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 .
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 1-18 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 1,7,13 the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites the abstract idea of splitting purchase orders which is a mental process. Other than reciting a processor, memory, systems, interface nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being performed mentally. But for the processor, memory, systems, interface the limitations on receive record, obtain first entity and second entity information, reformat record, transmit to routing system, determine second type systems, receive response messages from routing system, reconcile response messages with record, indicate status and second systems, identify spit record comprising sub-records, correlate split record to record, provide sub-records is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation could be performed by mentally 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 splitting a purchase order 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 processor, memory, systems, interface 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.”) The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims, these claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit the purchase order splitting steps. The subject matter of claims 2/8/14 (generate and approve rules sent to routing system), 3/9/15 (indicate cancellable hold), 4/10/16 (cancel record and generate new record), 5/11/17 (two sub-records as associated with a single product), 6/12 /18 (select second type systems based on determination of limited product quantity) 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 1,2, 7,8,13,14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mead 20050267822 in view of Vemula 20040172321
Regarding Claim 1,
at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to at least:
receive, from a first system of a first type, an electronic record comprising one or more first entity identifiers, and one or more product identifiers and associated quantities;
Mead is directed to a supply management system that outsources customer orders to outside vendors. (Mead, abstract; para 0047, “[0047] As stated above, in one exemplary embodiment, the messages sent between buyers and sellers are formatted as various EDI messages, such as 850, 855, 856, 860 and 865 messages. In these cases, the data in the messages are formatted to include the needed date to accomplish the message task. Turning now to FIGS. 5 and 6, tables 500 and 600 illustrate exemplary data fields included in an EDI 850 message used to send order data to the outsource supplier. Specifically, table 500 lists the data fields in an exemplary 850 Header, and table 600 lists the data fields in an exemplary 850 Detail. The 850 Header includes fields related to the order parameters, such as customer number, shipment method and address. The 850 Detail includes details about the ordered part itself. This includes special attributes such as the quantity and manufacturer of the ordered part.”)
access an electronic record system to obtain first entity information and second entity information;
reformat the electronic record to further include at least the first entity information and the second entity information in the electronic record;
Mead discloses obtaining electronic information about entities and posting transaction information to an electronic record. (Mead, para 0027, “ As long as the original order exists, the part number equals the originally requested part number and the quantity does not exceed in total the original order, the system will accept the electronic shipment advice and posts an inventory transaction is a specialized location of the seller's inventory control system. The outsource supplier is allowed to send multiple shipments for the same order (partial shipments) until the total for the order equals the original requested quantity. As inventory transactions are posted to the sellers inventory system, lots are created with the proper traceability information such as manufacturer, vendor and other quality data that describes the shipment sent from the outsource vendor. Thus, virtually receiving the shipped product into the seller's inventory helps facilitate tight integration between the seller, customer and outside supplier.”)
…the plurality of electronic record response messages comprising at least an electronic record number and an identifier of the one or more systems of a second type;
(Mead, para 0048, “[0048] Turning now to FIGS. 7, 8 and 9, tables 600, 700 and 800 illustrate exemplary data fields included in an EDI 856 message, which can be used to send acknowledgement shipment data back to the seller as described with reference to method 200. As such, it includes details about the items that are shipped to the customer by the outsource supplier. Specifically, table 700 lists the data fields in an exemplary 856 Header, table 800 lists the data fields in an exemplary 856 Detail, and table 900 lists the data fields in an exemplary 856 Shipping Attributes. The 856 Header again includes general attributes about the order, such as order number and shipping address. The 856 Detail includes details about the shipped part, including item descriptions, quantities shipped and such. The 856 Shipping Attributes includes technical details about the part. These details can include lot numbers, batch numbers, date of manufacture, certification details and such. As described above, including these details about the shipment in a message to the seller allows the seller to create the lot records needed for item traceability.”)
reconcile the plurality of electronic record response messages with the received electronic record;
(Mead, abstract, “ When the product is shipped from the outsource supplier, shipment data is sent from the outsource supplier to the seller. The seller virtually receives the parts in the seller's inventory, and creates an invoice to pay the outsource supplier. The original order from the customer is matched with the virtual inventory and the product is virtually shipped from the seller to the customer. The customer is then invoiced by the seller or outsource supplier depending on customer requirements.”)
identify a split electronic record comprising a plurality of sub-records in the plurality of electronic record response messages;
correlate the split electronic record comprising the plurality of sub-records to an originally submitted electronic record; and
(Mead, para 0028, “[0028] The next step 218 is for the system to create an invoice to pay the outsource supplier based on the product shipped. Again, as one example, this invoice can be in the form of an EDI 810 message. The next step 220 is for the system to match the original sales order with the inventory and virtually ship the product. The virtual shipment of the product "removes" the product from the seller's inventory- and thus balances the transaction made in step 216. Finally, in step 222 the seller bills the customer for the delivered product.”)
