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 .
Priority
Applicant claims priority to Chinese Patent Application No. 202411397787.X, and filed on October 08, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS submitted on 2/23/2026 was previously considered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amended claims, filed 7/8/2026, have been entered. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the method, as claimed in claims 1-14, are directed to a process, the device, as claimed in claims 15-17, are directed to a machine, and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, as claimed in claims 18-20, are directed to an article of manufacture (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A (prong 1), claim 1, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
recommending items to a user for content distribution by the user;
for an item selected by the user, establishing a binding relationship between the user and a same item of an item distribution center of a content distribution region, comprising:
determining, in the content distribution region, whether a same item exists in an item distribution center that belongs to a same item provider as the item selected by the user, and
establishing the binding relationship between the user and the same item of the same item provider, or establishing the binding relationship between the user and the same item of other item provider, which is different from the item provider in the item distribution center; and
in response to the user publishing content by using the selected item, presenting, for the selected item, an item link corresponding to the content distribution region.
These limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity, such as performing commercial interactions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined by MPEP 2106.04 as including “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” In this case, the abstract ideas recited in representative claim 1 are certain methods of organizing human activity because recommending items and presenting item information to a user based on selections is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Independent claims 15 and 18 recite the same abstract idea as recited in independent claim 1. As such, the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1 is the same for independent claims 15 and 18 as described above for independent claim 1.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception (see MPEP 2106.04). As stated in the MPEP, when “an additional element merely recites the words ‘apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
In this case, representative claim 1 does not include any additional elements. Accordingly, claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
In this case, representative claim 15 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
An electronic device, comprising:
a memory; and
a processor coupled to the memory, the processor being configured to perform, based on instructions stored in the memory, a interaction method comprising:
recommending items to a user for content distribution by the user;
for an item selected by the user, establishing a binding relationship between the user and a same item of an item distribution center of a content distribution region, comprising:
determining, in the content distribution region, whether a same item exists in an item distribution center that belongs to a same item provider as the item selected by the user, and
establishing the binding relationship between the user and the same item of the same item provider, or establishing the binding relationship between the user and the same item of other item provider, which is different from the item provider in the item distribution center
in response to the user publishing content by using the selected item, presenting, for the selected item, an item link corresponding to the content distribution region.
In this case, representative claim 18 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having thereon stored a computer program which, when executed by a processor, implements a interaction method comprising:
recommending items to a user for content distribution by the user;
for an item selected by the user, establishing a binding relationship between the user and a same item of an item distribution center of a content distribution region, comprising:
determining, in the content distribution region, whether a same item exists in an item distribution center that belongs to a same item provider as the item selected by the user, and
establishing the binding relationship between the user and the same item of the same item provider, or establishing the binding relationship between the user and the same item of other item provider, which is different from the item provider in the item distribution center
in response to the user publishing content by using the selected item, presenting, for the selected item, an item link corresponding to the content distribution region.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment (executed on “an electronic device, comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor being configured to perform, based on instructions stored in the memory” and “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having thereon stored a computer program”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (presenting information). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. This is because the additional elements of claims 15 and 18 are recited 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 the abstract idea) (see Figs. 6 and 7; paragraphs [00103]- [00127]). The specification indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. The description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered pair, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional elements are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not transform or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technology environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
In addition to the above, the recited displaying steps (even assuming arguendo they do not form part of the abstract idea, which the Examiner does not acquiesce), are at best little more than extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering, presentation of data) that contributes nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed system (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 15 and 18 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As noted above, claim 1 does not recite any additional elements. Accordingly, claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Returning to claims 15 and 18, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 15 and 18 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). 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 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.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claims 15 and 18 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
presenting offers
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claims 15 and 18 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 15 and 18 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 2-11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20
Dependent claim(s) 2-11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claim(s) 2-11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim(s) 1, 15, and 18 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claim claim(s) 1, 15, and 18.
