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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 remain pending, and are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 5/27/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 5/27/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for claims directed to a judicial exception are not persuasive.
Notably, on pages 1-2 of the Applicant’s Remarks, arguments are made that the claims are directed to a specific improvement in the functioning of an electronic shopping system. The limitations recite a particular, non-conventional way of operating an electronic shopping system by building and applying a multi-level delivery-efficiency model keyed to item, user address, seller, shipment location, and shipment service, and using that model to dynamically control how item are presented in the interactive shopping UI. The Applicant also argues that the specification confirms the technical improvement, such as disclosing how prior systems lack the ability to contextualize delivery data based on user profiles, seller performance, and item characteristics, and fail to provide accurate predictions or advance warning of delivery problems, and the claims provide a technical improvement in computer-implemented delivery-efficiency prediction and user-interface behavior of an electronic shopping system.
On page 3, the Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application, such as not merely displaying information, but the claims constrain the type of data used, require use of a delivery efficiency database storing historical delivery data keyed to seller and user for the item, require a specific prediction function combining the enumerated factors, and apply the resulting prediction to dynamically modify the presentation of items in an interactive shopping UI, that changes how the shopping application selects and renders items in response to multi-level historical delivery-efficiency data, and reducing negative delivery outcomes for items actually purchased through the application.
On page 4, arguments are made that the additional elements of the claims provide a combination that is well-understood, routine, and conventional, and the claims as amended now require extraction of a delivery data at item, user, and seller levels for a selected item, use of a delivery efficiency database storing historical delivery data keyed to the item at seller and user levels, computation of a predicted deviation as an explicit function of multiple factors, including the item identifier, user identifier and address, seller identifier, shipment location, shipment service, and historical delivery data, and dynamic modification of the interactive shipping UI based on the predicted deviation.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims may be directed to applying a multi-level delivery-efficiency model keyed to item, user address, seller, shipment location, and shipment service, but the model is not a technical model, but merely a model of performing the abstract idea of identifying when items are predicted to be deviated from expected delivery. The problems defined in the specification of prior systems lacking contextualizing delivery data based on user profiles, seller performance, and item characteristics, and failing to provide accurate predictions or advance warning of delivery problems do not represent any technical problems, but problems in sales activities, which is an abstract idea under certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations of the claims recite activities, such as user input selecting an item associated with a fulfillment transaction, receiving proposed delivery data associated with the fulfilment transaction with various data about the item, user, and seller, and the delivery data including various data of identifiers and locations, referencing historical data, predicting a deviation from a specified delivery time based on the data of the transaction, comparing the predicted deviation to a threshold, and prompting the user highlighting the predicted deviation. These elements are all art of the abstract idea of determining a predicted deviation of an item delivery of a transaction for a user. The claims do not represent any technical improvement, and any additional elements are recited with a very high level of generality and merely applied to the abstract idea.
Furthermore, as these generic additional elements are merely applied to the abstract idea, the claims do not provide an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Constraining the type of data used, the use of a database, specific prediction function, and applying the resulting prediction to modify the presentation of items in an interactive shopping UI does not represent a technical improvement or any meaningful limitation beyond providing a general link to a computing environment. Constraining the type of data used merely defines the abstract idea and how it is performed; the type of data has no bearing on any technical matter of how any technology is changed or improved. The use of a database merely represents using historical data and storing it on a computing component, but does not change how a computer stores and retrieves data from memory. A specific prediction function and applying the resulting prediction merely represents the abstract algorithm and receiving a result of the abstract algorithm. Modifying the presentation of items in an interactive shopping UI also merely represents the abstract idea of displaying items to a user and merely displaying them on a computing device. The claims do not recite any particular devices or changes/improvements to any technical field, and merely recite generic elements that are applied to the abstract idea, such that the abstract idea of predicting deviations from a specified delivery of a transaction item may be performed on a computing device.
