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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 22, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 11, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The earliest priority date of the claimed invention is April 7, 2021.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to Claims 1, 11, and 19 are acknowledged. Amendments to Claims 1, 11, and 19 are sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection of Claims 1-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "a plurality of interface elements" in lines 15-16, “the plurality of user interface elements” in line 17, and “the one or more user interface elements” in line 25 Due to the inconsistent wording of the antecedent basis limitation, these render the claim indefinite, as it is unclear if Applicant is referring to the same elements or different elements based on the different wording.
Claim 11 recites the limitations "a plurality of interface elements" in lines 12, “the plurality of user interface elements” in line 13-14, and “the one or more user interface elements” in line 21-22 Due to the inconsistent wording of the antecedent basis limitation, these render the claim indefinite, as it is unclear if Applicant is referring to the same elements or different elements based on the different wording.
35 USC § 101 - ELIGIBLE
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claim, the examiner finds the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.(Claims 1-10 are processes and Claims 11-20 are machines). Accordingly, step 1 is satisfied.
Step 2A – Prong 1: was there a Judicial Exception Recited
Claim 19 (and similarly Claims1 and 11) is directed to a series of steps for performing generating a display that ranks fulfillment centers based on user activity in geographic regions of the fulfillment, which are mental processes. Thus, Claim 19 (and similarly Claims 1 and 11) recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Can the Judicial Exception Recited be integrated into a practical application
Claim 19 (and similarly Claims 1 and 11) recites a particular manner of presenting information that improves the operation of the user interface. Rather than merely displaying inventory information, claim 19 requires generating, on a first page of the user interface, interface elements that are superimposed over a geographical map, where the size of each data object is directly proportional to item-specific computer user activity for a corresponding geographical region, and where the same page further displays an indication of each fulfillment center within each geographical region. The claim therefore restrains both the type of information displayed and the manner in which the information is organized and presented.
The specification expressly explains that conventional inventory-management computer applications require users to drill down through multiple user-interface pages to locate fulfillment centers and their associated information, thereby degrading navigation and user experience. See Spec. ¶[0016]. In contrast, the disclosed embodiments present, on a single page, the geographical regions, fulfillment centers, and associated information so that users need not manually navigate through multiple pages to locate a desired fulfillment center. See Spec. ¶[0023]. The specification further explains that this arrangement makes the interface easier to navigate and improves user decision-making by presenting all relevant information together on a single page. Id. This is similar to the reasoning that the Court in Core Wireless relied upon in finding the claims patent eligible, namely that the claimed user interface improved navigation by allowing users to access desired information without requiring the user to navigate to the application and then navigate within the application. Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1363. Likewise, for example, Claim 19 (and similarly Claims 1 and 11) recites a specific user-interface arrangement that reduces the need to drill down through multiple pages by presenting fulfillment centers, geographical regions, and user-activity information together on a single page, thereby improving the operation of the user interface itself rather than merely displaying information. The improvement is not simply displaying information, but displaying it on a single interface to reduce navigation.
Accordingly, like the claims in Core Wireless, Claim 19 (and similarly Claims 1 and 11) is directed to a specific improvement in the way a computer user interface organizes and presents information to reduce navigation and improve usability. The claim is therefore directed to an improvement in computer functionality itself, rather than to an abstract idea, and Claim 19 (and similarly Claims 1 and 11) is found to be ELIGIBLE.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11-12, and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat 10,373,099 “McCardel”, in view of US Pat Pub 2016/0321661 “Hammond”.
As per Claims 1, 11, and 19, McCardel discloses a computer-implemented method, system, and computer storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon that, comprising:
receiving, via a first page of a user interface, a user query or selection associated with an item that represents a tangible product (McCardel e.g. col. 11, ln 20-27, and adjacent lines, where on a user interface the user can request an item correction to warehouses and other entities);
based at least in part on the receiving of the user query or selection associated with the item, generating a request to place the item in a fulfillment center, the fulfillment center is indicative of a physical location from which one or more logistics providers fulfill buyer orders from the client application (McCardel e.g. col. 11, ln 20-27, and adjacent lines, where on a user interface the user can request an item correction to warehouses and other entities);
accessing computer user activity metrics or statistics for the item at each geographical region, of a plurality of geographical regions, the computer user activity metrics or statistics indicating a quantity of particular computerized input that one or more users engage in for the item at each geographical region (McCardel, e.g. col 3, ln 1-25; col 10, ln 13-67 Because the zones correspond to the shipment geographic regions, the shipment opportunity identifier 146 can associate the POS data with the shipment geographic regions. Thus, the shipment opportunity identifier 146 has identified the POS data for the specific subcategory of items within the shipment geographic regions. . . . [T]he shipment opportunity identifier 146 generates an opportunity score or index associated with some or all stores, warehouses, and/or distributors in the shipment geographic regions. The opportunity score can be a numerical value that represents the degree of shipment misalignment and the amount of opportunity available for correcting such shipment misalignment. See ranking based on opportunity score/index at e.g. Fig. 4C (high to low opportunity score, ranking based on score) and col. 14, ln 55-62, the opportunity index (e.g., the opportunity score, where a higher score indicates a higher degree of shipment misalignment and/or a larger amount of opportunity available for correcting such shipment misalignment). Thus, the table 412 identifies the distributors that are associated with warehouses and/or stores in which there may be a high amount or low amount of shipment misalignment);
in response to the accessing of the computer user activity metrics or statistics for the item at each geographical region, causing generation of a plurality of interface elements at the first page of the user interface, each user interface element, of the plurality of user interface elements, a data object whose size is directly proportional to the quantity of computerized input that the one or more users engage in for the item at the respective geographical region, the first page of the user interface further including an indication of each fulfillment center within each geographical region, of the plurality of geographical regions (see McCardel, Fig. 2A, having a GUI with a dot over a particular geographic location; Fig. 4C having color indicators over particular geographic locations; Fig.4D where opportunity index score is associated with graphic location on identified map of GUI; Fig. 5, element 508, For each first geographic region, modify a shape of the respective first geographic region using the … data.); and
based on a selection associated with the one or more user interface elements, selecting a first geographical region, of the plurality of geographical regions, that the item is to be transported to (McCardel Col 3 modifying the user interface data such that the interactive user interface includes a selectable option to ship additional items to the one first geographic region).
