DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 11/01/2024.
Claims 12 and 15 are cancelled.
Claims 1-11, 13-14, and 16-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received 01/24/2025 has been reviewed and considered.
Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-11, 13-14, and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility (SME) analysis described in MPEP 2106.03, the instant claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention identified by 35 U.S.C. 101. In the instant case, claims 1-11 are directed to a method, claims 13 and 16-22 are directed to a system, and claim 14 is directed to a manufacture. Claims 1, 13, and 14 are parallel in nature, therefore, the analysis will use claim 1 as the representative claim.
In Step 2A Prong One, it must be considered whether the claims recite a judicial exception. Claim 1, as exemplary, recites abstract concepts including: displaying an object collection page; and if a login account corresponding to the object collection page is present with a target order which satisfies a first preset condition, displaying order information of the target order in the object collection page.
These identified limitations recite the abstract idea of “displaying order information”, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, claims 1, 13, and 14 recite an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04.
In Step 2A Prong Two, 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.
Instant claims 1, 13, and 14 recite additional elements including: an electronic device comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory is configured to store instructions or a computer program; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer-readable storage medium has instructions stored thereon. The electronic device and non-transitory computer-readable medium are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than “apply it” or mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, even in combination, 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. See MPEP 2106.05. Claims 1, 13, and 14 are thus directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the SME analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) individually and in combination are merely being used to apply the abstract idea to a general computer components. For the same reason, the elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea with a generic computer does not add significantly more in Step 2B. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in ordered combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus claims 1, 13, and 14 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 3-11 and 17-22 do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claims. These claims merely further define the abstract idea without reciting any further additional elements. Thus dependent claims 3-11 and 17-22 are also ineligible.
Dependent claims 2 and 16 recite additional elements including: displaying a pop-up window. Similar to the additional elements identified above, the pop-up window and “displaying” described in ordinary terms and merely used as a tool in performance of the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 2 and 16, considered both individually and as a combination, is/are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-11, 13-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bezos et al. (US 6,917,922 B1).
Claim 1 – Bezos discloses an information display method, comprising:
displaying an object collection page (FIGS. 1 and 2; Col 6, ll.50-55 “each product detail page 110 typically includes ... lists of related products”; Col 7, ll. 45-50); and
if a login account corresponding to the object collection page is present with a target order which satisfies a first preset condition, displaying order information of the target order in the object collection page (Col 7, ll. 10-20 “The product detail page 110 also includes an example set of inline account information 112 for "Angela," a customer of the merchant web site. From the inline account information 112, Angela can see that she ordered the item in August 2001, and the item's estimated delivery date is between Sep. 3, 2001 and Sep. 5, 2001”).
Claim 2 – Bezos discloses a method according to claim 1. Bezos further discloses wherein the displaying the order information of the target order in the object collection page comprises:
displaying a first area in the object collection page, wherein the first area is used to display the order information of the target order (FIG. 1 #112); or,
displaying a pop-up window in the object collection page, wherein the pop-up window is used to display the order information of the target order.
Claim 3 – Bezos discloses the method according to claim 1. Bezos further discloses wherein the first area is located at a middle position of the object collection page (FIG. 1, Examiner notes section #112 is in the middle of the page, below the header and above the object information).
Claim 4 – Bezos discloses the method according to claim 1. Bezos further discloses, wherein the first preset condition comprises one or more of the following: an order with a difference between current time and order time less than a preset duration, or an order with an order status which is a preset status (Col 12, ll. 50-60 “The type of inline account information included may be based upon the customer and the recent order information (e.g., unrecognized customer, recognized customer with recent order and no shipments, recognized customer with recent order with pending shipments, etc.)”.
Claim 5 – Bezos discloses the method according to claim 1. Bezos further discloses wherein the order information comprises an order status and prompt information corresponding to the order status (Col 7, ll. 50-55 “view shipping details on her book orders ... track shipments of the items”; Col 12, ll. 50-60 “The type of inline account information included may be based upon the customer and the recent order information (e.g., unrecognized customer, recognized customer with recent order and no shipments, recognized customer with recent order with pending shipments, etc.)”).
