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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments do not overcome the rejection made under §101 for directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the amended claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea but to a specific technological improvement in the field of order data transmission, implemented within a computer-based e-commerce ERP system because it helps to make up for the potential defects of e-commerce platforms through e-commerce ERP. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
This is not a technological improvement but a routine benefit of performing the abstract idea on a computer. “[R]elying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.” OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer [does not] provide a sufficient inventive concept”); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”).
"Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application…" MPEP 2106.04(d) II. (emphasis added). The only additional element beyond the abstract idea is a generic computer (data processing device/data processor, memory/memory device).
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant's amendments overcome the rejection of claims 1-10 made under §101 for failing to fall within any of the statutory categories and it is withdrawn.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (a judicial exception without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1-10, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of monitoring orders to determine inconsistencies. This idea is described by the following steps:
A method comprising:
obtaining a data access authority of a corresponding store, and setting a monitoring rule for order information, wherein the monitoring rule is configured to monitor corresponding order information, monitored order information is configured as monitoring information, and the monitoring information comprises product stock keeping unit (SKU) information, order amount information, an order product quantity, order recipient information;
collecting order information of the corresponding store, storing order information of a corresponding order for a first time, and displaying the order information in the order list; and
determining whether the monitoring information is consistent with the corresponding order information, and performing interception processing an order with inconsistent order information in response to that the monitoring information database is inconsistent with the corresponding order information, and marking an intercepted order as intercepted in the order list.
This idea falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas as it is directed towards commercial interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors (i.e., monitoring orders, checking for inconsistencies).
Step 2A, prong 2: Claim 1 recites additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Claims 1 recites order management modules stored in a non-transitory memory of a server, the server includes a processor. However, these elements are generic computing components (see at least paragraph 016) that are simply used to perform operations that would otherwise be abstract (see MPEP2106.05(f)).
Although the claim recites “synchronizing order information”, this is set forth at a high level of generality and also describes routine use of known components for the same reasons and does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." "Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application…" MPEP 2106.04(d) II. (emphasis added).
Step 2B: Claim 1 fails to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept.
For the reasons identified with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, claim 1 fails to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For example, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea identified at step 2A—Prong One, without changing the analysis already presented. Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims identified at step 2A—Prong Two.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. These do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known components for the same reasons presented with respect to the elements in the independent claims above.
Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, the claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of: obtaining a data access authority of a corresponding store of an e-commerce platform, and setting a monitoring rule for order information, wherein the monitoring rule is configured for the order management module to monitor corresponding order information, monitored order information is configured as monitoring information, and the monitoring information comprises product stock keeping unit (SKU) information, order amount information, an order product quantity, order recipient information; collecting order information of the corresponding store from the e-commerce platform, storing order information of a corresponding order to the e-commerce ERP database for a first time, and displaying the order information in the order list; synchronizing order information at a time interval T1, storing order information of the e-commerce platform to the e-commerce ERP database each time the order information is synchronized, and displaying latest order information in the order list; and determining whether the monitoring information of the e-commerce ERP database is consistent with the corresponding order information of the e-commerce platform, terminating synchronization of this order information when the monitoring information of the e-commerce ERP database is consistent with the corresponding order information of the e-commerce platform, 18570004US and performing interception processing an order with inconsistent order information in response to that the monitoring information of the e-commerce ERP database is inconsistent with the corresponding order information of the e-commerce platform through the order interception unit, and marking an intercepted order as intercepted in the order list..
Regarding claim 10
Claim 10 is parallel in subject matter to the feature noted above with respect to claim 1 and is allowable for reasons similar to those provided for claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILA AIRAPETIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3202. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-6:00 pm.
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, Jeffrey A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-6763. 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.
/MILA AIRAPETIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights