DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Prosecutorial Standing
Election/Restriction
2. Applicant’s election with traverse of Group 3: claims 11-25 in the reply filed on 10.13.2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Office has not demonstrated that the alleged sub-combinations have separate utility.
However, upon further consideration, the Examiner concurs with the determination that all groups are directed to electronic platforms/systems for managing commercial activities between users/members, all groups include networked computing infrastructure with servers/processors and databases for storing user data, and all groups involve workflow processes for activities between users. This is found persuasive, and therefore, the Requirement Election/Restriction of claims 1-25 has been withdrawn.
As a result, claims 1-25 will be subject to further examination and evaluation in due course, and will be presented for examination, as detailed below.
Oath/Declaration
3. The Applicants’ oath/declaration has been reviewed by the Examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the Applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 11.19.2025 is acknowledged by the Examiner. The cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims. As required by M.P.E.P 609 C (2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed, signed and dated by the Examiner is attached to the instant Office action.
Priority/Filing Date
5. Applicant's claim for priority of Foreign Application filed on 09.22.2021 is acknowledged. The Examiner takes the FA date of 09.22.2021 into consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea), an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Statutory Category: claims 11-25 are directed to an abstract idea of an electronic system for managing commercial activities and exchanging information between members. The claims are directed to a machine.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Nevertheless, independent claim 11 recites a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, as it describes an electronic system for managing commercial activities between network members. Therefore, the claim falls into the following categories of abstract ideas: fundamental economic practice, certain methods organizing human activity, and/or mental processes.
Exemplary independent claim 11 recites, in summary the following abstract ideas:
managing commercial activities between members;
storing member data in member accounts;
receiving/transmitting to any member, request or response data;
executing workflow to manage request and response process activities between members.
These limitations collectively recite concepts that fall directly within the category of abstract ideas of:
Organizing Human activity (managing commercial interactions between members);
Intermediate commercial practices (coordinating transaction between member); and
Mental processes (information exchange and workflow management) or business practices performed with the aid of generic computing components.
According to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), "Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations, and including electronic system and methods for managing commercial activities between members, therefore it would fall under sales activities or behaviors, therefore it would fall under commercial or legal interactions, which falls under certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Practical Application: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole merely describes the concept of electronic system and methods for managing commercial activities between members using generally recited computer elements such as networked computing infrastructure, a server, or processor, a database, and a workflow execution module. These additional elements of networked computing infrastructure, a server, or processor, a database, and a workflow execution module, in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and are merely invoked as tools for managing commercial activities between members. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computing environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea, and does not take the claim out of the Commercial or Business Practices or Legal Interactions subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as “inventive concept”) to the exception. These elements (networked computing infrastructure, a server, or processor, a database, and a workflow execution module) are generic computer components performing well-understood, routine, and conventional functions (data storage communication, processing, transmitting and receiving information, and managing request/response workflows).
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept. The claim merely uses a generic computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea of managing commercial activities between members, which fails to add an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered individually and as an ordered combination as there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. Therefore claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., electronic system and methods for managing commercial activities between members) without significantly more. Accordingly, claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Alice Corp v CLS).
Furthermore, claims 2-6, 8-10, and 12-25 define the same abstract idea noted above for independent claim 11, and similar independents claims 1 and 7, are considered to be part of the abstract idea above and merely act to further limit it. In the dependent claims, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer functioning in a standard mode of operation or matters that are routine and conventional in the field. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Additionally, claims 2-6, 8-10, and 12-25 do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Alice Corp v CLS).
Therefore, the limitations of the claimed invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination, are directed to ineligible subject matter. To address this rejection, the examiner suggests reviewing the recent Federal Circuit Court decisions and USPTO guidelines related to U.S.C. 101 for guidance on what is considered statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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 non-obviousness.
9. Claims 11-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballaro et al., Patent No.: US 8,359,245 in view of Dick et al., Pub. No.: US 2002/0128890.
As per claim 11, Ballaro discloses an electronic system for managing commercial activities between members of a network of independent system users [see at least the abstract (e.g., electronic procurement system)], the system comprising:
networked computing infrastructure [see at least column 3: lines 25-38 (e.g., a computer program product including a computer readable medium having stored thereon computer executable instructions that, when executed on a computer, configures the computer to perform a method …)], including at least one server or processor [as illustrated in FIG. 16, and shown below (e.g., block 1650)];
PNG
media_image1.png
621
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a database for storing member data in member accounts for access by respective members [see at least column 6: lines 56-64 (e.g., data repository 30 may include one or more databases to store user data 32, hosted product index 34, product data 36, and transaction data 38), as illustrated in FIG. 1, and shown below];
PNG
media_image2.png
438
591
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the networked computing infrastructure being configured to enable or control communication between members via respective member computing devices, wherein the networked computing infrastructure is configured to receive from any member, request or response data, e.g., relating to one or more objects to be subject to an activity via the system and/or relating to one or more activities to be carried out in respect of an object in the system [as illustrated in FIG. 15 (e.g., electronic procurement system communicating over a network with suppliers and purchasing organizations, and shown below)];
PNG
media_image3.png
491
347
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and a workflow execution framework or workflow execution module operated by the server or processor that manages a request and response process in respect of the one or more activities to be carried out between the members [see at least column 13: lines 42-47 (e.g., an exemplary workflow setup tool 700 to define the workflow process of a requisition, purchase order, and fulfillment ….. the workflow setup tool 700 in accordance with the present invention creates a shared workflow space 710 and allows for the assignment of users (e.g., individual users, or users of various user roles) to be included in the workflow process), and as illustrated in FIG. 7].