The claims may be well-understood, routine, and convention, but only within the abstract idea itself. The requiring of an extraction of the various data, use of a database, and computation of predicted deviation as a function of various data of the abstract idea does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above, the database and computation of predicted deviation are merely directed to the abstract idea, and the database merely stores data of the abstract idea, and does not provide any improvement to any technical field or computer ability. There is also no specific combination of the additional elements that leverage the abilities of the additional elements in any particular way as it was in the case of Bascom. The extraction of data is also not recited in the claims, and any generic extraction of data would merely represent data gathering using generic techniques.
In view of the above, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been maintained below.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 5/27/2026 with regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been fully considered, but are moot in light of new grounds of rejection. Applicant’s amendments necessitated new grounds of rejection.
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 claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-9 and 16-20 are directed to a method, which is a process. Claims 10-15 are directed to an electronic device, which is an apparatus. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A (Prong 1):
Taking claim 10 as representative, claim 10 sets forth the following limitations reciting the abstract idea of determining if a product delivery is deviated a promised delivery time:
in response to detecting user input selecting an item to be included in a fulfillment transaction;
extract delivery data associated with the fulfillment transaction at an item level, a user level, and a seller level;
the delivery data including at least an item identifier, a user identifier, and a delivery location for a user, a seller identifier;
referencing historical delivery data for the item at the seller level and the user level;
determine a predicted deviation from a promised delivery time for the item as a function of the item identifier, the user identifier, the delivery location, the seller identifier, and the historical data stored in the delivery efficiency;
when the predicted deviation exceeds a threshold, present a prompt identifying the predicted deviation from the promised delivery time and cause modify presentation of items available for the fulfillment transaction in accordance with the predicted deviation.
The recited limitations above set forth the abstract idea of determining if a product delivery is deviated a promised delivery time. These limitations amount to certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial or legal transactions (e.g. agreements in the form of contracts, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, etc.). The claims are directed to predicting a deviation from a promised delivery time for an item transaction, and notifying a user of the deviation (see specification [0005] disclosing the frustration for people when deliveries are delayed), which is a sales and marketing activity.
These limitations amount to mental processes, including observation, evaluation, and judgment. The claims recite the receiving of past search terms, and matching a current search with the past search terms to predict search terms that will be entered (see specification [0011] disclosing search suggest systems using historically-context-aware approach with the ability for using current user input, and that systems that require lower latency and/or computing resources can benefit (as in the claims are not directed to the ability of the computer in the lower latency and/or computer resource system)), which is a mental process of observing and evaluating.
Such concepts have been identified by the courts as abstract ideas (see: 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A (Prong 2):
Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 10 recites additional elements in the claims, such as:
a user interface;
a memory;
one or more processors operable with the user interface and the memory;
an electronic shopping application;
a database;
Taken individually and as a whole, representative claim 10 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Secondly, this is also because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
While the claims recite a user interface, memory, and one or more processors, these elements are recited with a very high level of generalization, merely recited in passing as a preamble for executing the steps of the abstract idea. Specification paragraph [0100] discloses the processor may be a microprocessors, a group of processing components, one or more ASICs, programming logic, or other type of processing device. The memory is not disclosed with any particularity, specification paragraph [0101] merely disclosing the memory as a storage device than can store executable software code. The interface is also not disclosed with any particularity, the specification merely disclosing the display of information, such as in paragraphs [0054-0055]. As such, it is evident that these elements are generic computing components that are merely leveraged to implement the abstract idea on a computing device. As disclosed in specification paragraphs [0106-0110], the application is not any particular computing component, but is merely software to execute a shopping environment, and implement it on a computing device. The additional elements only serve to provide a general link to a computing environment, but the claims, individually and as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 10 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see again: MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2B:
Returning to representative claim 10, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 9 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). As noted above, the additional elements recited in representative claim 10 are recited in a generic manner with a high level of generality and only serve to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing device. The claims result only in an improved abstract idea itself and do not reflect improvements to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process ultimately amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 10 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 10 does not provide an inventive concept under step 2B, and is ineligible for patenting.