Mead does not explicitly disclose
cause transmission of the electronic record to a routing system, wherein the routing system (i) determines one or more systems of a second type to which to route the electronic record, and (ii) routes the electronic record to the one or more systems of a second type;
receive a plurality of electronic record response messages from the routing system,
provide an electronic record status interface indicating electronic records statuses and the determined one or more systems of a second type;
provide the plurality of sub-records via the electronic record status interface.
Vemula is directed to a system for optimizing purchasing plans. (Vermula, abstract). Vermula discloses that an optimized purchasing plan entailing multiple vendors may be formulated by communicating optimization conditions to a discrete optimizer unit and communicating the results to a user. (Vermula, para 0026, “ [0026] The purchase planning and optimization system (1000) comprises of an input device (1010) for defining the supply channel network model, contractual terms and conditions model and the business rules model; a storage device (1030) for storing all of these models; an input device (1010) for setting up the conditions for optimization; an optimizer (1040) for determining an optimal purchase plan; an output device (1060) for analyzing the results; and a method to export the generated purchase schedules.”; para 0120-21, “[0120] An optimal purchase plan is generated, after the formulation is completed, by solving the LP or the MILP problem using known mathematical techniques and heuristics. [0121] Once the solution has been obtained, the analysis step allows the user to analyze the results. Such analysis involves but is not limited to creation and review of reports based on the purchase plans output from the system, consolidation of data and presentation in pivot tables and/or multi-dimensional formats, aggregation along natural dimensions in the data, some examples of such aggregation being item groups, vendor groups.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Mead with the optimization of Vemula with the motivation of formulating a superior purchase plan. Id.
Regarding Claim 2, Mead and Vermula disclose the apparatus of claim 1.
Mead does not explicitly disclose
wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to at least:
generate a rule configuration comprising one or more conditions relating to an electronic record;
electronically provide the rule configuration to the first system and facilitate approval of the rule configuration; and
(Mead, para 0043, “The system also provides the ability to configure the optimization runs to be executed automatically on a schedule, or manually. These can be set-up in step (430). These optimization configurations can also be saved in a template that can be used repeatedly.”)
in response approval of the rule configuration, cause transmission of the approved rule configuration to the routing system, wherein the approved rule configuration affects the determination of the one or more systems of a second type dependent on the one or more conditions.
Vermula discloses that a system may submit user rules to the optimizer to formulate a purchasing plan. The examiner interprets executing the optimization to read on an approval. (Vermula, para 0008, “[0008] The user can model a supply channel by providing various information elements about the supply channels. For example, the user may specify information on items to be purchased, the (requisitioning) sites where such demand originates, approved vendors who can supply these items, agreements with the vendors; agreement terms such as basic price, taxes, other costs, supply locations, and transportation modes. The user can further specify the payment terms, order parameters, lot sizes for ordering. In modeling basic prices, the user may model fixed unit based pricing, or volume based discounting, or price that is a function of time. Similar modeling constructs enable a user to model obligations, penalties and rebates that are either absolute, or based on a percentage, and that can also be a function of time.
[0009] After establishing the supply channels, the user defines the planning time periods, planning groups for items, and other planning configurations such as flags for allowing shortness, lot-size multiple constraint horizon, and earliest release date for the schedules. The user also provides any rules such as business splits to be maintained for the vendors in specified time periods.
[0010] The purchase plans are then generated by optimizing the given inputs. The system generates a mixed integer linear program formulation based on the objective function that minimizes the total cost of plan, and by generating constraints to model various terms and conditions that may have been modeled in the contractual agreements, or may be part of the corporate policies. The formulation is then solved using a solver and an optimal purchase schedule is generated.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Mead with the optimization of Vemula with the motivation of formulating a superior purchase plan. Id.
Regarding Claim 7,8,13,14,
See prior art rejection of claims 1,2,1,2
Claims 4,5, 10,11,16,17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mead 20050267822 in view of Vemula 20040172321 in view of Doyle US5694551A
Regarding Claim 4, Mead and Vermula disclose the apparatus of claim 1.
Mead does not explicitly disclose
wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to at least:
determine at least one sub-record of the split electronic records is cancelled, and in response thereto, generate a new electronic record comprising a quantity based on one or more non-cancelled electronic records.