Claims 2-11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 set forth:
wherein the binding relationship comprises a first binding relationship, and for the item selected by the user, establishing the binding relationship between the user and the same item of the item distribution center of the content distribution region comprises: in response to in the content distribution region, the same item existing in the item distribution center that belongs to the same item provider as the item selected by the user, binding the user with the item selected by the user and the same item of the same item provider in the item distribution center of the content distribution region, to establish the first binding relationship between the user and same items.
for same items of item distribution centers of different regions belonging to the same item provider, creating a first association, to associate subitem identifications of the same items of the item distribution centers of the different regions to a same main item identification.
wherein determining, in the content distribution region, whether the same item exists in the item distribution center that belongs to the same item provider as the item selected by the user comprises: determining whether the item selected by the user corresponds to a main item, and whether the main item corresponds to a subitem in the item distribution center of the content distribution region according to the first association.
wherein the binding relationship comprises a second binding relationship, and for the item selected by the user, establishing the binding relationship between the user and the same item of the item distribution center of a content distribution region comprises: searching for the same item of the other item provider in the item distribution center of the content distribution region, wherein the other item provider is different from the item provider, to which the item selected by the user belongs; and binding the user with the item selected by the user and the same item of the other item provider in the item distribution center of the content distribution region, to establish the second binding relationship between the user and same items.
wherein searching for the same item of other item provider in the item distribution center of the content distribution region comprises: searching for the same item of the other item provider in the item distribution center of the content distribution region according to related text information and picture information of an item.
creating a second association, to associate item identifications of same items of item distribution centers of different regions according to related information of an item.
wherein searching for the same item of another item provider in the item distribution center of the content distribution region comprises: searching for an item, of which an item identification has the second association with the item selected by the user, in the content distribution region, as the same item of the other item provider in the item distribution center of the content distribution region.
before establishing the binding relationship between the user and the same item of the item distribution center of the content distribution region: determining whether the item selected by the user is distributed in item distribution centers of a plurality of regions according to setting information of the user; in response to the item selected by the user being distributed in item distribution centers of the plurality of regions, determining whether the content distribution region belongs to one or more of the plurality of regions; and in response to the content distribution region belonging to one or more of the plurality of regions, determining whether a same item exists in the item distribution center of the content distribution region.
before establishing the binding relationship between the user and the same item of the item distribution center of the content distribution region: for the item selected by the user, presenting distribution information of same items in item distribution centers of different regions according to an item distribution mode.
for same items of item distribution centers of different regions belonging to a same item provider, presenting first distribution information; and for same items of item distribution centers of different regions not belonging to a same item provider, presenting second distribution information, wherein the second distribution information is different from the first distribution information.
wherein in response to the user publishing content by using the selected item, presenting, for the selected item, the item link corresponding to the content distribution region comprises: determining, in the content distribution region, whether a same item exists in an item distribution center that belongs to a same item provider as the item selected by the user according to the binding relationship; in response to in the content distribution region, a same item existing in an item distribution center that belongs to a same item provider as the item selected by the user, presenting an item link corresponding to the same item; and in response to in the content distribution region, no same item existing in an item distribution center that belongs to the same item provider as the item selected by the user, searching for a same item of other item provider in the item distribution center of the content distribution region and presenting an item link corresponding to the same item of the other item provider, wherein the other item provider is different from the item provider, to which the item selected by the user belongs.
wherein, the recommending items for content distribution by the user comprises: recommending the items for content distribution by the user according to user preference and item distribution mode.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of recommending items and presenting item information to a user based on selections. As claim 1 does not set forth any additional elements and claims 2-11, 13, and 14 (which depend from claim 1) do not set forth any further additional limitations, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim(s) 1. As to claims 16, 17, 19, and 20, the claims do not set forth any further additional limitations, and therefore such abstract embellishments are applied to the additional limitations recited in claim(s) 15 and 18, which do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim(s) 15 and 18.
Thus, dependent claims 2-11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are ineligible.
Regarding claim 12
Dependent claim(s) 12 sets forth:
wherein, the content distribution region comprises a first content distribution region and a second content distribution region, the first content distribution region being a content distribution region where the user is located, and the second content distribution region being another content distribution region than the first content distribution region, and for the item selected by the user, establishing the binding relationship between the user and the same item of the item distribution center of the content distribution region comprises: establishing a binding relationship between the user and the selected item on a server of the first content distribution region; and establishing a binding relationship between the user and a same item of an item distribution center of the second content distribution region by a mirroring operation, on a server of the second content distribution region.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of recommending items and presenting item information to a user based on selections. While the claim(s) do set forth the additional elements of “a server”, these recitations are similar to the additional limitations in claims 15 and 18, as they do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is these additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment (“on a server”). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs [00103]- [00127] indicate that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and thus do not act to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thus, dependent claim 12 is also ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9, 10, and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foreign Patent CN 116647433 (previously recited Reference N in the Notice of References cited mailed 4/8/2026).