Regarding Claim 1 (method): Claim 1 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 10 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 1 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 10.
Regarding Claim 16 (method): Claim 16 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 10 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 16 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 10.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 recite further complexity to the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 10, such as by further defining the algorithm for determining if a product delivery is deviated a promised delivery time. Thus, each of claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (Prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, dependent claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 rely on at least similar elements as recited in claim 10. Further additional elements are also acknowledged (e.g., a past delivery efficiency database (claim 8)); however, the additional elements of claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, this is also because the claims fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Taken individually and as a whole, dependent claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception under step 2A (prong 2).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. The dependent claims recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and use the computing device to implement the abstract idea, while failing to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The dependent claims fail to confer eligibility under step 2B because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware and generally link the exception to a technological environment.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
Taken individually or as an ordered combination, the dependent claims simply convey the abstract idea itself applied on a generic computer and are held to be ineligible under Steps 2B for at least similar rationale as discussed above regarding claim 10. Thus, dependent claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-11, 13-14, 16-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Baviskar (US 20240273442 A1) in view of Bundy (US 9,202,246 B1), and in further view of Goeters (US 20240311750 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Baviskar discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by the one or more processors, proposed delivery data associated with the fulfillment transaction at an item level, a user level, and a seller level, the delivery data including at least an item identifier, a user identifier and a delivery location for a user to deliver the item from a shipment location to the delivery location; (Baviskar: [0018] – “the promised date of the sales order is the delivery date that the seller commits to is based on product availability, processing and handling time. The promised/estimated delivery date is the date when the customer can expect to receive an ordered product/item (e.g., promised arrival data 104). In a sales order system, in one embodiment, in order to set a promised delivery date, a sales team checks product specification, quantities and the desired delivery date. The product availability is checked based on inventory levels, production schedules and supplier lead time”; Baviskar: [0089-0091] – “[0089] 1. customer age with the enterprise; [0090] 2. frequency of placing order in days i.e. customer placing an order in x days; [0091] 3. number of orders placed by the customer so far”; Baviskar: [0100] – “the training data includes information on all orders delivered to each location in the past”; Baviskar: [0119-0121] – “[0119] 1. volume of the item (length, width, height); [0120] 2. weight of the item; [0121] 3. is the item fragile?”). In summary, proposed delivery data is made that would involve the item, user, seller, and delivery data, including the delivery location.
referencing, by the one or more processors, a delivery efficiency database storing historical delivery data for the item at the seller level and the user level; (Baviskar: [0101-0107] – “[0101] 1. does this location has limited delivery hours? [0102] 2. % of times orders delivered on time at this location (with regard to (“wrt”) all orders coming from any source location); [0103] 3. % of times orders delivered after due date at this location (wrt all orders coming from any source location); [0104] 4. % of times orders delivered before due date at this location (wrt all orders coming from any source location); [0105] 5. Average days required to deliver orders at this customer location (wrt all orders coming from any source location); [0106] 6. % of times orders delivered on time at this location (wrt specific orders on current source-destination route); [0107] 7. % of times orders delivered after due date at this location (wrt specific orders on current source-destination route)”). In summary, historical data is kept and retrieved regarding delivery data for an item to a location (seller level and user level).
predicting, by the one or more processors, a predicted deviation from a specified delivery time of the delivery data as a function of the item identifier, the user identifier, and the delivery location; (Baviskar: [0028] – “predicting a delay in delivery with respect to promised delivery date by modelling the problem as a regression task where the target variable is the number of days between the actual delivery date and the purchase order submission date. In general, embodiments predict the number of days needed after the purchase order submission date to actually deliver the item to the customer's address. Using this prediction, embodiments automatically generate a predicted delivery date. The predicted delivery date may be in the form of the original promised delivery date provided to the customer (e.g., date 104 of FIG. 1) or a prediction on the number of days between the predicted delivery date and the promised delivery date”; Baviskar: [0088] – “infer the importance of the customer, the training data includes historical information on customer behavior in the past”; Baviskar: [0100] – “infer difficulty of a location for delivering on-time from historical data”; Baviskar: [0118] – “infer item shipping complexity”).
Baviskar does not explicitly teach a method comprising:
in response to initiation of an interactive session in an electronic shopping interactive computing environment operating on one or more processors of the electronic device, detecting, by a user interface operable with the one or more processors, user input selecting an item associated with a fulfillment transaction;
when the predicted deviation represents a deviation beyond a threshold, presenting, by the one or more processors, a prompt highlighting the predicted deviation from the specified delivery time, with the prompt causing the user interface to modify the presentation of items available for the fulfillment transaction in accordance with the predicted deviation.
Notably, however, Baviskar does disclose predicting a delay in delivery with respect to a promised delivery date (Baviskar: [0028]).
To that accord, Bundy does teach a method comprising:
in response to initiation of an interactive session in an electronic shopping interactive computing environment operating on one or more processors of the electronic device, detecting, by a user interface operable with the one or more processors, user input selecting an item associated with a fulfillment transaction; (Bundy: col. 3, ln. 1-9 – “the customer may utilize browser 130 to submit an order for one or more items to the merchant. For instance, the customer may utilize browser 130 to add the one or more items to an electronic shopping cart and to purchase the item(s) in the shopping cart. The merchant may store information about the customer (e.g., contact information, shipping information, payment information, etc.) and/or order information (e.g., items in the order, total cost of order, shipping options, etc.) in customer/order data store”).
a seller identifier; (Bundy: col. 4, ln. 3-6 – “The item relationship model may include, for each of multiple items offered by the merchant, indications of one or more additional items that have been determined to be substitutes for that item”).
when the predicted deviation represents a deviation beyond a threshold, presenting, by the one or more processors, a prompt highlighting the predicted deviation from the specified delivery time, with the prompt causing the user interface to modify the presentation of items available for the fulfillment transaction in accordance with the predicted deviation. (Bundy: col. 8, ln. 3-7 – “providing the customer with an order status message that specifies i) the given item has been delayed or canceled, and a recommendation to purchase at least one of the substitute items identified”; Bundy: col. 8, ln. 33-41 – “In various embodiments, the method may include ensuring that the substitute item that is chosen can be delivered to the customer before the delayed item. In other words, the method may include avoiding recommending substitute items that will not improve the delivery date to the customer. For example, for a given item has been delayed until a first time, the method may include enforcing a requirement that the substitute item must be an item eligible to be provided to the customer prior to the first time”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Baviskar disclosing the system for determining accuracy of delivery information for an order with the detecting of user input selecting an item in response to the initiation of a shopping session as taught by Bundy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to assign the customer order to an appropriate facility (Bundy: col. 3, ln. 14-17) and to replace the items without further delaying the order (Bundy: col. 7, ln. 47-53).
Baviskar in view of Bundy does not explicitly teach a seller identifier and shipment service; Notably, however, Baviskar does disclose a database containing customer data, product data, and transactional data (Baviskar: [0025]).
To that accord, Goeters does teach shipment service; (Goeters: [0046] – “Carrier information can include a list of available carriers; published data per carrier (e.g., carrier rates, services provided, available routes, coverage regions, delivery speed, constraints, delivery day of week, quotes, etc.); historical shipping data obtained per carrier (e.g., delivery delays, estimated vs. actual delivery times, etc.); and/or any other carrier-specific information”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Baviskar in view of Bundy disclosing the system for determining accuracy of delivery information for an order with the shipment service as taught by Goeters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide accurate delivery dates and avoid unnecessary costs for the seller and customer (Goeters: [0004]).