Doyle is directed to a purchasing system for fulfilling customer orders with internal supplies and outside vendors. (Doyle, abstract). Doyle discloses changing/cancelling orders and updating records. (Doyle, col.4,lns.35-67, “FIG. 5 shows the processing steps for the on-line purchasing system 110 executed at the customer computer system 104. An authorized user at a customer workstation initially selects a function operation from a system menu screen 1021 such as shown in FIG. 6. The available functions presented in the menu screen include entering a new requisition (FIG. 7), changing or deleting a requisition (step 1020). The system limits changes and deletions of requisitions to only those requisitions not completed and transmitted to the main computer system.
Pending (even non-completed) requisition data is accessible from the database on the customer computer system which may include data files on the customer that placed the requisition (CUS SLTD) 1022, the location to which the order is to be shipped (CUS SHTO) 1024, the customer person to whom the delivery is to be made (CUS ATN TO) 1026, and the catalog available to that customer (CUS CATALOG) 1028. This information is initially established during set-up of the customer connection to the main system and is maintained by the central computer system.
The customer database files are updated for new requisition orders, changes or deletions with information such as the requisition header 1030, (e.g., containing data on the requisition number, customer shipping location and other information not unique to the items ordered) and requisition details 1032, that includes information such as the item number, quantity order and customer price.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Mead and Vemula with the order change of Doyle with the motivation of altering requisitions. Id.
Regarding Claim 5, Mead, Vemula and Doyle disclose the apparatus of claim 4.
Mead does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to at least:
indicate in the electronic record status interface at least two sub-records associated with a single product, wherein quantities of the at least two sub-records equal a quantity electronic recorded of the single product.
Vemula discloses that business considerations may require that order quantities may need to be split across vendors for the same item. (Vemula, claim 2, “q) Specify corporate policy for achieving a recommended business split among multiple potential vendors for supplying the same item…”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Mead and Doyle with the split of Vemula with the motivation of honoring business obligations. Id.
Regarding Claim 10,11,16,17
See prior art rejection of claims 4,5,4,5
Claims 3,9,15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mead 20050267822 in view of Vemula 20040172321 in view of Hwu 20200184543
Regarding Claim 3, Mead and Vermula disclose the apparatus of claim 1.
Mead does not explicitly disclose
wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to at least:
indicate, to a system of a third type, a temporary electronic record hold, wherein the electronic record is prevented from being distributed for at least a predetermined amount of time; and
enable cancellation of the electronic record via, at least a supply management system, for the predetermined amount of time.
Hwu is directed to an escrow based purchasing system. (Hwu, abstract). Hwu discloses that it is known for a purchase process to hold merchant inventory for a time, after which the purchase is made, or the purchase may be cancelled during the hold time frame. (Hwu, para 0032, “On the other hand, if the user selects the “hold now” purchase option, the selected good(s) or service(s) is reserved for inventory planning purposes and the offered price point is locked-in (e.g., by the provider computing system 104 or the merchant system 106) as in the case of a normal purchase order, but the payment information is held in escrow for a window of time (e.g., a predetermined time) during which the payment information is not processed. Instead, the purchase is a pending purchase order where the provided payment information is automatically processed after the window of time has lapsed.”; para 0020, “[0020] Accordingly, in some embodiments, the user is free to make changes to or cancel the pending purchase order held in the purchase order escrow before the window of time has lapsed.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Mead and Vemula with the hold of Hwu with the motivation providing a customer a price lock. Id.
Regarding Claim 9,15
See prior art rejection of claims 3
Claims 6,12,18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mead 20050267822 in view of Vemula 20040172321 in view of Doyle in view of
Lopienski, “Split Shipments: Why They’re Used & Common Examples”, 2020, https://web.archive.org/web/20200602100729/https://www.shipbob.com/blog/split-shipments/
Regarding Claim 6, Mead, Vemula and Doyle disclose the apparatus of claim 4.
Mead does not explicitly disclose
wherein different systems of a second type are selected for each of at least two electronic records based on a determination of a limited quantity of a product covered by second entity.
Lopienski is an article discussing split shipment logistics. (Lopienski, p.1). Lopienski discloses that an order might need to be split into two orders because on fulfillment location may have insufficient quantity. (Lopienski, p.2, “The products ordered are currently in different locations
When an ecommerce company has inventory in more than one location, each SKU may have differing stock levels across facilities.
If a single fulfillment center doesn’t have the units needed to fulfill a single order containing multiple products, one item may be fulfilled from one fulfillment center, and the second item may be fulfilled from another.
Rather than waiting on one fulfillment center to get more inventory, separate shipments from each fulfillment center will ultimately get the products to the customer faster.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Mead, Vemula and Doyle with the hold of split order of Lopienski with the motivation of quickly fulfilling a customer order. Id.
Regarding Claim 12,18
See prior art rejection of claims 6
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
Prosecution Insights