Regarding claim 1, Foreign Patent CN 116647433, hereinafter Reference N, discloses an interaction method, comprising:
recommending items to a user for content distribution by the user (page 7, paragraph 4 [“For example, as shown in Figure 4, the operator of the live broadcast room of the e-commerce platform configures the live broadcast event, through the live broadcast console, taking a selected regional distribution center (RDC) as an example, by creating a live broadcast event, configuring The main domain live broadcast product and live event configuration and other operations complete the relevant configuration of the live event.”] and page 8, paragraph 5 [“operators can bind relevant matching products by configuring the association of live broadcast products in the main domain.”]);
for an item selected by the user, establishing a binding relationship between the user and a same item of an item distribution center of a content distribution region (page 7, paragraph 4 [“For example, as shown in Figure 4, the operator of the live broadcast room of the e-commerce platform configures the live broadcast event, through the live broadcast console, taking a selected regional distribution center (RDC) as an example, by creating a live broadcast event, configuring The main domain live broadcast product and live event configuration and other operations complete the relevant configuration of the live event.”] and page 8, paragraphs 5-7 [“operators can bind relevant matching products by configuring the association of live broadcast products in the main domain… the server replaces the live products in the main domain of the live broadcast terminal based on the same product replacement logic to obtain live products in different domains, which may also include live product information based on the main domain and user location information, according to the preset offline search model , the search model and the associated configuration model determine the domain-specific live broadcast commodities through a weighted algorithm.”] and page 5, paragraph 6 [“By replacing the main domain live broadcast products on the live broadcast end with the same product, the sub-domain live broadcast products corresponding to each sub-region can be automatically synchronized and based on the user's LBS (LocationBasedServices: location-based service) information to push the corresponding domain-specific live broadcast products to users. The operation structure of centralized live broadcast and sub-regional supply can meet the shopping needs of users in various sub- regions in one live broadcast scenario, thereby increasing the user's order rate and improving the user's shopping experience.”]) comprising:
determining, in the content distribution region, whether a same item exists in an item distribution center that belongs to a same item provider as the item selected by the user (page 7, paragraph 4 [“For example, as shown in Figure 4, the operator of the live broadcast room of the e-commerce platform configures the live broadcast event, through the live broadcast console, taking a selected regional distribution center (RDC) as an example, by creating a live broadcast event, configuring The main domain live broadcast product and live event configuration and other operations complete the relevant configuration of the live event.”] and page 8, paragraphs 5-7 [“operators can bind relevant matching products by configuring the association of live broadcast products in the main domain… the server replaces the live products in the main domain of the live broadcast terminal based on the same product replacement logic to obtain live products in different domains, which may also include live product information based on the main domain and user location information, according to the preset offline search model , the search model and the associated configuration model determine the domain-specific live broadcast commodities through a weighted algorithm.”] and page 5, paragraph 6 [“By replacing the main domain live broadcast products on the live broadcast end with the same product, the sub-domain live broadcast products corresponding to each sub-region can be automatically synchronized and based on the user's LBS (LocationBasedServices: location-based service) information to push the corresponding domain-specific live broadcast products to users. The operation structure of centralized live broadcast and sub-regional supply can meet the shopping needs of users in various sub- regions in one live broadcast scenario, thereby increasing the user's order rate and improving the user's shopping experience.”], page 4, paragraph 13 to page 5, paragraph 1 [the operation structure of community group buying includes a supplier, a shared warehouse, a central warehouse, a grid warehouse and a self-pickup point. The supplier centrally transports the goods to the shared warehouse corresponding to the e-commerce platform, and the shared warehouse temporarily stores the goods. When there is a demand for supply, the shared warehouse will deliver goods to the central warehouse according to the order information to the corresponding central warehouse. The central warehouse is equipped with multiple regional grid warehouses, such as the grid warehouse shown in Figure 1. The grid warehouse is the transfer station between the e-commerce platform and the offline service site. Each grid warehouse corresponds to an independent area (the self-pickup point shown in Figure 1), and each grid warehouse does not affect each other.], page 8, paragraph 1 [page 7, paragraphs 10-11 [the main domain live broadcast product information is the unique identification information representing the main domain live broadcast product, that is, itemId. Each main domain live broadcast product information uniquely corresponds to an itemId. The user location information is the information of the self- pickup point where the user is located, that is, StationCode…Based on the existing data of itemId and StationCode, the corresponding relationship between itemId and StationCode can be determined, and the most matching product can be determined through the preset offline recommendation model.]]); and