Regarding Claim 2: Baviskar in view of Bundy and Goeters discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Baviskar further discloses wherein the delivery data further comprises a shipment location for the item. (Baviskar: [0028] – “predict the number of days needed after the purchase order submission date to actually deliver the item to the customer's address”).
Regarding Claim 5: Baviskar in view of Bundy and Goeters discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Baviskar does not explicitly teach proposing, by the one or more processors within the electronic shopping interactive computing environment, alternative items deviating less from the specified delivery time than the predicted deviation. Notably, however, Baviskar does disclose predicting a delay in delivery with respect to a promised delivery date (Baviskar: [0028]).
To that accord, Bundy does teach proposing, by the one or more processors within the electronic shopping interactive computing environment, alternative items deviating less from the specified delivery time than the predicted deviation. (Bundy: col. 8, ln. 33-41 – “In various embodiments, the method may include ensuring that the substitute item that is chosen can be delivered to the customer before the delayed item. In other words, the method may include avoiding recommending substitute items that will not improve the delivery date to the customer. For example, for a given item has been delayed until a first time, the method may include enforcing a requirement that the substitute item must be an item eligible to be provided to the customer prior to the first time”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Baviskar disclosing the system for determining accuracy of delivery information for an order with the alternative items deviating less than the predicted deviation as taught by Bundy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to replace the items without further delaying the order (Bundy: col. 7, ln. 47-53).
Regarding Claim 7: Baviskar in view of Bundy and Goeters discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Baviskar further discloses wherein the item identifier comprises a category of items. (Baviskar: [0053] – “Item Type in Sales Order (a broader category assigned to the item)”).
Regarding Claim 8: Baviskar in view of Bundy and Goeters discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Baviskar further discloses forecasting delivery efficiency using the historical delivery data. (Baviskar: [0100-0106] – “infer difficulty of a location for delivering on-time from historical data, the training data includes information on all orders delivered to each location in the past. In embodiments, the following features will be extracted from the historical data for training delivery difficulty classifier 307: [0101] 1. does this location has limited delivery hours? [0102] 2. % of times orders delivered on time at this location (with regard to (“wrt”) all orders coming from any source location); [0103] 3. % of times orders delivered after due date at this location (wrt all orders coming from any source location); [0104] 4. % of times orders delivered before due date at this location (wrt all orders coming from any source location); [0105] 5. Average days required to deliver orders at this customer location (wrt all orders coming from any source location); [0106] 6. % of times orders delivered on time at this location (wrt specific orders on current source-destination route)”).
Regarding Claim 9: Baviskar in view of Bundy and Goeters discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Baviskar does not explicitly teach wherein the prompt comprises a warning and alternative items having a lesser deviation than the predicted deviation. Notably, however, Baviskar does disclose predicting a delay in delivery with respect to a promised delivery date (Baviskar: [0028]).
To that accord, Bundy does teach wherein the prompt comprises a warning and alternative items having a lesser deviation than the predicted deviation. (Bundy: col. 8, ln. 3-7 – “providing the customer with an order status message that specifies i) the given item has been delayed or canceled, and a recommendation to purchase at least one of the substitute items identified”; Bundy: col. 8, ln. 33-41 – “In various embodiments, the method may include ensuring that the substitute item that is chosen can be delivered to the customer before the delayed item. In other words, the method may include avoiding recommending substitute items that will not improve the delivery date to the customer. For example, for a given item has been delayed until a first time, the method may include enforcing a requirement that the substitute item must be an item eligible to be provided to the customer prior to the first time”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Baviskar disclosing the system for determining accuracy of delivery information for an order with the detecting of user input selecting an item in response to the initiation of a shopping session as taught by Bundy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to assign the customer order to an appropriate facility (Bundy: col. 3, ln. 14-17) and to replace the items without further delaying the order (Bundy: col. 7, ln. 47-53).