Claim 6 – Bezos discloses the method according to claim 5. Bezos further discloses wherein,
if the order status is to be paid, the prompt information comprises remaining payment time;
if the order status is balance to be paid, the prompt information comprises balance payment time;
if the order status is to be delivered, the prompt information comprises estimated delivery time; and
if the order status is to be received, the prompt information comprises logistics information (See citations included for claim 5. Examiner notes these conditional limitations are met if the prior art is capable of performing the conditional step).
Claim 10 – Bezos discloses the method according to claim 1. Bezos further discloses wherein the method further comprises:
displaying detail information corresponding to the order information in response to a trigger operation on the order information displayed in the object collection page by the user (see “TRACK SHIPMENT” in FIG.2, #212).
Claim 11 – Bezos discloses the method according to claim 10. Bezos further discloses wherein the displaying detail information corresponding to the order information comprises:
displaying detail information corresponding to the order information through a second area in the object collection page; or,
jumping from the object collection page to an order detail page corresponding to the order information, wherein the order detail page comprises detail information corresponding to the order information (Col 13, ll. 10-20 “It is also recognized that in some embodiments, rather than displaying the inline account information with the product description, a link may be provided to the related account information stating, for example, "Click here to view the status of your order for this product."”).
Claims 13 and 16-20, which are directed to a system, recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for method claims 1-6. Claim(s) 13 and 16-20 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claims 1-6, respectively.
Claim 14, which is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for method claim 1. Claim(s) 14 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
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.
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 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 7-9 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bezos in view of Bender et al. (US 2023/0289868 A1).
Claim 7 – Bezos discloses the method according to claim 1. Bezos further discloses wherein the displaying the order information of the target order in the object collection page comprises:
if there are a plurality of target orders to be displayed, displaying the order information corresponding to the plurality of target orders respectively in the object collection page (Col 7, ll.20-30 “In one embodiment (not illustrated), the detail pages also display information about orders placed by the customer for related products. For instance, in the example of FIG. 1, if Angela had also placed an order for another personal audio player product, the web page would be further supplemented with information about that order”) ... .
Bezos does not disclose displaying by carousel, however Bender – which like Bezos is directed to a user interface for item information – further teaches:
displaying by carousel (Bender ¶ [0026] “ For example, the search results are provided in a format, such as a carousel”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the carousel as taught by Bender in the display of Bezos because in order to give the user a better sense of what items are in the results (Bender ¶ [0026]).
Claim 8 – The combination of Bezos in view of Bender teaches the method according to claim 7. Bezos further discloses, wherein the displaying the order information corresponding to the plurality of target orders respectively in the object collection page ... comprises:
... displaying the order information corresponding to the plurality of target orders respectively in the object collection page (Col 13, ll. 45-55).
Bezos does not describe limitations associated with displaying by carousel, however Bender further teaches:
sorting the plurality of target orders according to a second preset condition so as to obtain a sorting result (Bender ¶ [0082] “The carousel engine 322 uses the identified items and/or groups to rank the groups, e.g., such that groups, and/or groups containing items, that were most often interacted with are ranked highest”); and
displaying ... according to the sorting result (Bender ¶ [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the carousel as taught by Bender in the display of Bezos because in order to give the user a better sense of what items are in the results (Bender ¶ [0026]).
Claim 9 – The combination of Bezos in view of Bender teaches the method according to claim 8. Bezos further teaches wherein the second preset condition comprises one or more of the following: order time starting from the latest relative to current time (Col 12, ll. 50-60 “recent order information”); or an order status of to be paid, balance to be paid, to be delivered and to be received with a sequentially descending display priority.
Claims 21 and 22, which are directed to a system, recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for method claims 7 and 8. Claim(s) 21 and 22 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claims 7 and 8, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lloyd et al. (US 2016/0328775 A1) relates to delivering information about a product, service, etc. to a user and enabling access by the user to an array of follow-on or supplementary information or interactive activities related to the product, service, etc.
Sardar et al. (US 2024/0095785 A1) describes displaying items in carousels.
H. -C. Lee, S. -D. Kim and H. -J. Kim (NPL Reference U) describes a Real-time Service System of On-line Logistics [RSSOL] to enhance customer services using an information technology [IT] as well as a supply chain and e-commerce.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNEDY A GIBSON-WYNN whose telephone number is (571)272-8305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 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 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.
/K.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688