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
This action is in reply to the communications filed on August 27, 2024.
The preliminary amendment filed August 27, 2024, has been received and entered.
Claims 1-10,12-13, and 16-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed August 28, 2024, March 7, 2025, and September 25, 2025, have been considered by the Examiner.
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 6 and 20 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 6 recites “if the data processing request is the data read request, and the real-time identification carried in the data read request is a second identification.” As discussed further below, claim 6 fails to include all the limitations from claim 5, namely that the real-time identification is a first identification. It is therefore unclear which identification the data read request includes. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is assigning little patentable weight to this portion of claim 6.
Claim 20 is rejected for similar reasons.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In the instant case, claims 6 and 20 fail to include all the limitations of the claims from which they depend. For example, claim 6 depends from claim 5. Claim 5 recites “if the data processing request is a data write request or a data read request with a real-time identification carried as a first identification.” However, claim 6, which depends from claim 5, recites “if the data processing request is the data read request, and the real-time identification carried in the data read request is a second identification.” This fails to include the limitation from claim 5 which states that the data read request has a real-time identification carried as a first identification. Thus, claim 6 fails to include all the limitations of claim 5.
Claim 20 is rejected for similar reasons.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-10,12-13, and 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1 and 12-13 recite a method, a device, and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium for processing a request. With respect to claim 1, claim elements determining a target region and selecting a master data center corresponding to the target region, as drafted, illustrate steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a mental process. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind.
Claims 12-13 recite similar limitations.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1 and 12-13 recite receiving and sending (transmitting) steps. These limitations are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, claim 12 recites a processor and a memory. These elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions. 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.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claims 1 and 12-13 recite receiving and sending (transmitting) steps. Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), elements such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, using the Internet to gather data, and storing and retrieving information in memory are considered to be computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPG2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); 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)).
Further, as discussed above, claim 12 recites a processor and a memory. These elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, claims 1 and 12-13 are directed to the abstract idea.
Claims 2-10 and 16-23 depend from claims 1 and 12. Claims 2 and 16 are directed to sending the data processing request to different servers which, as discussed above, is a function that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Claims 3-4 and 17-18 are directed to the type of gateway and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 5 and 19 are directed to the type of request and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 5 and 19 are further directed to sending the data processing request which, as discussed above, is a function that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Claims 6 and 20 are directed to the type of request and processing the request and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 7 and 21 are directed to modifying information and ceasing processing of the data processing request and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 8 and 22 are directed to extracting the target region from the request and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 9 and 23 are directed to parsing the domain name information to obtain the target region and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 10 is directed to determining the target region based on registration information and is further directed to the abstract idea.
Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 12-13, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2002/0082954 A1 to Dunston (hereinafter “Dunston”).
Claims 1 and 12-13: Dunston discloses a “system and method for the sale and direct channel distribution of products and services over a global computer network such as the Internet.” (See Dunston, at least Abstract). Dunston further discloses that client/user computers are networked with one or more webservers; (See Dunston, at least para. [0037]). Dunston further discloses that each webserver communicates with servers at one or more warehouses. (See Dunston, at least para. [0040]). Dunston further discloses at least one processor and a memory (See Dunston, at least para. [0037], web server is a computing device). Dunston further discloses:
receiving a data processing request for processing an order (See Dunston, at least para. [0047], customer logs into a web site of the client/business by logging into a web server 200 and requests a product);
determining a target region corresponding to a purchaser of the order (See Dunston, at least para. [0048], web site accessed by the customer is associated with the base hub for the business entity; base hub is located in a geographical region in which the headquarters of the business entity is located; if the business entity is based in France, the base hub is located in France);
selecting, from predetermined configuration information, a master data center corresponding to the target region as a first data center for processing the data processing request, the predetermined configuration information comprising a respective master data center corresponding to at least one region (See Dunston, at least para. [0042], web server 200 includes a master client database for one or more clients/business entities; para. [0049], master client database is searched to determine whether the requested products are available in the local inventory of the warehouse associated with the particular hub, i.e., the base hub; para. [0048], web site accessed by the customer is associated with the base hub for the business entity; base hub is located in a geographical region in which the headquarters of the business entity is located; if the business entity is based in France, the base hub is located in France); and
sending the data processing request to the first data center for processing (See Dunston, at least para. [0049], if the requested products are available in the local inventory, the order is accepted by the particular hub, i.e., the base hub; para. [0053], order is routed to the server associated with the warehouse that had been selected for fulfilling the order).