Regarding Claims 10 and 16: Claims 10 and 16 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claims 10 and 16 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding Claims 11 and 17: Claims 11 and 17 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 9. Therefore, claims 11 and 17 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 9 above.
Regarding Claim 13: Baviskar in view of Bundy and Goeters discloses the limitations of claim 11 above.
Baviskar further discloses wherein the one or more processors further extract, from the fulfillment transaction, a shipment location, wherein the predicted deviation is determined as a function of the shipment location. (Baviskar: [0028] – “predicting a delay in delivery with respect to promised delivery date by modelling the problem as a regression task where the target variable is the number of days between the actual delivery date and the purchase order submission date. In general, embodiments predict the number of days needed after the purchase order submission date to actually deliver the item to the customer's address”; Baviskar: [0101-0109] – “does this location has limited delivery hours? [0102] 2. % of times orders delivered on time at this location (with regard to (“wrt”) all orders coming from any source location); [0103] 3. % of times orders delivered after due date at this location (wrt all orders coming from any source location); [0104] 4. % of times orders delivered before due date at this location (wrt all orders coming from any source location); [0105] 5. Average days required to deliver orders at this customer location (wrt all orders coming from any source location); [0106] 6. % of times orders delivered on time at this location (wrt specific orders on current source-destination route); [0107] 7. % of times orders delivered after due date at this location (wrt specific orders on current source-destination route); [0108] 8. % of times orders delivered before due date at this location (wrt specific orders on current source-destination route); [0109] 9. Average days required to deliver orders at this customer location (wrt specific orders on current source-destination route)”).
Regarding Claim 14: Baviskar in view of Bundy and Goeters discloses the limitations of claim 13 above.
Baviskar further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to update a delivery efficiency database with the predicted deviation. (Baviskar: [0082] – “ML model 350 can be continually retrained using updated training data”; Baviskar: [0018] – “The customer is then typically regularly updated on order status and changes to the promised date”).
Regarding Claim 19: Claim 19 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 14. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 14 above.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Baviskar (US 20240273442 A1), Bundy (US 9,202,246 B1), and Goeters (US 20240311750 A1), in view of Rolih (US 20180364892 A1).
Regarding Claim 3: The combination of Baviskar, Bundy, and Goeters discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the prompt comprises a user actuation target configured as a symbol, wherein the predicted deviation is initially hidden when the prompt is presented but revealed in response to other user input actuating the user actuation target. Notably, however, Baviskar does disclose predicting a delay from the promised delivery date (Baviskar: [0028]), and Bundy does disclose a notification to the user of a delay and presenting alternative items (Bundy: col. 8, ln. 3-41).
To that accord, Rolih does teach wherein the prompt comprises a user actuation target configured as a symbol, wherein the predicted deviation is initially hidden when the prompt is presented but revealed in response to other user input actuating the user actuation target. (Rolih: [0008] – “the notification content item being related to the service provider, and animating the icon to display the notification content item on the user interface based on the received icon animation. The operation can further include: receiving, from the user, a selection of the animated icon, and in response: opening a landing page corresponding to the notification content item being displayed on the user interface”; Rolih: [0038] – “when the user selects the icon while it is animated a first way, the device executes the application and presents the user with a secondary application interface (e.g., a “promotional” interface that provides more information regarding a particular promotion). Further, when the user selects the icon while it is animated a second way, the device executes the application and presents the user with a tertiary application interface (e.g., a “notification” interface that provides more information regarding a particular notification or alert). In this manner, the application can be executed differently, depending on whether the icon is animated at the time of selection”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Baviskar, Bundy, and Goeters disclosing the system for determining accuracy of delivery information for an order with the user actuation target as a symbol and revealing the prompt in response to user input as taught by Rolih. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to receive and review information (Rolih: [0003]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Baviskar (US 20240273442 A1), Bundy (US 9,202,246 B1), and Goeters (US 20240311750 A1), in view of Mueller (US 20170278062 A1).
