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
Due to communications filed 10/1/24, the following is a non-final first office action. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and are rejected as follows.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In the limitation, “provide the proposed value to the consumer device, the proposed value to be used as a default value for a return field, a selected value of the return field to be used in coordination of return of the product” of claims 1, 11, and 16, there appears to be a typographical error. It appears that the word “where” should be inserted as follows: “provide the proposed value to the consumer device, the proposed value to be used as a default value for a return field, where a selected value of the return field is to be used in coordination of return of the product;”
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C, 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (l.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
With regard to claims 1-10, these claims are directed to a non-transitory machine-readable medium, which is an article of manufacture; claims 11-15 are directed to an apparatus, which is a machine; and claims 16-20 are directed towards a method, which is a process, and all claims are ultimately, is statutory.
In addition, the claim recites a judicial exception. The claims as a whole recite a method of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, and more specifically commercial interactions related to order management and return coordination. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer/computer network does not take the claim out of the methods of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the claims are not integrated into a practical application. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality. For example, the non-transitory machine-readable medium and processor circuit in claim 1, the interface circuitry, machine-readable instructions, and processor circuit in claim 11, and the processor circuit programmed by at least one instruction in claim 16 are all components that are recited at a high level of generality. Everything presented in the claim is functional, result-oriented, and does not improve the operation of the device, network or computer system. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
Finally, the claims do not recite any additional elements that renders the claim as being significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of accessing, analyzing, updating and communicating information related to shipment records in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
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.
Claim(s) ) 1-2, 8-10, 11, 12, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Flores et al (US 20190244214 A1).
A per claim 1, Flores et al discloses:
aggregate order information from at least one retailer, ([0107] The process begins by receiving self-returns application login from user device at 1002. The customized returns manager component obtains item return data at 1004. The customized returns manager component aggregates user data, item data, and item return data at 1006; [0135] FIG. 16 is an exemplary block diagram illustrating a screenshot 1600 of a user device displaying a previous purchase history 1602 for the user);
provide the aggregated order information to a consumer device, the aggregated order information representing one or more products that are available for return, ([0135] In this example, the portion of the purchase history 1602 displayed on the screen 1604 includes a record 1606 for a set of items purchased on May 5, 2017 and another record 1608 for a set of one or more items purchased on Apr. 15, 2017. The examples are not limited to two item orders in transaction history data. The previous purchase history 1602 is part of the transaction history data for the user associated with the user device.);
in response to selection of a product to be returned, identify a proposed value for return of the product based on at least one of product information, transportation information, retailer information, or consumer information, ([0107], analyzes...a per-item return value using authorization rules to determine whether to authorize an unassisted self-return of an item, such as, but not limited to, the return authorization component 322 in FIG. 3; Fig. 19, Fig. 21, Fig 22; [0136] The user can select a “start a return” icon 1702 in this non-limiting example to initiate a return of one or more items associated with the displayed transaction via the self-returns application; [0137] In this non-limiting examples, the transaction of May 5, 2017 includes two items, item 1704 and item 1706. The user can select either item 1704 or item 1706. The user can alternatively select both items 1704 and 1706 for return. The examples are not limited to a transaction involving two items as shown here. In other examples, a single transaction can include purchase/return of a single item, as well as three or more items; [0138] FIG. 18 is an exemplary block diagram illustrating a screenshot 1800 of a user device displaying a set of items purchased in a single purchase transaction. The self-returns application can include an identifier or status indicating whether an item qualifies for return, a return request is being processed “pending return”, or an item is unqualified for return/already returned in this non-limiting example. The user can select an item qualified for return to initiate a self-return process; [0139] In this non-limiting examples, the information displayed for item 1802 includes a “returnable” indicator 1804 indicating the item 1802 previously purchased by the user qualifies for return. The record for item 1802 also includes the purchase price 1806 for the item. The information displayed for item 1808 includes a “pending return” indicator 1810 indicating that a return of item 1808 has been initiated but not yet completed);
provide the proposed value to the consumer device, the proposed value to be used as a default value for a return field, a selected value of the return field to be used in coordination of return of the product, (See paragraph [0140] and Fig. 19 of Flores. Paragraph [0140] of Flores says, “FIG. 19 is an exemplary block diagram illustrating screenshot 1900 of a user device displaying an item selected for return and providing an option permitting a user to select a reason 1904 for returning the selected item.”);
