The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Regarding independent claims 2,9, 16 the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites the abstract idea of fulfilling a purchase which is a mental process. Other than reciting a device, interface, system, store front, POS nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being performed mentally/manually. But for the device, interface, system, store front, POS the limitations on receive purchase request, receive item selection, withhold identifying information from merchant, process transaction, facilitate fulfillment, send confirmation to merchant is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation could be performed by mentally/manually but for the recitation of generic computer elements. If claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further the above limitations related to fulfilling a purchase stripped of the identified additional and insignificant elements could also be considered a “Method of Organizing Human Activity” relating to the managing human behavior and interactions. (fundamental economic practice) Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computers are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea and does not take the claim out of the mental process or method of organizing human activity grouping.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element device, interface, system, store front, POS amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Collecting, analyzing and displaying information, and receiving and transmitting over a network are conventional in the computing arts. (MPEP 2106.05h; See also MPEP 2106.05, Alice v. CLS, “. Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”).t The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims , these claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit the purchase fulfillment steps. The subject matter of claims 3/10/17 (item not fulfilled by merchant), 4/11/18 (identifying information includes contact and payment), 5/12/19 (withhold contact information from merchant), 6/7/13/14/20 (receive instruction to configure store), 8/15/21 (update inventory on fulfillment) appear to add additional steps to the abstract idea, implemented by generic computers. These claims neither introduce a new abstract idea nor additional limitations which are significantly more than an abstract idea. They provide descriptive details that offer helpful context, but have no impact on statutory subject matter eligibility.
Therefore the limitations on the invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
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 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.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 2-5, 9,10,11,12,16,17,18,19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Nowka US8121957B1 in view of
Stone, “Sold on eBay, Shipped by Amazon.com”, 2007, https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/technology/27amazon.html
Regarding Claim 2,
causing, by an ecommerce management system, a first graphical user interface to be displayed on a user device of an ecommerce customer;
receiving, at the ecommerce management system and responsive to a first user input on the first graphical user interface, a request to purchase an item, …
receiving, via one or more second user inputs on the second user interface on the user device, at least a selection of the item to be purchased from the digital store front of the merchant and identifying information for completing the purchase;
configuring, by the ecommerce management system, a second user interface on the user device to display the corresponding digital store front;
determining, by the ecommerce management system, to withhold the identifying information of the ecommerce customer from the merchant; processing, by the ecommerce management system, a transaction to complete the purchase of the item;
Nowka is directed to an e-commerce system that does not disclose consumer account information to a merchant. (Nowka, summary, “Systems and methods are disclosed for verifying payment information for transactions, such as sales transactions, without disclosing consumer account information to a merchant. In a first general aspect, a computer-implemented method includes receiving, in response to an order placed by a customer, a request for verification information from a merchant. The method also includes communicating customer information to an issuing organization associated with the customer while withholding the information from the merchant. The method further includes connecting the merchant for communication with the issuing organization for verification of information associated with the order.”; col.5,lns.35-50, “When the search results appear, the user may access a merchant's online site 130, as illustrated by arrow “B” in FIG. 1, and may browse through listings of various mountain bikes on the site 130. In this example, the user 120 may be interested in purchasing a full-suspension mountain bike suited for riding off-road, cross-country mountain bike trails. After locating an appropriate mountain bike on the merchant's site 130 (e.g., the “Expert” model for $2499), the user 120 may select a checkout icon 135 associated with the transaction processor 105, according to an implementation. In FIG. 1, the exemplary checkout icon 135 is shown as a shopping cart, but the icon may take any appropriate shape or form in other implementations, including a button or selectable text.”)
transmitting, by the ecommerce management system, a confirmation of the transaction for the item to a point-of-sale (POS) device of the merchant.
(Nowka, col.15,lns.56-62, “The issuing organization may issue the verification at step 555, and the transaction processor may provide the verification to the merchant at step 560. The merchant may receive the verification at step 565. In some implementations, the issuing organization may provide the verification information directly to the merchant.”)
Nowka does not explicitly disclose
facilitating, by the ecommerce management system, a fulfillment of the item purchased; and
the ecommerce management system having a corresponding digital store front for a merchant that offers the item for sale through the ecommerce management system;
Stone is an article describing Amazon.com’s fulfillment services. (Stone, p.1). Stone discloses that an ecommerce platform could provide fulfillment services and also host a commerce site for a merchant. (Stone, p.2, “Since last fall, the program, Fulfillment by Amazon, has allowed independent sellers who list their goods on Amazon.com to use its network of more than 20 distribution centers around the world to fill orders. Now Amazon, which is based in Seattle, is opening the program to vendors who list their items elsewhere on the Web — on their own site, through Google, or even on Amazon’s e-commerce rival, eBay.
The program is part of a broader set of tools called Amazon Web Services, an effort by the e-commerce pioneer to rent out complicated parts of its infrastructure to smaller companies that might benefit from its hard-earned expertise, and who will pay for the privilege of lightening their workload.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Nowka with the ecommerce system of Stone with the motivation of providing paid services to merchants. Id.
Regarding Claim 3, Nowka and Stone disclose the method of claim 2.
wherein the item is not fulfilled by the merchant.
See prior art rejection of claim 2 regarding Stone.
Regarding Claim 4, Nowka and Stone disclose the method of claim 2.
wherein the identifying information includes at least one contact information associated with the ecommerce customer and payment information of the ecommerce customer for processing the transaction.
See prior art rejection of claim 1 regarding Nowka
Regarding Claim 5, Nowka and Stone disclose the method of claim 4.
wherein the ecommerce management system withholds the at least one contact information from the merchant.
See prior art rejection of claim 1 regarding Nowka
Regarding Claim 9,10,11,12,16,17,18,19
See prior art rejections of claim 2,3,4,5,2,3,4,5
Claims 6-8, 13,14,15,20,21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Nowka US8121957B1 in view of
Stone, “Sold on eBay, Shipped by Amazon.com”, 2007, https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/technology/27amazon.html in view of
Official Notice
Regarding Claim 6, Nowka and Stone disclose the method of claim 2.
Nowka does not explicitly disclose
Receiving from the POS device of the merchant, one or more instructions to configure the digital store front.
However, the limitation is obvious in view of official notice. The examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known for a merchant device to send instructions to configure a digital storefront. For example, a merchant could use device access interfaces to set up new listings and manage inventory for Amazon or Ebay ecommerce sites. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding Claim 7, Nowka, Stone and Official Notice disclose the method of claim 6.
configuring a third user interface on the POS device of the merchant for receiving the one or more instructions for configuring the digital store front.
See prior art rejection of claim 6.
Regarding Claim 8, Nowka, Stone and Official Notice disclose the method of claim 2.
Nowka does not explicitly disclose
updating an inventory associated with the merchant upon completing the fulfillment of the item.
However, the limitation is obvious in view of official notice. The examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known for an ecommerce site to update inventory status on fulfillment. For example, inventory could be determined to be available, shipped, in transit, delivered, etc. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claims 13,14,15,20,21
See prior art rejections of claim 6,7,8,6,8
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN C CHEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571) 272-6790. 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.
/ALLEN C CHEIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627