Regarding Claim 4: The combination of Baviskar, Bundy, and Goeters discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the proposed delivery data at the user level further comprises a subscription plan defining shipping terms within the electronic shopping interactive computing environment. Notably, however, Baviskar does disclose predicting a delay from the promised delivery date (Baviskar: [0028]).
To that accord, Mueller does teach wherein the proposed delivery data at the user level further comprises a subscription plan defining shipping terms within the electronic shopping interactive computing environment. (Mueller: [0031] – “some delivery programs and associated delivery methods may be available only to users having a certain status, such as a subscription status”; Mueller: [0011] – “The availability of a particular delivery speed may depend upon the time that an order is placed, the delivery address of the user, a subscription status of the user”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Baviskar, Bundy, and Goeters disclosing the system for determining accuracy of delivery information for an order with the subscription plan defining shipping terms as taught by Mueller. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to limit benefits to users with a certain status or thresholds of activity with the system (Mueller: [0031]).
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Baviskar (US 20240273442 A1), Bundy (US 9,202,246 B1), and Goeters (US 20240311750 A1), in view of Su (US 20240028983 A1).
Regarding Claim 6: The combination of Baviskar, Bundy, and Goeters discloses the limitations of claim 5.
The combination does not explicitly teach prioritizing the alternative items from lowest deviations from the specified delivery time to highest deviation from the specified delivery time. Notably, however, Bundy does disclose providing alternative items that are to arrive before the delayed time (Bundy: col. 8, ln. 33-41).
To that accord, Su does teach prioritizing the alternative items from lowest deviations from the specified delivery time to highest deviation from the specified delivery time. (Su: [0081] – “the orders corresponding to the product are acquired and the orders of the product are sorted according to at least one of an order delivery date and an order priority to obtain an order sorting result”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Baviskar, Bundy, and Goeters disclosing the system for determining accuracy of delivery information for an order with the prioritizing the alternative items from lowest to highest deviation as taught by Su. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain a more accurate product scheduling (Su: [0082]).
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Baviskar (US 20240273442 A1), Bundy (US 9,202,246 B1), and Goeters (US 20240311750 A1), in view of Canfield (US 11,698,940 B1).
Regarding Claim 12: The combination of Baviskar, Bundy, and Goeters discloses the limitations of claim 11.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors further identify, on the user interface within the electronic shopping interactive computing environment, the lesser predicted deviation when proposing the alternative items. Notably, however, Bundy does disclose identifying substitute items that are expected to arrive before the delayed item (Bundy: col. 8, ln. 33-41).
To that accord, Canfield does teach wherein the one or more processors further identify, on the user interface within the electronic shopping interactive computing environment, the lesser predicted deviation when proposing the alternative items. (Canfield: col. 2, ln. 49-59 – “the primary item information may be displayed by the retail server as part of an initial interface presented to the user computing device (e.g., the primary item information may be linked to a specific uniform resource locator (“URL”) or uniform resource identifier (“URI”)). The primary item information may be primary, critical, basic, or otherwise premium item information. For example, the primary item information may include an initial item picture (e.g., diagram, figure, etc.), an initial item title, an initial delivery date, a rating, or any other initial item information”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Baviskar, Bundy, and Goeters disclosing the system for determining accuracy of delivery information for an order with the identifying of the lesser predicted deviation as taught by Canfield. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to identify similar items to the original item and provide additional information (Canfield: col. 1, ln. 17-24).
Regarding Claim 18: The combination of Baviskar, Bundy, and Goeters discloses the limitations of claim 17.
The combination does not explicitly teach prioritizing the alternative items from lowest deviation from the specified delivery time to highest deviation from the specified delivery time. Notably, however, Bundy does disclose identifying substitute items that are expected to arrive before the delayed item (Bundy: col. 8, ln. 33-41).