McCardel fails to disclose a computer-implemented method, system, and computer storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon that, comprising:
superimposes, over visual data representing a respective geographical region of geographical map, a data object whose size is directly proportional to the regional input quantity.
Hammond teaches a computer-implemented method, system, and computer storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon that, comprising:
superimposes, over visual data representing a respective geographical region of geographical map, a data object whose size is directly proportional to the regional input quantity
(Hammond: See Hammond at e.g. Fig. 9, 11 (below), [0183], [0184]
PNG
media_image1.png
485
779
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the size of the graphical representation placed on the map [i.e. superimposed over the map] to indicate the presence of one or more transactions at a given store location is proportional to the number of transactions associated with the given store location. For example, a graphical representation placed on top of a first store location is bigger than another graphical representation placed on top of a second store location, if the number of transactions associated with the first store location is greater than the number of transactions associated with the second store location; [0185] In some embodiments, the size, color, brightness, contrast, shape, and/or other visual qualities of the graphical representation may be used to indicate the time and date of the transactions represented by the graphical representation. In other words, Hammond teaches superimposing a data object over a map, where the size of the superimposed data object is based on a regional quantity input. – Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the mapping art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to modify McCardel’s detection system for processing database-stored data and generating data with Hammond’s superimposing data object over geographic region based on input, where this is advantageous in that the specific sizing of the superimposed data object is used “to indicate” various things, such as the presence of one or more transaction at a given store, or any other data stored in the memory relating to each of the geographic regions.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify McCardel to include a visual representation of regional input quantity as taught by Hammond, when selecting an inventory center that the item is to be transported as taught by McCardel with the motivation to make a specific indication of data relating to that location, and the different sizing allows the user to compare in their head the various data points at the various geographical locations (Hammond: [0184]).
As per claims 2 and 12, McCardel discloses a method and system, wherein the user interface further includes at least one or more other user interface elements that indicate a corresponding fulfilment center and a respective geographical region that the fulfilment center is in, and wherein the selection is based on receiving a selection of the one or more other user interface elements (McCardel: Col 3, lines 1-33).
As per Claims 4 and 14, McCardel discloses a method and system, wherein the request is indicative of user input that specifies the item, the item being a candidate for purchase at the client application (McCardel: Col 3, lines 1-33).
As per Claims 5 and 15, McCardel discloses a method and system, wherein the selection is based on receiving a user selection of the data object at the map for a respective geographical region, of the plurality of geographical regions (McCardel: Col 3, lines 1-33).
As per Claims 6, 16, and 20, McCardel discloses a method, system, and computer storage media, further comprising:
an identifier of the first fulfillment center that the data object represents, the first geographical region that the first fulfillment center is in, an indication of a ranking of the first geographical region relative to the plurality of geographical regions with respect to consumer demand, a model prediction of a likelihood of sales for the item in the first geographical region, or a cost for transporting the item from a seller’s location to the first fulfillment center (McCardel: Col 9).
McCardel fails to disclose a method, system, and computer storage media, further comprising:
receiving an indication that a pointer has hovered over the data object for the first geographical region; and
in response to the receiving of the indication, automatically causing a pop-up user interface element to be displayed, and wherein the pop-up user interface element indicates.
Hammond teaches a method, system, and computer storage media, further comprising:
receiving an indication that a pointer has hovered over the data object (Hammond: Fig. 10); and
in response to the receiving of the indication, automatically causing a pop-up user interface element to be displayed, and wherein the pop-up user interface element indicates (Hammond: Fig. 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify McCardel to include a visual representation of regional input quantity as taught by Hammond, when selecting an inventory center that the item is to be transported as taught by McCardel with the motivation to make a specific indication of data relating to that location, and the different sizing allows the user to compare in their head the various data points at the various geographical locations (Hammond: [0184]).