PNG
media_image4.png
531
724
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ballaro discloses all elements per claims invention as exclaimed above. Ballaro does not does not specifically mentioned transmit to any member. However, Dick discloses transmit to any member [see at least ¶0131 (e.g., the request to login may be received from the user utilizing a network, and the virtual input device may also be transmitted utilizing the network)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Dick in order to further mention member to member request/response transmission architecture.
As per claim 12, Ballaro discloses wherein each of the members can act as a requestor (e.g., customer) or a responder (e.g., provider of products and/or services) in a request and response process, wherein the members form a network of requestors and responders in a request chain or supply chain for products and/or services, whereby the system forms an electronic exchange for supply chain management [as illustrated in FIG. 2, and presented below].
PNG
media_image5.png
418
569
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As per claim 13, Ballaro discloses wherein the members are collected in groups, the groups corresponding to organizations (e.g., companies) with which the grouped members are associated; wherein each group may act as a requestor (e.g., customer) or a responder (e.g., provider of products and/or services) [see at least the rejection of claims 11-12 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 13 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claims 11-12. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claims 11-12 are applicable to claim 3. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claims 11-12, which is incorporated herein by reference].
Ballaro in view of Dick discloses, wherein the groups form a network of requestors and responders in a request chain or supply chain for products and/or services, wherein the system desirably forms an electronic exchange for customer and supply chain management [see at least Dick: abstract (e.g., workflow management of a supply chain)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Dick in order to provide network-based supply chain systems, and to implementing an industry-specific supply chain framework [Dick: 0001].
As per claim 14, Ballaro discloses wherein the workflow execution framework or workflow execution module is configured to provide linked or cross-referenced process stages of a workflow process to members or groups connected or related in respect of a specific request chain for monitoring and coordinating fulfilment of each process stage of the request chain [see at least column 63: lines 56-58 (e.g., purchase order stage in the workflow process (e.g., of one or more transactions))].
As per claim 15, Ballaro discloses wherein a series of the linked or cross-referenced process stages provided by the workflow execution framework or module passes or cascades between each of the members or groups connected or related in the specific request chain such that, upon completion or approval of a stage of the workflow process by one of the said members or groups, the next one of the said members or groups in the request chain is correspondingly informed and the process stages of the request chain are updated automatically [as illustrated in FIG. 11C (e.g., (e.g., submission of the purchase requisition 1160a, financial approval 1160b, supplier approval/processing 1160c, LPO 1160d, purchase order creation 1160e, and completion 11601)),and presented below].
PNG
media_image6.png
340
599
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As per claim 16, Ballaro discloses wherein the workflow execution framework or workflow execution module is configured to provide a checklist of steps to members or groups in each request and response process to provide members or groups relevant decision-making factors, wherein the system is configured to record member or group replies or entries to the checklist to create a log of member decision-making [see at least the rejection of claim 11 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 16 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 11. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 11 are applicable to claim 16. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 11, which is incorporated herein by reference.
As per claim 17, Ballaro discloses an object framework or object module operated by the server or processor and configured to identify and classify automatically an object nominated by a member or group to be subject to an activity via the system, wherein the one or more object is an item of information selected from the group consisting of: a member, a job order, a quote, an estimate, an information request, a proposal request, an activity request, a document, an address, a note, a diary, an Integrated Management System (IMS) item, a Continuous Improvement System (CIS) item, an asset, an invoice, a payment, a budget, a purchase order, an adjustment, and an account [as illustrated in FIGs. 4A-4T (e.g., user management tools), example FIG. 4A is presented below].
PNG
media_image7.png
437
597
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As per claim 18, Ballaro discloses wherein the object framework or object module is configured to identify and/or to classify an object nominated by a member in at least one category, including one or more of: relationship to a member, document, activity, calendar item, request, physical item, communication, and financial transaction [see at least column 14: lines 33-43 (e.g., catalog may allow for supplier classifications and multiple products may be linked to a single supplier. Also, the catalog can be activated or deactivated through a simple click on the end user interface, and specific product categories can be globally manipulated and applied to affect all end users. Each catalog may contain information regarding one or more suppliers, and a master product database is primarily tasked with populating each hosted supplier products catalog. This master product database is a relatively large database with a plurality of attributes related to one or more specific products)].
