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 .
Claims 1-10 have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: Based on syntax, in the ninth line of claim 5, “and” should be “wherein”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Based on syntax, at the end of the eighth line of claim 6, “and” should be “wherein”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7, which is stated to depend from claim 1, recites “the seller with lower sales ranking” in the third line, and again in the sixth line, and in the eighth and ninth lines, posing an antecedent basis problem, since neither claim 1 nor the first two lines of claim 7 recite such a seller. Claim 7 should be either rewritten to remove “the seller with lower sales ranking”, or else amended to depend from one of claim 4, claim 5, or claim 6, which do provide antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The following 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis is performed in accordance with section 2106 of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (concerning Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. See MPEP 2106.03 (II). In the instant case, claims 1-8 are directed to a method, in the statutory category of process. Claim 9 is directed to a computing device comprising one or more processors and a memory, and therefore in the statutory category of machine. Therefore, claims 1-9 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test. (Step 1, for claims 1-9: YES)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 10 recites, “A computer program stored in a non-transitory medium including one or more instructions”. A non-transitory medium storing computer-executable instructions for causing a computing device to perform operations is statutory (as an article of manufacture), but the computer program as such is an abstractions, not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, and therefore not statutory. Claim 10 is not directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test. Claim 10 will be further analyzed as if it recited something unambiguously within one of the four statutory categories. (Step 1, for claim 10: NO)
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04. The claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One) as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong Two). See MPEP 2106.04.
Representative claim 1 recites:
A method for providing information based on e-commerce performed on a computing device including one or more processors and a memory that stores one or more programs executed by the one or more processors, the method comprising:
collecting product sales information of each seller registered on a platform; collecting purchase activity information of a purchaser who accesses an online shopping mall of each seller;
generating a product sales-related report for each supplier supplying a product to the platform based on the product sales information and the purchase activity information;
providing the product sales-related report to a corresponding supplier terminal; and
providing additional information for improving a profit rate to one or more of the supplier and the seller based on the product sales-related report.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, claim 1 is therefore directed to an abstract idea in the field of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). The same applies to parallel independent claims 9 and 10, and to claims 2 through 9, which depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES)
Proceeding to Step 2A, Prong Two, the method of claim 1 is recited at a high level of generality, with collecting information, generating a report, providing the report, and providing additional information for improving a profit rate being largely abstractions which are not specific or detailed. Claim 1 does not, for example, specify what information is in the report, or how the method performed on an essentially generic computing device determines how to improve a profit rate. What is recited could be largely a matter of human judgement. Under Prong Two analysis, adding the words “apply it” or an equivalent, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer, are not indictive of integration into a practical application. This also applies to parallel independent claims 9 and 10, and to claims 2 through 9, which depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO)
Next, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claims are analyzed to determine whether there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. Step 2B analysis is largely parallel to Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, leading to the preliminary presumption that the instant claims are not directed to significantly more than the abstract idea, but there is an additional consideration: whether the claims add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090,1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Hence, the step of providing the product to a corresponding supplier terminal need involve only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology.
Further, Avidan (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0193592) discloses (paragraph 25, emphasis added), “Although not illustrated, it should be appreciated that the commerce server 110, the merchant computer 120, and the customer computer 130 each include conventional components, such as a processor and a memory medium storing computer-readable instructions that are executable by the processor to perform various operations including those described herein. The computer-readable instructions can be stored on non-transitory storage media of a conventional type, whether devices and/or materials.” Hence, the “one or more processors and a memory that stores one or more programs executed by the one or more processors” recited in claim 1 need involve only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. Hence, likewise, the “one or more processors; a memory; and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors” recited in claim 9 need involve only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. Hence, likewise, the “computer program stored in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, the computer program including one or more instructions that, when executed by a computing device including one or more processors, cause the computing device to perform: [listed operations]” recited in claim 10 need involve only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology.
Claim 2, which depends from claim 1, further specifies what the product sales information includes, but is not significantly technological. Claim 3, which depends from claim 2, further specifies what the product sales-related report includes, but is not significantly technological. Claim 4, which depends from claim 3, is not significantly technological. Claim 5, which depends from claim 4, specifies what recommending of the content creator includes, but is not significantly technological. Claim 6, which depends from claim 5, specifies operations and conditions that are not significantly technological.
Claim 7, which depends from claim 1, specifies further operations which are not significantly technological. Claim 8, which depends from claim 7, specifies assigning, which is not significantly technological, and conditions of a penalty, which are not significantly technological. Therefore, nothing in claims 1-10 raises the recited claims to significantly more than abstract idea. (Step 2B: NO)
Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and claims 5, 6, 7, and 8 are objected to for informalities, but claims 1-8 recite non-obvious subject matter.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, but recites non-obvious subject matter.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, but recites non-obvious subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of non-obvious subject matter: Mandala et al. (U.S. Patent 11,954,090) discloses collecting purchase activity information of a user who accesses an e-commerce website (column 5, lines 41-48, emphasis added), “The stored data in the dataset 106 can also comprise collected information pertaining to a user’s usage of the e-commerce website. This collected information includes users’ mouse movements, mouse hovers, mouse clicks, and other similar events, associated with one or more items offered for sale through the e-commerce website and/or other features associated with the e-commerce website.”