As per Claims 7 and 17, McCardel discloses a method and system, further comprising:
ranking each fulfillment center for each geographical region, of the plurality of geographical regions, based at least in part on the quantity of computer user activity of the item at each geographical region, wherein the data object further indicates the ranking (McCardel: Col 3, lines 1-33); and
based on the ranking, recommending a first fulfillment center to transport the item to (McCardel: Col 3, lines 1-33).
As per Claims 8 and 18, McCardel discloses a method and system, wherein the causing generation of the one or more user interface elements is further based on a cost of placing the item at each fulfillment center in each geographical region, of the plurality of geographical regions, and wherein the data object further indicates the cost (McCardel: Col 10, lines 53-67).
As per Claim 9, McCardel discloses a method and system, further comprising:
receiving a second request to place a second item in a fulfillment center (McCardel: Col 3, lines 1-33);
in response to the receiving of the second request, determining a consumer demand of the second item for each geographical region of the plurality of geographical regions (McCardel: Col 3, lines 1-33);
based at least in part on the consumer demand, causing generation of a second plurality of user interface elements, each user interface element, of the second plurality of user interface elements, superimposes, over the map, a second data object that at least partially indicates a second quantity of computer user activity for a respective geographical region, of the plurality of geographical regions (McCardel: Col 3, lines 1-33); and
based on a selection associated with at least one of the second plurality of user interface elements, selecting a second fulfillment center within a second geographical region, of the plurality of geographical regions, that the second item is to be transported to (McCardel: Col 3, lines 1-33).
Claim(s) 3, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat 10,373,099 “McCardel”, in view of US Pat Pub 2016/0321661 “Hammond”, and also in view of “Bubble Map.” Charts - Data Visualization and Human Rights, http://visualizingrights.org/kit/charts/bubble-map.html. date accessed using the wayback machine https://web.archive.org/web/20180228040030/http://visualizingrights.org/kit/charts/bubble-map.html
As per Claims 3 and 13, McCardel and Hammond fail to disclose, but “Bubble Map” teaches a method and system, wherein the data object includes a bubble data object and the map includes a bubble map, and wherein a size of the bubble data object indicates the consumer demand for the item at a particular geographical region (Bubble Maps: pages 2-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify McCardel and Hammond to include representing the data using a bubble map as taught by Bubble Map, when selecting an inventory center that the item is to be transported as taught by McCardel and Hammond with the motivation of effectively relaying the effect of location a particular variable to be analyzed and comparisons need to be made (Bubble Map: page 2).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat 10,373,099 “McCardel”, in view of US Pat Pub 2016/0321661 “Hammond”, and also in view of US Pat Pub 2008/0301009 “Plaster”.
As per Claim 10, McCardel and Hammond fail to disclose but Plaster teaches a method and system, further comprising:
subsequent to the selecting, receiving a second request for an item listing that describes the item, the item listing being included in the client application, the item being for sale via the client application (Plaster: [0123], Based on a purchasing customer’s search, items are presented to the purchasing customer for sale may include one or more items which were listed by listing customer and shipped to a facility of the fulfillment services provider);
in response to the receiving of the second request, causing presentation of the item listing as a search result on a search results page for the second request (Plaster: [0123], Based on a purchasing customer’s search, items are presented to the purchasing customer for sale may via an electronic commerce web site, and include one or more items which were listed by listing customer and shipped to a facility of the fulfillment services provider);
receiving a selection of the search result at the search results page (Plaster: [0124], The purchasing customer may select for purchase, for example via the sales listing services interface, a particular item from the list of one or more items displayed. The item may be added to a virtual "shopping cart" for the customer. When the purchasing customer is ready to "check out", the customer completes the purchase, for example via interaction with the sales listing services interface); and
subsequent to the selection, causing transportation of the item from a first fulfillment center to a destination location associated with the second request and the first geographical region (Plaster: [0131], The item(s) on the purchase order, or at least a portion of the items, including one or more items listed by listing customer, may then be shipped to the purchasing customer as shipment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify McCardel and Hammond to include listing and selling an item for sale as taught by Plaster, when selecting an inventory center that the item is to be transported as taught by McCardel and Hammond with the motivation of providing increased quality control by consolidating inventory from merchants that list their offerings along with other merchants via an electronic marketplace (Plaster: [0006]).
Response to Arguments
35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed July 22, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20, under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US Pat 10,373,099 “McCardel”, in view of US Pat Pub 2016/0321661 “Hammond”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REVA R MOORE whose telephone number is (571)270-7942. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9:00-6:00.
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 571-270-3324. 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.
/REVA R MOORE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3627 /PETER LUDWIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
