DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are pending in this instant application per claim amendments and remarks filed on 12/17/2025. Claims 1,3-5, 8, 10-12, 15 and 17-19 have been amended. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent claims reciting method, apparatus and non-transitory computer readable storage medium claims. Claims 3-7, 10-14 and 17-20 are respective dependent claims. Claims 2, 9 and 16 have been cancelled. Examiner notes that limitations of claims 2, 9 and 16 have been added to their respective independent Claims 1, 8 and 15. Examiner withdraws the rejections of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 under 35 USC § 103. However, the rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 under 35 USC § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter is maintained
This Office Action is a final rejection in response to the claim amendments filed on 17 DECEMBER 2025 for its original application of 20 MAY 2024 that is titled: “Standalone Website Order After-Sales Method and Apparatus, Device and Medium”.
Accordingly, amended Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are now being rejected herein.
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.
(NOTE: Latest ‘amendments to the claims’ filed by the Applicant on 12/17/2025 are shown as underlined additions, and all deletions may not be shown.)
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more, wherein Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent method, apparatus and non-transitory computer readable storage medium claims respectively.
Exemplary Analysis.
Claim 1: Ineligible.
The claim recites a series of steps. The claim is directed to a method reciting a series of steps, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1 -- YES).
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The method claim recites the limitations of: receiving an order generation request, wherein the order generation request comprises a commodity identification and a user identification; generating a commodity order according to the order generation request; sending the commodity order to complete payment for the commodity order; in response to a completion of the payment for the commodity order, generating an after-sales token corresponding to the commodity order; and sending a commodity order confirmation email to a user mailbox corresponding to the user identification, wherein the commodity order confirmation email comprises an after-sales link of the commodity order, and the after-sales link comprises the after-sales token corresponding to the commodity order; the after-sales token is used for identifying the commodity order; and the after-sales link points to a commodity after-sales page. In other words, the claim provides a standalone website order after-sales method and apparatus, a device, and a medium for solving problems in the prior art that it is difficult for a user to conduct an after-sales service and make a complaint and it is difficult for a merchant to provide after-sales services and deal with complaints in a process of selling commodities through the operation of a standalone website (see para [0005] of ‘Summary’). These limitations, as drafted, are steps of a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via a method of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), and/or commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), and/or managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer/s and/or computer component/s such as the devices/ mobile devices. These limitations fall under the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group (Step 2A1 -- YES).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of: user equipment and payment service device as in --- when the user equipment accesses the after-sales link, the payment service device determines the commodity order corresponding to the after-sales token to be a target order for which an after-sales service is required, and provides the after-sales service for a user according to at least one piece of target status information of the target order; in response to the user equipment accessing the after-sales link, performing an authentication on the user equipment according to an Internet protocol address of the user equipment, the after-sales token comprised in the after-sales link, and a preset access restriction Internet protocol address list; in response to the user equipment passing the authentication, determining the commodity order corresponding to the after-sales token to be the target order for which an after-sales service is required; and providing the after-sales service for the user according to at least one piece of target status information of the target order. These additional elements are considered extra-solution activities. The equipment/s and device/s in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer/s functions of processing data. These generic processors are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2 -- NO).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional elements in this claim that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer and/or computer components over a network cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Because the additional elements of: user equipment and payment service device as in --- when the user equipment accesses the after-sales link, the payment service device determines the commodity order corresponding to the after-sales token to be a target order for which an after-sales service is required, and provides the after-sales service for a user according to at least one piece of target status information of the target order; in response to the user equipment accessing the after-sales link, performing an authentication on the user equipment according to (an Internet protocol address) of the user equipment, the after-sales token comprised in the after-sales link, and (a preset access restriction Internet protocol address list); in response to the user equipment passing the authentication, determining the commodity order corresponding to the after-sales token to be the target order for which an after-sales service is required; and providing the after-sales service for the user according to at least one piece of target status information of the target order, were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. The disclosure does not provide any indication that these equipment/s & device/s (processors) are anything other than generic processors and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Also, paras [0028] & [0031]--[0040] of the Applicant’s own Specification describe ---