access a return instruction from the consumer device, the return instruction identifying the product to be returned and the selected value, (Fig. 19-Fig. 22; [0139] In this non-limiting examples, the information displayed for item 1802 includes a “returnable” indicator 1804 indicating the item 1802 previously purchased by the user qualifies for return. The record for item 1802 also includes the purchase price 1806 for the item. The information displayed for item 1808 includes a “pending return” indicator 1810 indicating that a return of item 1808 has been initiated but not yet completed; [0164] the calculation component, implemented on the at least one processor, that calculates the per-item return value for the selected item based on a set of item attributes and a set of item-value parameters; [0165] the set of item-value parameters comprising at least one of a maximum threshold value of the selected item, a threshold number of instances of a returned item per time-period, a threshold number of item returns in a single transaction, a set of self-return ineligible categories, a set of self-return ineligible items; [0166] wherein the set of item attributes comprises at least one of a category of the selected item, a value of the selected item...[0167] a notification component, implemented on the at least one processor, that outputs a disposition notification to a user device associated with a second user to restock the selected item on condition the selected item is received from the user at the designated return location and an estimated cost of restocking the selected item is below a maximum threshold value for the item; [0168] a notification component, implemented on the at least one processor, that outputs a disposition notification to a user device associated with a second user to return the selected item to a supplier associated with the selected item on condition the selected item is received by at least one user associated with the designated return location and the selected item is designated as an item to be returned to the supplier; [0169] a notification component, implemented on the at least one processor, that outputs a disposition notification to a user device associated with a second user to dispose of the selected item on condition of return the selected item to the designated return location and the selected item is a perishable item associated with a cold-chain compliance requirement);
and after access of the return instruction, communicate with a retailer associated with the product to coordinate return of the product based on the selected value, ([0139], The record for item 1812 includes a “contact marketplace seller” 1814 indicating that if the user wishes to initiate a return of the item, the user should contact the seller of the item. The application in some examples provides an icon or other contact information for initiating contact with the marketplace seller.)
As per claim 2, Flores et al discloses:
generate a first potential value of the proposed value for the return field based on at least one of the product information, transportation information, retailer information, or consumer information, (“Abstract: A customized returns manager component calculates a customized return-trust score and a per-item return value based on analysis of item data and transaction history data. If a per-user return-trust score is within an unacceptable threshold range or an item value is within an unacceptable threshold value range”);
generate a first confidence score for the first potential value, the first confidence score representing a predicted likelihood a consumer associated with the consumer device will agree to the first potential value, ([0004], “A calculation component calculates a return-trust score for the identified user attempting to return a set of items from the plurality of items based on an analysis of item data associated with the set of items, user-provided item return data, and transaction history data associated with the identified user”); and
determine that the first confidence score meets a threshold, wherein the providing of the proposed value to the consumer device includes providing the first potential value based on the determination that the first confidence score meets the threshold, ([0003], A return authorization component authorizes unassisted self-return of the selected item by the first user on condition the per-user return-trust score associated with the selected user is within an acceptable return-trust score threshold range and the per-item return value associated with the selected item is within an acceptable return value threshold range).
As per claim 8, Flores et al discloses:
wherein the consumer information includes at least one of consumer drop-off location preferences, pick-up timing preferences, refund preferences, a current location of a consumer associated with the consumer device, a typical location of the consumer, past consumer return preferences, and consumer timing preferences, ([0161] The system can permit a user to initiate an item return before arriving at the store in another example. The self-returns application allows the user to scan the UPC or other marker on the item and retrieves the receipt for that item. Then once the user enters the store with the item, the user scans a QR code displayed on a self-service kiosk in the customer service area with their mobile device. This enables the kiosk to retrieve prepared return transaction data for the user to the kiosk. Once connected, the system completes the item return process without intervention of an associate/returns manager. The system instructs the user to place the item in a bin or keep the item in accordance with disposition rules. Rules determine when the user's account receives a refund for the return transaction. For example, the user's account can receive the refund when the self-return is approved, when the item is received at the designated return location, after the item is inspected, etc.).
As per claim 9, Flores et al discloses:
wherein the transportation information includes at least one of carrier availability, a carrier location, carrier costs, packaging requirements, drop-off availability, pickup availability, and route optimization, ([0104] FIG. 9 is an exemplary block diagram illustrating transaction history data 130. The transaction history data 130 includes item return history 902 and/or item purchase history 904 of a selected user. The transaction history data can optionally also include a method of payment used during a transaction, a credit score of the user, and/or any issues associated with attempted item returns. Return issues can include lack of a receipt, lack of packaging associated with an item, loss of the item to be returned, damaged/broken item, etc; [0178] outputting instructions to a second user device associated with the second user to return the selected item to a supplier associated with the selected item on condition the selected item is returned to the designated return location and the selected item is designated as an item to be returned to the supplier).
As per claim 10, wherein the product information includes at least one of a type of the product, a size of the product, a weight of the product, a date of purchase, a date of delivery, transportation constraints associated with the product, and return policies associated with the product ([0051] The customized returns manager component 128 aggregates the item return data 134, the transaction history data 130, item data 136, and/or user-provided data 138. The item data 136 is data describing the item 124. The item data 136 can include a size of the item, base price of the item 124, actual price paid, type of item (perishable/nonperishable).