As per claim 19, Ballaro discloses wherein each category includes sub-categories that define one or more of: (i) a target status, being a benchmark status or value for the object; (ii) an active status, being a current status or value of the object; and (iii) a score, being a comparison of the active status with the target status [as illsuatted in FIG. 9A (e.g., commodity codes may be modified as categories, sub-categories, and on down to the product level), as shown below].
PNG
media_image8.png
345
736
media_image8.png
Greyscale
As per claim 20, Ballaro discloses wherein each object has a single identifier and can be linked in one or more relationships with any other object via the object framework or object module [see at least paragraph bridging columns 15 and 16 (e.g., various types of information may include a "stock keeping unit" (SKU) identifier, supplier information, and product category/description/attribute information)].
As per claim 21, Ballaro discloses wherein object data is presented to the user in different modes, including a “new” mode configured for creating a new instance of the object (e.g., a new job, a new invoice, a new member, etc.) and a “change” mode for editing data associated with an object (e.g., a change in job cost or job completion date, etc.) [Read as: using different customizable icons or a different catalog process].
As per claim 22, Ballaro discloses wherein the object framework or object module is adapted to enable objects to be linked in object collections or in object hierarchies, wherein a collection is owned at a group level, and wherein objects can be added or removed from a collection by a member, wherein collections can be used to manage objects at scale, and/or wherein a hierarchy can be created between objects by setting a parent of an individual object [Read as: organized hierarchically to ensure purchase order delivery, and via prioritize receipt feature 1687 based on user hierarchy].
As per claim 23, Ballaro discloses wherein the object framework or object module is adapted to enable relationships to be created between objects of different types and made available to authorized members in the network, wherein a selection tool is adapted to enable a member to search and select objects to be linked to another object, wherein selection creates an object-linking relationship, wherein a control table determines object types can be linked; and/or wherein a member may optionally “share” an object with members outside of an object ownership group to provide those outside members access to the object [as illustrated in FIG. 52 (e.g., field selection menu), as shown below].
PNG
media_image9.png
459
634
media_image9.png
Greyscale
As per claim 24, Ballaro discloses wherein the workflow execution framework or workflow execution module is configured to provide a workflow process to members automatically, in the form of one or more checklist, to give members relevant decision-making factors, wherein the system is configured to record member responses to the workflow process to create a log of member decision-making [see at least FIG. 7 that illustrates an exemplary workflow setup tool 700 to define the workflow process of a requisition, purchase order, and fulfillment. As shown in FIG. 7, the workflow setup tool 700 in accordance with the present invention creates a shared workflow space 710 and allows for the assignment of users (e.g., individual users, or users of various user roles) to be included in the workflow process].
PNG
media_image10.png
527
714
media_image10.png
Greyscale
As per claim 25, Ballaro discloses a member role and permission framework or member role and permission module to control or regulate functional access, data visibility, and/or notification of data and events in the system, wherein the member role and permission framework or module is adapted to assign or designate roles and permissions to members at an activity level, whereby members having a designated role are granted access to data and functions in the system according to their role [see at least FIGS. 5G-5M illustrate exemplary user permission tools, and example FIG. 5G is presented below].
PNG
media_image11.png
524
706
media_image11.png
Greyscale
10. Claims 1-6, which are parallel to claims 11-25 in terms of scope, limitations, and share similar characteristics, as discussed and examined above. Consequently, they are rejected based on the same logical and underlying reasoning, and justification that apply to claims 11-25. The similarity between these claims necessitates the same grounds for rejection, as explained in detail above [note the discussion of claims 11-25].
11. Claims 7-10, which are parallel to claims 11-25 in terms of scope, limitations, and share similar characteristics, as discussed and examined above. Consequently, they are rejected based on the same logical and underlying reasoning, and justification that apply to claims 11-25. The similarity between these claims necessitates the same grounds for rejection, as explained in detail above [note the discussion of claims 11-25].
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The PTO-1449 forms have been reviewed and considered.
US 2024/0320193, Aziz: discloses systems and methods for cloud-based file sharing, where templates are provided for creating workflow instances which enable the sharing of managed objects.
US 2022/0391812, LEGER: discloses system and method are provided for executing parallel electronic workflows.
US 2019/0318400, Luk: discloses machine to identify electronic transactions involving a multi-directional electronic transaction arrangement on an electronic transaction system, such as an e-commerce website or platform that facilitates an online marketplace.
US 9,454,787, Dorr: discloses system for managing the utilization of personal proprietary information.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Garcia Ade whose telephone number is (571)272-5586. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at 517-272-6790. 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.
/Garcia Ade/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
GARCIA ADE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/GA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627