{“[0028] Therefore, the inventors propose, in the present application, a technical solution applied to a payment service device, with which an order generation request sent by user equipment is received, where the order generation request includes a commodity identification and a user identification; a commodity order is generated according to the order generation request; the commodity order is sent to the user equipment to enable the user equipment to complete payment for the commodity order; in response to a completion of the payment for the commodity order, an after-sales token corresponding to the commodity order is generated; a commodity order confirmation email is sent to a user mailbox corresponding to the user identification, where the commodity order confirmation email includes an after-sales link of the commodity order, and the after-sales link includes the after-sales token corresponding to the commodity order; the after-sales token is used for identifying the commodity order; the after-sales link points to a commodity after-sales page in the payment service device; and when the user equipment accesses the after-sales link, the payment service device determines the commodity order corresponding to the after-sales token to be a target order for which an after-sales service is required, and provides the after-sales service for a user according to at least one piece of target status information of the target order. Since the payment service device generates the after-sales token corresponding to the commodity order after the payment for the order completes on the user equipment, the after-sales token is used to identify the commodity order, and the order confirmation email including the after-sales link is sent to the user mailbox. The after-sales link points to the payment service device, thus a user may access the payment service device through the after-sales link when the user needs an after-sales service. Since the after-sales link includes the after-sales token, when the after-sales link is accessed, the payment service device may determine, according to the after-sales token, the target order for which an after-sales service is required and may provide the after-sales service to the user with the at least one piece of target status information of the target order. …………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
[0031] FIG. 1 is a network architecture diagram corresponding to the application scenario of the standalone website order after-sales method according to the embodiment of the present application. As shown in FIG. 1, the network architecture corresponding to the application scenario provided by the embodiment of the present application includes: a payment service device 10, user equipment 11, and a mail server 12. ………………………………………………………………
[0032] A user browses a web page of a standalone website by means of the user equipment 11 and, after selecting a commodity, sends an order generation request to the payment service device 10. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
[0033] The payment service device 10 receives the order generation request from the user equipment 11; where the order generation request includes a commodity identification and a user identification. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
[0034] The payment service device 10 generates a commodity order according to the order generation request; and sends the commodity order to the user equipment 11 to enable the user equipment 11 to complete payment for the commodity order. ………………………………………….
[0035] The user equipment 11 receives the commodity order and completes the payment for the commodity order. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
[0036] The payment service device 10 generates an after-sales token corresponding to the commodity order in response to a completion of the payment for the commodity order. …………
[0037] The payment service device 10 sends a commodity order confirmation email to the mail server 12 to send the commodity order confirmation email to a user mailbox corresponding to the user identification. The mail server 12 is a mail server to which the user mailbox corresponding to the user identification belongs. The commodity order confirmation email includes an after-sales link of the commodity order, and the after-sales link includes the after-sales token corresponding to the commodity order; the after-sales token is used for identifying the commodity order; the after-sales link points to a commodity after-sales page in the payment service device 10; and when the user equipment 11 accesses the after-sales link, the payment service device 10 determines the commodity order corresponding to the after-sales token to be a target order for which an after-sales service is required, and provides the after-sales service for the user according to at least one piece of target status information of the target order. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
[0038] The user may log into the user mailbox in a mail client configured in the user equipment 11, or access a web page of the mail server 12 by means of the user equipment 11, log into the user mailbox on the web page, and receive the commodity order confirmation email through the user mailbox. When the user needs to conduct an after-sales service or make a complaint for the purchased commodity, the user may trigger on the user equipment 11 a request for accessing the after-sales link included in the commodity order confirmation email to access the commodity after-sales page in the payment service device, and thus conduct an after-sales service or make a complaint for the commodity. …………………………………………………………………….
[0039] The user equipment 11 receives the user-triggered request for accessing the after-sales link to access the commodity after-sales page in the payment service device. ………………………….