As per claim 11, this claim recites limitations similar to those disclosed in independent claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 12, please see the rejection for claim 2.
As per claim 16, this claim recites limitations similar to those disclosed in independent claim 1 and 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.
Claim(s) 3-6, 13-15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flores et al (US 20190244214 A1), and further in view of Ladue et al (US 20190156396 A1).
As per claim 3, Flores et al discloses:
identify a second return field, (Fig.’s 18-21);
generate a second potential value for the second return field, (Fig. 21, [1902]);
provide an empty value in connection with the second return field to the consumer device, ([0084] FIG. 4 is an exemplary block diagram illustrating a customized returns manager component 128 for generating item disposition instructions. A task assignment component 402 assigns 404 a second user (returns manager) to assist a first user (customer) with completion of the proposed return 408 of a selected item 410 if the per-user return-trust score associated with the user 406 is within an unacceptable return-trust score threshold range 412 or a per-item return value associated with the selected item 410 is within an unacceptable return value threshold range 414. The selected item is any type of item, such as, but not limited to, the item 124 in FIG. 1 and FIG. 3; [0085] A notification component 416 in some examples outputs a notification 418, including an assignment 420, to a user device associated with the second user. The notification 418 assigns the second user to assist the first user with completing a return of the selected item 410 on condition the return authorization component fails to authorize the unassisted self-return of the selected item); [instead of providing a value for self-return assignment of assistance is processed].
Flores et al does not disclose the following, however, Ladue et al (US 20190156396 A1) discloses:
generate a second confidence score for the second potential value, (Ladue et al: Claim 2: (4) a second confidence score indicating the degree of equivalence between the first item and the second item that is based at least in part..../cause the computer system to at least: receive, over a communications network from the computing device, at least one of an order for the first item or information regarding a return of the first item);
determine the second confidence score does not meet the threshold, (Ladue et al (US 20190156396 A1): compare, by the one or more processors, the first and second confidence scores and the confidence thresholds associated with the first item; and responsive to the first and second confidence scores meeting or exceeding a first confidence threshold of the confidence thresholds, cause the display associated with the computing device to present an item detail page comprising information regarding the first item and second item, wherein the item detail page is configured to present the first item and the second item in a same display format, and wherein the item detail page further comprises indications of the first and second confidence scores; and responsive to the first and second confidence scores meeting or exceeding a second confidence threshold of the confidence thresholds and being below the first confidence threshold, cause the display associated with the computing device to present an item detail page comprising information regarding the first item and second item);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the above limitations as taught by Ladue et al in the systems of Flores et al, 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.
As per claim 4, Flores et al does not disclose:
wherein the instructions are to cause one or more of the at least one processor circuit to provide the proposed value to the consumer device for output via a user interface, the user interface to present the proposed value in the return field to be used to direct the return of the product.
However, Ladue et al discloses: [0060] As is discussed above, where an electronic marketplace determines that an item is equivalent to another item based on a confidence score or trust score, the marketplace may display and market the items together in a manner or to an extent that is consistent with the value of the confidence score or trust score.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the above limitations as taught by Ladue et al in the systems of Flores et al, 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.
As per claim 5, wherein the user interface is to enable a user of the consumer device to initiate the return of the product according to the proposed value with one press of a button, (Fig. 22, [2210]).
As per claim 6, wherein the return field represents at least one of a reason for the return, whether a consumer associated with the consumer device will drop off the product or have the product picked up, a drop-off or pick-up location, a date and time for pick-up or drop off, a desired refund method, and information related to an exchange of the product, (Fig.’s 19-20).
As per claim 13, please see the rejection for claim 3.
As per claim 14, please see the rejection for claim 4.
As per claim 15, please see the rejection for claim 3.
As per claim 17, please see the rejection for claim 4.
As per claim 18, please see the rejection for claim 5.
As per claim 19, please see the rejection for claim 6.
As per claim 20, please see the rejection for claim 6.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flores et al (US 20190244214 A1), and further in view of Wicks et al (US 20190287055 A1).
As per claim 7, Flores et al does not disclose:
wherein the wherein the retailer information includes at least one of retailer drop-off location preferences, retailer shipping service provider preferences, past retailer return preferences, retailer return policies, retailer timing preferences, and an address of the retailer,
However, Wicks et al (US 20190287055 A1) discloses in: ([0063] The label can include an address of a recipient or shipping address where the item is going to be sent, such as the address of a supplier of the item if the item is being returned to the supplier.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the above limitations as taught by Wicks et al in the systems of Flores et al, 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Akiba Robinson whose telephone number is 571-272-6734 and email is Akiba.Robinsonboyce@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 6:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Resha Desai can be reached on 571-270-7792. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system, Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (I N USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703) 305-3900.
December 8, 2025
/AKIBA K ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628