establishing the binding relationship between the user and the same item of the same item provider, or establishing the binding relationship between the user and the same item of other item provider, which is different from the item provider in the item distribution center (page 7, paragraph 4 [“For example, as shown in Figure 4, the operator of the live broadcast room of the e-commerce platform configures the live broadcast event, through the live broadcast console, taking a selected regional distribution center (RDC) as an example, by creating a live broadcast event, configuring The main domain live broadcast product and live event configuration and other operations complete the relevant configuration of the live event.”] and page 8, paragraphs 5-7 [“The server determines the most matching product though the preset association configuration model based on the current main domain love broadcast product information. For example, operators can bind relevant matching products by configuring the association of live broadcast products in the main domain to bind related matching products… the server replaces the live products in the main domain of the live broadcast terminal based on the same product replacement logic to obtain live products in different domains, which may also include live product information based on the main domain and user location information, according to the preset offline search model , the search model and the associated configuration model determine the domain-specific live broadcast commodities through a weighted algorithm.”] and page 5, paragraph 6 [“By replacing the main domain live broadcast products on the live broadcast end with the same product, the sub-domain live broadcast products corresponding to each sub-region can be automatically synchronized and based on the user's LBS (LocationBasedServices: location-based service) information to push the corresponding domain-specific live broadcast products to users. The operation structure of centralized live broadcast and sub-regional supply can meet the shopping needs of users in various sub- regions in one live broadcast scenario, thereby increasing the user's order rate and improving the user's shopping experience.”]); and
in response to the user publishing content by using the selected item, presenting, for the selected item, an item link corresponding to the content distribution region (page 5, paragraph 6 [“By replacing the main domain live broadcast products on the live broadcast end with the same product, the sub-domain live broadcast products corresponding to each sub-region can be automatically synchronized and based on the user's LBS (LocationBasedServices: location-based service) information to push the corresponding domain-specific live broadcast products to users. The operation structure of centralized live broadcast and sub-regional supply can meet the shopping needs of users in various sub- regions in one live broadcast scenario, thereby increasing the user's order rate and improving the user's shopping experience.”], page 6, paragraph 13 [“in step S200, the server determines the regional distribution center corresponding to the user based on the location information.”], page 7, paragraph 2 [“In step S300, the server pushes the information of the domain-specific live broadcast commodity corresponding to the regional distribution center to the user terminal. Domain-specific live broadcast products are obtained by replacing the live broadcast products in the main domain of the live broadcast terminal based on the replacement logic of the same product.”]).
Regarding claim 2, Reference N discloses the interaction method according to claim 1, wherein the binding relationship comprises a first binding relationship (page 8, paragraph 5 [“operators can bind relevant matching products by configuring the association of live broadcast products in the main domain.”]), and for the item selected by the user, establishing the binding relationship between the user and the same item of the item distribution center of the content distribution region comprises:
in response to in the content distribution region, the same item existing in the item distribution center that belongs to the same item provider as the item selected by the user, binding the user with the item selected by the user and the same item of the same item provider in the item distribution center of the content distribution region, to establish the first binding relationship between the user and same items (page 8, paragraph 5 [“operators can bind relevant matching products by configuring the association of live broadcast products in the main domain.”] in view of page 4, paragraph 13 to page 5, paragraph 1 and page 5, paragraph 6 [“by replacing the main domain live broadcast products on the live broadcast end with the same product, the sub-domain live broadcast products corresponding to each sub-region can be automatically synchronized and based on the user's LBS (LocationBasedServices: location-based service) information to push the corresponding domain-specific live broadcast products to users”]).