Claims 12-13 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 2 and 16: Dunston further discloses wherein sending the data processing request to the first data center for processing comprises:
if the first data center is a data center corresponding to the first gateway, sending the data processing request to a first server for processing, the first server being a server of the first data center (See Dunston, at least para. [0039], web server may be a wireless gateway; para. [0042], web server 200 includes a master client database for one or more clients/business entities; para. [0049], master client database is searched to determine whether the requested products are available in the local inventory of the warehouse associated with the particular hub, i.e., the base hub; para. [0048], web site accessed by the customer is associated with the base hub for the business entity; base hub is located in a geographical region in which the headquarters of the business entity is located; if the business entity is based in France, the base hub is located in France; para. [0049], if the requested products are available in the local inventory, the order is accepted by the particular hub, i.e., the base hub; para. [0053], order is routed to the server associated with the warehouse that had been selected for fulfilling the order); or
if the first data center is not a data center corresponding to the first gateway, sending the data processing request to a second server for processing via a second gateway, the second gateway being a server of the first data center, and the second server being a server of the first data center (See Dunston, at least para. [0050, product is not currently available in the local inventory; para. [0051], next closest distribution center having an associated warehouse that has the requested product is determined by accessing the inventory records of the next closest distribution center; web server 200 communicates with the each distribution center until the product is found at a warehouse associated with a selected distribution center; para. [0053], order is routed to the server associated with the warehouse that had been selected for fulfilling the order)..
Claim 16 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 5 and 19: Dunston further discloses wherein sending the data processing request to the first data center for processing comprises:
if the data processing request is a data write request or is a data read request with a real-time identification carried as a first identification, sending the data processing request to the first data center for processing, the data write request being configured to perform at least one of the following processing on the order: adding data, deleting data, or modifying data (See Dunston, at least para. [0053], order is routed to the server associated with the warehouse that had been selected for fulfilling the order; para. [0054], upon receipt of an order, associated database is updated; para. [0052], once order is taken, inventory of the selected warehouse is subtracted, i.e., data is added by adding the order and/or deleted by deleting the inventory or modified by modifying the inventory).
Claim 19 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 6 and 20: Dunston further discloses wherein the method further comprises:
if the data processing request is the data read request, and the real-time identification carried in the data read request is a second identification, processing the data read request via a second data center that is a data center other than the first data center (See Dunston, at least para. [0047], customer logs into a web site of the client/business by logging into a web server 200 and requests a product; para. [0050], if the product is not currently available, status of the product is determined and the status information is displayed to the user).
Claim 20 is rejected for similar reasons.
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.
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 nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-4, 8, 17, 18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunston as applied to claims 1-2, 12, and 16 above, and further in view of US 2017/0011449 A1 to Mueller et al. (hereinafter “Mueller”).
Claims 3 and 17: Dunston discloses all the limitations of claims 2 and 16 discussed above.
Dunston further discloses if the first data center is a data center corresponding to the first gateway (See Dunston, at least para. [0039], web server may be a wireless gateway; para. [0042], web server 200 includes a master client database for one or more clients/business entities); or if the first data center is not a data center corresponding to the first gateway, and the second data center is a data center other than the first data center (See Dunston, at least para. [0050, product is not currently available in the local inventory; para. [0051], next closest distribution center having an associated warehouse that has the requested product is determined by accessing the inventory records of the next closest distribution center; web server 200 communicates with the each distribution center until the product is found at a warehouse associated with a selected distribution center; para. [0053], order is routed to the server associated with the warehouse that had been selected for fulfilling the order).
However, Dunston does not expressly disclose the first gateway is a service loaded on a server of the first data center; or the first gateway is a service loaded on a server of a second data center, the second gateway is a service loaded on a server of the first data center.