To that accord, Canfield does teach prioritizing the alternative items from lowest deviation from the specified delivery time to highest deviation from the specified delivery time. (Canfield: col. 7, ln. 20-27 – “rank the items based on availability, price, delivery date, reviews, etc. A top ranked item may be placed in a particular position of the first interface 104 (e.g., in a topmost position of the first interface). The first interface 104 identifies a first item 108, a second item 112, and a third item 116 and identifies item information for each item from the primary item information”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Baviskar, Bundy, and Goeters disclosing the system for determining accuracy of delivery information for an order with the prioritizing the alternative items from the lowest deviation from the specified delivery date as taught by Canfield. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to identify similar items to the original item and provide additional information (Canfield: col. 1, ln. 17-24).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Baviskar (US 20240273442 A1), Bundy (US 9,202,246 B1), and Goeters (US 20240311750 A1), in view of Canfield 2 (US 20210158420 A1).
Regarding Claim 15: The combination of Baviskar, Bundy, and Goeters discloses the limitations of claim 10 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the prompt comprises a user actuation target configured as a symbol, wherein the predicted deviation from the promised delivery time is initially hidden when the prompt is presented but revealed in response to other user input actuating the user actuation target. Notably, however, Huddar does disclose a notification to a recipient of the inaccurate delivery information (Huddar: col. 3, ln. 29-39), and Bundy does disclose identifying substitute items that are expected to arrive before the delayed item (Bundy: col. 8, ln. 33-41).
To that accord, Canfield 2 does teach wherein the prompt comprises a user actuation target configured as a symbol, wherein the predicted deviation from the promised delivery time is initially hidden when the prompt is presented but revealed in response to other user input actuating the user actuation target. (Canfield 2: [0036] – “the display module 490 retrieves real-time attributes, such as shipping information, price, etc., from the real-time attributes module 480. The various inputs are used by the display module 490 to generate a webpage for display to a user. For example, if the user clicks on the “see more” UI element 230 of FIG. 2, the display module 490 makes a request to each of the modules 458, 472, 480 to obtain the necessary data to generate and display a webpage”; Canfield 2: Fig. 2, #230; Fig. 3, #330,346 displaying a list of products with a see more button that can be interacted with to display additional information, including delivery date).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Baviskar, Bundy, and Goeters disclosing the system for determining accuracy of delivery information for an order with the delivery time being initially hidden until actuating the user actuation target as taught by Canfield 2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow the user to show interest and view high-level information (Canfield 2: [0019]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Baviskar (US 20240273442 A1), Bundy (US 9,202,246 B1), and Goeters (US 20240311750 A1), in view of Mehrdad (US 20250245281 A1).
Regarding Claim 20: The combination of Baviskar, Bundy, and Goeters discloses the limitations of claim 16 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach presenting, by the one or more processors on a user interface within the electronic shopping interactive computing environment, filter options to exclude other items having a predicted deviation from the specified delivery time. Notably, however, Bundy does disclose avoiding displaying substitute items that would not be delivered by the original delivery date (Bundy: col. 8, ln. 33-41).
To that accord, Mehrdad does teach presenting, by the one or more processors on a user interface within the electronic shopping interactive computing environment, filter options to exclude other items having a predicted deviation from the specified delivery time. (Mehrdad: [0066] – “the electronic interactions 310 tracked or monitored may additionally, or alternatively, include: a) filter interactions (e.g., the user's selection of various filters, such as those configured to filter items 371 based on price, category, expected delivery time, manufacturer, brand, etc.)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Baviskar, Bundy, and Goeters disclosing the system for determining accuracy of delivery information for an order with the presenting of filters to exclude items having a deviation predicted deviation from the specified delivery time as taught by Mehrdad. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to deduce user intent to produce more relevant search results (Mehrdad: [0003]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30am - 7:00pm EST.
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, Maria-Teresa Thein can be reached at 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.
/T.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights