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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/15/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
This non-final office action is responsive to Applicant’s submission filed 06/15/2026. Currently, claims 1, 2, 7, 8 and 25-28 are pending. Claims 1, 2, 7 and 8 have been amended. Claims 25-28 are newly added. Claims 3-6 and 9-24 have been cancelled.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8 and 25-28 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, by the order processing apparatus, the first product order to confirm whether the target products in the first product order are able to be produced and delivered according to the schedule requirement and the product parameter requirement;
converting, by the order processing apparatus, the first product order that passes the pre-checking into a second product order;
combining, by the order processing apparatus, 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, by the order processing apparatus, a second shipment factory based on inventory information of target products after completion of the production scheduling order; and
generating, by the order processing apparatus, 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.
Claim 25 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore is 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, 8 and 25-28 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… the first product order…;
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 the 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 one or more computer elements (order processing apparatus, online shopping platform and logistics platform) to perform the limitations encompassing the abstract idea identified above. The computing elements represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the steps of “obtaining…a first product order drafted by a user…in response to the user selecting a schedule requirement and a product parameter requirement for target products on a customized page on the online shopping platform…”, “updating… the second product order based on latest progress information of the production scheduling order obtained from the at least one target production factory”, “displaying…relevant information of the first delivery order”, “sending…latest progress information of the first delivery order” and “updating…the second product order based on the latest progress information of the first delivery order…” describe receiving product order based on user input, receiving and updating/storing second product order information, displaying first delivery order information, sending first delivery order progress information, and updating/storing second product order information. The steps describe receiving user input, transmitting data and displaying data, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities that do not impose meaningful limits on the claim. 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 recited one or more computer elements (order processing apparatus, online shopping platform and logistics platform) represent using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the steps of “obtaining…a first product order drafted by a user…in response to the user selecting a schedule requirement and a product parameter requirement for target products on a customized page on the online shopping platform…”, “updating… the second product order based on latest progress information of the production scheduling order obtained from the at least one target production factory”, “displaying…relevant information of the first delivery order”, “sending…latest progress information of the first delivery order” and “updating…the second product order based on the latest progress information of the first delivery order…”, while amounting to insignificant extra-solution activities, describe well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions of “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, “storing information in memory” and “electronic recordkeeping (updating an activity log)”. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
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.
Claim 25 recites similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore is rejected based on similar rationale.
Dependent claims 2, 7, 8 and 26-28 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 06/15/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 8 and 25-28 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 claimed invention describes 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 of the claimed invention describe the process of managing order fulfillment. The above steps cover managing interactions between people, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The additional elements reciting the steps of “obtaining…a first product order drafted by a user…in response to the user selecting a schedule requirement and a product parameter requirement for target products on a customized page on the online shopping platform…”, “updating… the second product order based on latest progress information of the production scheduling order obtained from the at least one target production factory”, “displaying…relevant information of the first delivery order”, “sending…latest progress information of the first delivery order” and “updating…the second product order based on the latest progress information of the first delivery order…” describe receiving product order based on user input, receiving and updating/storing second product order information, displaying first delivery order information, sending first delivery order progress information, and updating/storing second product order information. The steps describe receiving user input, transmitting data and displaying data, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities that do not impose meaningful limits on the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
In addition, the recited additional elements describe generic computer elements for implementing the identified abstract idea. The recited online shopping platform, order processing apparatus and logistics platform interact by transmitting data (first product order, first delivery order, first delivery order progress and second product order progress information) over a network. 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.
The additional elements do not improve the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field.
When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the claimed invention(s) is/are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights