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 12/15/2025. Currently, claims 1, 2, 7-10, 15, 16 and 21-24 are pending. Claims 1, 2, 7-10, 15 and 16 have been amended. Claims 21-24 are newly added. Claims 3-6, 11-14 and 17-20 have been cancelled.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 7-10, 15, 16 and 21-24 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, single or in combination, the combined limitations:
“pre-checking the first product order to confirm whether target products in the first product order are able to be produced and delivered according to a schedule requirement and a product parameter requirement;
converting the first product order that passes the pre-checking into a second product order;
combining at least one candidate factory of the plurality of candidate factories with the first shipment factory to obtain at least one production scheme, wherein the at least one candidate factory is used to produce remaining target products in the second product order except for target products currently in stock; and
determining a second shipment factory based on inventory information of target products after completion of the production scheduling order; and
generating a first delivery order based on the delivery address in the second product order and a shipping address of the second shipment factory”,
as recited in claim 1.
Claims 9 and 15 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, 2, 7-10, 15, 16 and 21-24 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 managing an order fulfillment process.
Exemplary claim 1 recites in part,
“obtaining a first product order drafted by a user from an online shopping platform;
pre-checking the first product order to confirm whether target products in the first product order are able to be produced and delivered according to a schedule requirement and a product parameter requirement;
converting the first product order that passes the pre-checking into a second product order;
determining a first shipment factory based on existing inventory information of the target products, in a case where the target products in the second product order are regular products and need to be produced due to insufficient inventory;
screening a plurality of candidate factories near to a delivery address of the second product order and/or an address of the first shipment factory, from a plurality of production factories;
combining at least one candidate factory of the plurality of candidate factories with the first shipment factory to obtain at least one production scheme, wherein the at least one candidate factory is used to produce remaining target products in the second product order except for target products currently in stock;
determining an estimated logistics cost of the at least one production scheme;
determining a target production scheme based on the estimated logistics cost, wherein the target production scheme is a solution with a lowest total logistics cost;
obtaining at least one target production factory based on the first shipment factory and a candidate factory corresponding to the target production scheme, to produce the remaining target products;
generating a production scheduling order of the remaining target products;
sending the production scheduling order to the at least one target production factory, to produce the remaining target products by the at least one target production factory;
determining a second shipment factory based on inventory information of target products after completion of the production scheduling order;
generating a first delivery order based on the delivery address in the second product order and a shipping address of the second shipment factory; and
sending the first delivery order to a logistics platform.”
The above limitations describe the steps of, 1) receiving and analyzing order data, 2) identifying first and second product manufacturers based on logistic cost, shipment factory and production scheme, 3) generating and sending a product schedule, 4) sending a delivery order.
The above steps describe the process of managing order fulfillment. The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" (managing personal behavior or relationship or interaction between people) enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, 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 cited claims recite additional elements in the form of a computing device (processor and memory) to perform the limitations encompassing the abstract ideas identified above. The computing device represents using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f).
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 recited computing device represents using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f).
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 15 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Dependent claims 2, 7, 8, 10, 16 and 21-24 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 12/15/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 7-10, 15, 16 and 21-24 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that these arguments are directed to newly added amendments, and have been addressed in the current rejection.
As discussed above under section 101, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The recited electronic device (processor and memory) describes generic computer elements for implementing the identified abstract idea. The claimed invention uses the recited computer technology to implement the business solution of managing order fulfillment, as described in the limitations of the identified abstract idea.
In addition, the additional elements do not improve the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field. The claimed invention uses computer technology to provide a business solution of managing order fulfillment to include: 1) receiving and analyzing customer order, 2) identifying first and second product manufacturers based on logistic cost, shipment factory and production scheme to manufacture products with insufficient inventory, 3) generating and sending a product schedule to manufacture the products, and 4) delivering the products.
Accordingly, the claimed invention(s) is/are 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