Wittsche (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0108113) teaches collecting product sales information of a seller (paragraph 92, emphasis added), “Merchant information system 1044 allows the user or customer to obtain information on a merchant, such as the number of sales made, the size of sales, the items for sale, the items that have been sold, email address, or to otherwise obtain merchant information. See also the last sentence of paragraph 95. Wittsche does not disclose collecting product sales information of each seller registered on a platform, although a gift registry and “registrant customer” are taught in paragraph 55. Ren et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0351266) teaches a merchant registering on a platform (paragraph 37, emphasis added), “The customization platform for service quality evaluation of the present application provides merchants with open registration services, allowing the merchants to become platform users, create their own voice evaluation products in their own enterprise space, and allow users to customize their own quality evaluation products conveniently, quickly and at low cost through visualized configuration interface settings of the voice transcription configuration module and the semantic analysis configuration module.” Ren further teaches (paragraph 83, emphasis added), “FIG. 4 is a schematic diagram of the merchant products customization process in the present application. Exemplarily, after the merchant registers and logs in on the open platform, the merchant product customization process can be entered:”
Mandala, Wittsche, and Ren do not disclose generating a product sales-related report for each supplier supplying a product to the platform based on the product sales information and the purchase activity information; providing the product sales-related report to a corresponding supplier terminal; and providing additional information for improving a profit rate to one or more of the supplier and the seller based on the product sales-related report. Linden et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/01629132) teaches providing a report to a merchant, based on a user’s shopping habits and other activities (paragraph 57, emphasis added), “Over time, as the profile manager 202 obtains information associated with a user and the user’s shopping habits and other activities, the user profiles grow to include a wealth of user activity information that is helpful in identifying the user’s product interests/preferences.” Linden further teaches (paragraph 79, emphasis added), “For example, the merchant insights may be a report of information and/or recommendations identified as likely being helpful for the merchant.” See also paragraph 78.
Hamilton (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/01629132) teaches a data analysis application which may increase a merchant site’s profit potential (paragraph 32, emphasis added), “As a result, data analysis application 134 of remote server 108 may enhance the experience of consumer 110, while providing merchant site 104 with opportunities for upselling and merchandising or accessorizing to increase their profit potential with consumer 110.” See also paragraphs 47 and 52. However, the known general existence of various elements of the claimed method and corresponding computing device and computer program is insufficient to disclose, teach, or reasonably suggest assembling the teachings of Mandala, Wittsche, Ren, Linden, and Hamilton into the specific claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Murugan (U.S. Patent 8,352,336) discloses a system and method for allocating manufactured products to sellers using profitable order promising. Greystoke et al. (U.S. Patent 10,185,917) disclose computer-aided decision systems. Linden et al. (U.S. Patent 10,242,374) disclose providing insights to a merchant. Mandala et al. (U.S. Patent 11,954,090) disclose processing and validation of data. Na et al. (U.S. Patent 12,056,747), the parent case, has been considered for possible double patenting (rejections not made).
Wittsche (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0108113) discloses stores in an on-line mall with a common façade. Malone et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0262960) disclose an automated electronic commerce data extracting and analyzing system. Murugan (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0275795) discloses a system and method for allocating manufactured products to sellers using profitable order promising. Lee (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0306037) discloses a method for providing a shopping mall and server system therefor. Doyle et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0066753) discloses methods, apparatuses, and systems relating to inventory sharing networks. Harrington (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0278849) discloses methods and systems for Internet-based multi-level marketing. Greystoke et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0012467) disclose computer-aided decision systems. Shivaswamy et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0046281) disclose product suggestions for related articles. Linden et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0162913) disclose providing insights to a merchant. Al-Sallami et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0183553) disclose customized web page development based on point-of-sale information. Crutchfield, Jr. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0233157) discloses techniques for providing retail customers a seamless, individualized discovery and shopping experience between online and physical retail locations. Wilson (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0148021) discloses a data analytic method and system. Ren et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0351266) discloses a customization platform and method for a service quality evaluation product.
Chang et al., “Applying Web Crawlers to Develop a Sale Management System for Online Malls,” discloses collecting sales data from different online malls, and analyzing such sales data for use in promoting and pricing products. Durkin et al., “Protecting Your Product and Brand Through Minimum Advertised Price Policies,” discloses that a growing number of brands are adopting and enforcing Minimum Advertised Price (MAP) policies. Herrold et al., “Class Actions Now Flowing From FTC and DOJ’s No-Poach Enforcement,” discloses the Leegin case, in which a leather store sued its supplier for imposing uniform minimum resale price restrictions on its retailers. The anonymous article, “EU Fines Pioneer, Other Electronics Makers for Fixing Prices,” discloses the electronics makes taking punitive measures against retailers which they found offering lower prices than the makers wanted.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS D ROSEN, whose telephone number is (571)272-6762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM-5:30 PM, M-F. Non-official/draft communications may be faxed to the examiner at 571-273-6762, or emailed to Nicholas.Rosen@uspto.gov (in the body of an email, please, not as an attachment).
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, Marissa Thein, can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/NICHOLAS D ROSEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 May 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights