore, claims 19-20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
It is noted that claim 19 includes additional elements of:
A computer-implemented method.
Avery discloses:
A computer-implemented method {Avery: [0028] instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method}.
It is noted that claim 20 includes additional elements of:
A system, comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement operations.
Avery discloses:
A system {Avery: [0080] a system for harmonizing procurement across distribution networks}, comprising:
one or more processors {Avery: [0024] at least one hardware processor}; and
one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement operations {Avery: [0028] non-transitory computer readable medium containing computer executable instructions that, when executed by processor, cause processor to perform}.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avery, Jr. et. al. (US 20200272968 A1, herein referred to as Avery), in view of Bholse et. al. (US 8364559 B1, herein referred to as Bholse), in further view of Clayton et. al. (US 20140244429 A1, herein referred to as Clayton).
Claim 6:
Avery and Bholse teach the medium of claim 2. Avery further discloses:
wherein triggering the substitution evaluation for the selected product further comprises triggering the substitution evaluation for the selected product based on facility data for a facility associated with the user {Avery: [0150] process 900 can determine that an alternative to a first item is to be presented to a user in response to some triggering action; [0093] process can receive information about an organization that is associated with one or more facilities. Note that information about an organization, such as information received at 602, can be considered organization metadata. In some embodiments, the information about the organization can include any pertinent information. The information about the organization can include identifying information associated with each of the various facilities}.
Although disclosing the substitutions can be based on facility data, Avery does not disclose:
facility census data.
Avery does disclose facility data (Avery: [0093]).
However, Clayton teaches:
census data {Clayton: [0320] Data may be extracted from various sources, consolidated, reconciled, and stored in a consistent format. In these embodiments, external sources may include any sources from outside the analytics facility, such as census data, and any other data that may be useful.}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included census data as taught by Clayton in the in the alternate product suggestion system of Avery in order to refine the other data to make it more useful (Clayton: [0320]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ballaro (US 8112317 B1) was used to understand other methods for making product substitution recommendations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A BARLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-5820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 11am-7pm 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, 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.
/KATHERINE A BARLOW/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 4/30/2026
Prosecution Insights