[0040] When the commodity after-sales page in the payment service device 10 is accessed, the payment service device determines the commodity order corresponding to the after-sales token to be a target order for which an after-sales service is required, and provides the after-sales service for the user according to at least one piece of target status information of the target order.”} ---
and indicate that the concept described by the extra-solution additional elements is conventional. Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned extra-solution additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer options 2 and 3, respectively.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B -- NO), and the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of the invention including independent apparatus Claim 8 and independent non-transitory computer readable storage medium Claim 15, which perform the steps similar to those of the independent method Claim 1. Furthermore, the limitations of dependent method Claims 3-7, further narrow the independent method Claim 1 with additional steps and limitations (e.g., determining whether the Internet protocol address of the user equipment exists in the preset access restriction address list; determining whether a number of digits of the after-sales token is a preset number of digits; ……; in response to existence of the Internet protocol address of the user equipment in the preset access restriction address list, determining that the user equipment fails the authentication and logging an abnormal operation on the Internet protocol address of the user equipment; ……; sending after-sales type information to the user equipment; wherein the after-sales type information comprises a plurality of preset types; ……; wherein the preset text comprises at least one preset status field, and the target status information comprises at least one target status field; ……; inputting the target type, a preset reply demand corresponding to the target type, and each piece of target status information into a preset generative conversational language model, and generating an auxiliary text corresponding to the target type with the preset generative conversational language model; ……; etc.), and do not resolve the issues raised in rejection of the independent method Claim 1. Similarly, dependent apparatus Claims 10-14 as well as dependent non-transitory computer readable storage medium Claims 17-20 also further narrow their independent Claims 8 and 15 respectively, which are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Therefore, said Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks and claim amendments dated 17 DECEMBER 2025 with respect to the rejection of amended Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 & 17-20 have been carefully considered. Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection are deemed persuasive and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is withdrawn. However, Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter been fully considered but they are not persuasive.Thus, the rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 & 17-20, as described above, is being maintained herein under 35 USC 101 with some modifications in this Office Action, where needed to provide clarification in response to the Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks.
In response to the Applicant’s latest arguments against the rejection under 35 USC 101, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner clarifies that the instant application is nothing more than an improvement of an abstract idea, wherein using technology/ computers to execute an abstract idea is at most an improvement to the abstract idea.
In further response to the Applicant’s arguments against the rejection under 35 USC 101, Step 2A. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that “the claims satisfy Prong Two of Step 2A”. In response, Examiner notes that under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea--see at least MPEP 2106.05(f). The instant claims do not attempt to provide an unconventional technological solution. Using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea and the way the information is processed and displayed does not make it less abstract. Accordingly, the 12/27/2025 claim amendments added as additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In the instant case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because none of the above criteria is met. The amended limitations of the claims do not result in computer functionality improvement or technical/technology improvement when the underlying abstract idea is implemented using technology. The amendments to the claims only further define the data being used. The advantages over conventional systems are directed towards improving the abstract idea. Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claims as a whole are not integrated into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims are directed to an improvement computer technology. As found by the courts “In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly . . ..” SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Content Extraction, 2013 WL 3964909, at *12 (“the mere use of a computer to more quickly and efficiently . . . accomplish a given task does not create meaningful limitation on an otherwise abstract and wide-ranging concept”).
A claim may be found to be eligible if it integrates a judicial exception into a practical application as cited by Applicant. However, examiner notes that "claiming the improved efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not provide an inventive concept (see MPEP §2106.05(f)(2).) Claiming improved data processing efficiency inherent with applying any improvement to the judicial exception itself on a computer does not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. Also, limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment’ does not confer patent eligibility as this cannot be considered an improvement to computer or technology and so cannot be “significantly more.”
In further response to the Applicant’s arguments against the rejection under 35 USC 101, Step 2B, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that “the claims are eligible under Step 2B”. In response, Examiner notes that if the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, for Step 2B we must “look with more specificity at what the claim elements add, in order to determine ‘whether they identify an “inventive concept” in the application of the ineligible subject matter’ to which the claim is directed.” Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). We look to see whether there are any “additional features” in the claims that constitute an “inventive concept,” thereby rendering the claims eligible for patenting even if they are directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 221. In the instant application, Examiner notes that Applicant’s claims as a whole, including claim amendment, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The processor (device) limitations in the instant application do not add significantly more, because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. A generic recitation of a processor (device) performing its generic computer functions does not make the claims less abstract. Also, the use of a particular machine and transformation to a different state or thing are not relevant to the instant application. Examiner maintains the conclusion above under Step 2B, where it was shown “that the aforementioned extra-solution additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer options 2 and 3, respectively.”
Conclusion
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See at least 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, listed in Form 892, that is considered pertinent to the Applicant's disclosure and review for not traversing already issued patents and/or claimed inventions by the claims of the current invention of the Applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Sanjeev Malhotra whose telephone number is (571) 272-7292. The Examiner can normally be reached during Monday-Friday between 8:30-17:00 hours on a Flexible schedule.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The facsimile/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 & 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.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with an Examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP §502.03(II). All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record. The Examiner’s e-mail address is provided below at the end of this Office Action.
/S.M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3691
sanjeev.malhotra@uspto.gov
/HANI M KAZIMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691