However, Mueller discloses a “method and a system for facilitating online shopping and customers' interaction with retail associates.” (See Mueller, at least Abstract). Mueller further discloses “A customer initiates a transaction request message, intending to buy a product, specifying the product's attributes and a preferred delivery option for the product. In an aspect, the RFS utilizes the transaction request message, a set of routing rules, and stored data, to select a specific retail store or distribution center to source the product from; and further selects an available retail associate located therein to serve the transaction.” (See Mueller, at least Abstract). Mueller further discloses:
the first gateway is a service loaded on a server of the first data center (See Mueller, at least para. [0146], Routing and Fulfilment server includes microservices such as API gateways that communicate with to other devices); or
the first gateway is a service loaded on a server of a second data center, the second gateway is a service loaded on a server of the first data center (See Mueller, at least para. [0146], Routing and Fulfilment server includes microservices such as API gateways that communicate with to other devices),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the global distribution system and method of Dunston the ability that the first gateway is a service loaded on a server of the first data center; or the first gateway is a service loaded on a server of a second data center, the second gateway is a service loaded on a server of the first data center as disclosed by Mueller since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “improve customers' overall experience during the process of online shopping through mobile applications.” (See Mueller, at least para. [0009]).
Claim 17 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 4 and 18: Dunston discloses all the limitations of claims 2 and 16 discussed above.
Dunston further discloses if the first data center is the data center corresponding to the first gateway (See Dunston, at least para. [0039], web server may be a wireless gateway; para. [0042], web server 200 includes a master client database for one or more clients/business entities); or if the first data center is not the data center corresponding to the first gateway…and the second data center is a data center other than the first data center (See Dunston, at least para. [0050, product is not currently available in the local inventory; para. [0051], next closest distribution center having an associated warehouse that has the requested product is determined by accessing the inventory records of the next closest distribution center; web server 200 communicates with the each distribution center until the product is found at a warehouse associated with a selected distribution center; para. [0053], order is routed to the server associated with the warehouse that had been selected for fulfilling the order).
However, Dunston does not expressly disclose the first gateway is an application programming interface (API) in an API layer of the first data center; the first gateway is an application programming interface (API) in an API layer of a second data center; the second gateway is an API in an API layer of the first data center.
However, Mueller discloses the first gateway is an application programming interface (API) in an API layer of the first data center; the first gateway is an application programming interface (API) in an API layer of a second data center; the second gateway is an API in an API layer of the first data center (See Mueller, at least para. [0146], Routing and Fulfilment server includes microservices such as API gateways that communicate with to other devices).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the global distribution system and method of Dunston the ability that the first gateway is an application programming interface (API) in an API layer of the first data center; the first gateway is an application programming interface (API) in an API layer of a second data center; the second gateway is an API in an API layer of the first data center as disclosed by Mueller since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “improve customers' overall experience during the process of online shopping through mobile applications.” (See Mueller, at least para. [0009]).
Claim 18 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 8 and 22: Dunston discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 12 discussed above.
Dunston does not expressly disclose wherein the data processing request comprises the target region, and determining the target region corresponding to the purchaser of the order comprises: extracting the target region from a target field of the data processing request.
However, Mueller discloses wherein the data processing request comprises the target region (See Mueller, at least para. [0075], customer sends a transaction request message to buy a specific product, to the Routing and Fulfillment Server; para. [0076], customer indicates selected delivery option such as pick up from store or deliver to current location of the customer or ship to customer’s address; para. [0077], customer fills out Shipment Field with the address where customer wants the product shipped or the location of the customer where customer wants the product delivered), and determining the target region corresponding to the purchaser of the order comprises: extracting the target region from a target field of the data processing request (See Mueller, at least para. [0075], customer sends a transaction request message to buy a specific product, to the Routing and Fulfillment Server; para. [0076], customer indicates selected delivery option such as pick up from store or deliver to current location of the customer or ship to customer’s address; para. [0077], customer fills out Shipment Field with the address where customer wants the product shipped or the location of the customer where customer wants the product delivered).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the global distribution system and method of Dunston the ability wherein the data processing request comprises the target region, and determining the target region corresponding to the purchaser of the order comprises: extracting the target region from a target field of the data processing request as disclosed by Mueller since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “improve customers' overall experience during the process of online shopping through mobile applications.” (See Mueller, at least para. [0009]).
Claim 22 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunston as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of US 2002/0032787 A1 to Overton et al. (hereinafter “Overton”).
Dunston discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 12 discussed above.
Dunston does not expressly disclose modifying the predetermined configuration information; and during the modifying of the predetermined configuration information, ceasing processing of a data processing request for a region corresponding to a master data center that is being modified in the predetermined configuration information.
However, Overton discloses a “system and method for storing and retrieving location information across a network.” (See Overton, at least Abstract). Overton further discloses a location server that provides “responses to location queries and capable of scaling a plurality of location servers according to system performance and logistical requirements.” (See Overton, at least Abstract). Overton further discloses:
modifying the predetermined configuration information (See Overton, at least para. [0144], distribution of data among servers needs to be reconfigured); and
during the modifying of the predetermined configuration information, ceasing processing of a data processing request for a region corresponding to a master data center that is being modified in the predetermined configuration information (See Overton, at least para. [0144]-[0145], only one set of data needs to be split with another server; this dataset is identified as Set B in the original server; Server 1 checkpoints Set B and then copies Set B to Server 2; all operations directed to Set B after the checkpoint are dubbed Set C; Server 1 then freezes all operations on Set C and then copies Set C to Server 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the global distribution system and method of Dunston the ability of modifying the predetermined configuration information; and during the modifying of the predetermined configuration information, ceasing processing of a data processing request for a region corresponding to a master data center that is being modified in the predetermined configuration information as disclosed by Overton since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “to handle variable demand for resources.” (See Overton, at least para. [0007]).
Claim 21 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 9-10 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunston as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of US 2003/0065571 A1 to Dutta et al. (hereinafter “Dutta”).
Claims 9 and 23: Dunston discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 12 discussed above.
Dunston does not expressly disclose wherein the data processing request comprises domain name information of a device that submits the data processing request, and determining the target region corresponding to the purchaser of the order comprises: parsing the domain name information to obtain the target region corresponding to the purchaser of the order.
However, Dutta discloses “identifying the jurisdiction of a client that is accessing an e-commerce retailer's Web site in order to know which proper jurisdictional laws to apply to the commercial transaction over the network. Upon receiving a connection request from a client/buyer, the server/retailer determines the IP address of the client from the connection request. The e-commerce server utilizes the IP address of the client as a key into an IP address to physical location/jurisdiction database to determine the physical location and jurisdiction which encompasses the location of the physical network address of the client.” (See Dutta, at least Abstract). Dutta further discloses wherein the data processing request comprises domain name information of a device that submits the data processing request (See Dutta, at least FIGs. 2-3 and associated text; para. [0054], database server receives a client IP address; database extracts the physical location field to determine the jurisdiction), and determining the target region corresponding to the purchaser of the order comprises: parsing the domain name information to obtain the target region corresponding to the purchaser of the order (See Dutta, at least FIGs. 2-3 and associated text; para. [0054], database server receives a client IP address; database extracts the physical location field to determine the jurisdiction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the global distribution system and method of Dunston the ability of wherein the data processing request comprises domain name information of a device that submits the data processing request, and determining the target region corresponding to the purchaser of the order comprises: parsing the domain name information to obtain the target region corresponding to the purchaser of the order as disclosed by Dutta since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to let the “e-commerce server…[apply] the laws of the corresponding jurisdiction to further negotiate and/or close the sale transaction.” (See Dutta, at least Abstract).
Claim 23 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 10: Dunston discloses all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
Dunston does not expressly disclose wherein the data processing request comprises identity information of the purchaser, and determining the target region corresponding to the purchaser of the order comprises: obtaining a region corresponding to the identity information from registration information as the target region corresponding to the purchaser of the order, the registration information comprising a home region where identity information of at least one purchaser is registered.
However, Dutta discloses wherein the data processing request comprises identity information of the purchaser (See Dutta, at least FIGs. 2-3 and associated text; para. [0015], “IP addresses are allocated uniquely and are registered on a geographical basis according to allocation guidelines. Therefore, it is possible to locate, within a reasonable degree of accuracy, the jurisdiction of a buyer by the IP address of the client machine being used by the buyer in the e-commerce transaction”; para. [0054], “When the database server encounters a client IP address 401, the IP address may already be present in the database, or it may be absent from the database, 402. If the IP address is present, the physical location field 303 (FIG. 3) can easily be extracted by a database search on the IP address 301 (FIG. 3). This physical location is the jurisdiction 403. If the IP address is not in the database, the domain name is determined as explained earlier (nslookup or reverse lookup of domain name from IP address) 404. It is then determined if the domain name has a country name suffix, 405. If it does, the jurisdiction is the country name, 406. If the domain name does not have a country name suffix, the physical location is determined on the fly by finding the registrant information by consulting the Internet IP registrars over the Internet for the IP address 407. The physical location, i.e., jurisdiction, is determined from the IP address, and the entry is added to the database, 408”), and determining the target region corresponding to the purchaser of the order comprises: obtaining a region corresponding to the identity information from registration information as the target region corresponding to the purchaser of the order (See Dutta, at least FIGs. 2-3 and associated text; para. [0015], “IP addresses are allocated uniquely and are registered on a geographical basis according to allocation guidelines. Therefore, it is possible to locate, within a reasonable degree of accuracy, the jurisdiction of a buyer by the IP address of the client machine being used by the buyer in the e-commerce transaction”; para. [0054], “When the database server encounters a client IP address 401, the IP address may already be present in the database, or it may be absent from the database, 402. If the IP address is present, the physical location field 303 (FIG. 3) can easily be extracted by a database search on the IP address 301 (FIG. 3). This physical location is the jurisdiction 403. If the IP address is not in the database, the domain name is determined as explained earlier (nslookup or reverse lookup of domain name from IP address) 404. It is then determined if the domain name has a country name suffix, 405. If it does, the jurisdiction is the country name, 406. If the domain name does not have a country name suffix, the physical location is determined on the fly by finding the registrant information by consulting the Internet IP registrars over the Internet for the IP address 407. The physical location, i.e., jurisdiction, is determined from the IP address, and the entry is added to the database, 408”), the registration information comprising a home region where identity information of at least one purchaser is registered (See Dutta, at least FIGs. 2-3 and associated text; para. [0015], “IP addresses are allocated uniquely and are registered on a geographical basis according to allocation guidelines. Therefore, it is possible to locate, within a reasonable degree of accuracy, the jurisdiction of a buyer by the IP address of the client machine being used by the buyer in the e-commerce transaction”; para. [0054], “When the database server encounters a client IP address 401, the IP address may already be present in the database, or it may be absent from the database, 402. If the IP address is present, the physical location field 303 (FIG. 3) can easily be extracted by a database search on the IP address 301 (FIG. 3). This physical location is the jurisdiction 403. If the IP address is not in the database, the domain name is determined as explained earlier (nslookup or reverse lookup of domain name from IP address) 404. It is then determined if the domain name has a country name suffix, 405. If it does, the jurisdiction is the country name, 406. If the domain name does not have a country name suffix, the physical location is determined on the fly by finding the registrant information by consulting the Internet IP registrars over the Internet for the IP address 407. The physical location, i.e., jurisdiction, is determined from the IP address, and the entry is added to the database, 408”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the global distribution system and method of Dunston the ability wherein the data processing request comprises identity information of the purchaser, and determining the target region corresponding to the purchaser of the order comprises: obtaining a region corresponding to the identity information from registration information as the target region corresponding to the purchaser of the order, the registration information comprising a home region where identity information of at least one purchaser is registered as disclosed by Dutta since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to let the “e-commerce server…[apply] the laws of the corresponding jurisdiction to further negotiate and/or close the sale transaction.” (See Dutta, at least Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE MARIE GEORGALAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1258 E.S.T.. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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 on 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.
/Anne M Georgalas/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689