Regarding claim 3, Reference N discloses the interaction method according to claim 2, further comprising:
for same items of item distribution centers of different regions belonging to the same item provider, creating a first association, to associate subitem identifications of the same items of the item distribution centers of the different regions to a same main item identification (page 5, paragraph 6 [“by replacing the main domain live broadcast products on the live broadcast end with the same product, the sub-domain live broadcast products corresponding to each sub-region can be automatically synchronized and based on the user's LBS (LocationBasedServices: location-based service) information to push the corresponding domain-specific live broadcast products to users”], page 7, paragraphs 5-11 [“the domain-specific live broadcast product is obtained by the server replacing the live broadcast product in the main domain of the live broadcast terminal based on the replacement logic of the same product… the replacement of the main domain live broadcast products is triggered at the same time to obtain the sub-domain live broadcast products corresponding to the main domain live broadcast products in each regional distribution center, and the sub-domain live broadcast products are Commodities are cached for commodity information on the server. When the server determines the user's location information (i.e., the self-pickup point information), the domain-specific live broadcast products corresponding to the user's self-pickup point information can be retrieved and pushed and displayed on the user terminal… the main domain live broadcast product information is the unique identification information representing the main domain live broadcast product, that is, itemId. Each main domain live broadcast product information uniquely corresponds to an itemId… the corresponding relationship between itemId and StationCode can be determined, and the most matching product can be determined through the preset offline recommendation model”], page 8, paragraphs 1-9 [matching products]).
Regarding claim 4, Reference N discloses the interaction method according to claim 3, wherein determining, in the content distribution region, whether the same item exists in the item distribution center that belongs to the same item provider as the item selected by the user comprises:
determining whether the item selected by the user corresponds to a main item, and whether the main item corresponds to a subitem in the item distribution center of the content distribution region according to the first association (page 7, paragraphs 5-11 [live broadcast product, domain-specific live broadcast product, and sub-domain live broadcast products], page 8, paragraphs 1-9 [matching products]).
Regarding claim 9, Reference N discloses the interaction method according to claim 1, further comprising, before establishing the binding relationship between the user and the same item of the item distribution center of the content distribution region:
determining whether the item selected by the user is distributed in item distribution centers of a plurality of regions according to setting information of the user (page 5, paragraph 6 [“By replacing the main domain live broadcast products on the live broadcast end with the same product, the sub-domain live broadcast products corresponding to each sub-region can be automatically synchronized and based on the user's LBS (LocationBasedServices: location-based service) information to push the corresponding domain-specific live broadcast products to users. The operation structure of centralized live broadcast and sub-regional supply can meet the shopping needs of users in various sub- regions in one live broadcast scenario, thereby increasing the user's order rate and improving the user's shopping experience.”]);
in response to the item selected by the user being distributed in item distribution centers of the plurality of regions, determining whether the content distribution region belongs to one or more of the plurality of regions (page 4, paragraph 13 to page 5, paragraph 1 [the operation structure of community group buying includes a supplier, a shared warehouse, a central warehouse, a grid warehouse and a self-pickup point. The supplier centrally transports the goods to the shared warehouse corresponding to the e-commerce platform, and the shared warehouse temporarily stores the goods. When there is a demand for supply, the shared warehouse will deliver goods to the central warehouse according to the order information to the corresponding central warehouse. The central warehouse is equipped with multiple regional grid warehouses, such as the grid warehouse shown in Figure 1. The grid warehouse is the transfer station between the e-commerce platform and the offline service site. Each grid warehouse corresponds to an independent area (the self-pickup point shown in Figure 1), and each grid warehouse does not affect each other.], page 8, paragraph 1 [page 7, paragraphs 10-11 [the main domain live broadcast product information is the unique identification information representing the main domain live broadcast product, that is, itemId. Each main domain live broadcast product information uniquely corresponds to an itemId. The user location information is the information of the self- pickup point where the user is located, that is, StationCode…Based on the existing data of itemId and StationCode, the corresponding relationship between itemId and StationCode can be determined, and the most matching product can be determined through the preset offline recommendation model.]]); and
in response to the content distribution region belonging to one or more of the plurality of regions, determining whether a same item exists in the item distribution center of the content distribution region (page 4, paragraph 13 to page 5, paragraph 1 [the operation structure of community group buying includes a supplier, a shared warehouse, a central warehouse, a grid warehouse and a self-pickup point. The supplier centrally transports the goods to the shared warehouse corresponding to the e-commerce platform, and the shared warehouse temporarily stores the goods. When there is a demand for supply, the shared warehouse will deliver goods to the central warehouse according to the order information to the corresponding central warehouse. The central warehouse is equipped with multiple regional grid warehouses, such as the grid warehouse shown in Figure 1. The grid warehouse is the transfer station between the e-commerce platform and the offline service site. Each grid warehouse corresponds to an independent area (the self-pickup point shown in Figure 1), and each grid warehouse does not affect each other.], page 8, paragraph 1 [page 7, paragraphs 10-11 [the main domain live broadcast product information is the unique identification information representing the main domain live broadcast product, that is, itemId. Each main domain live broadcast product information uniquely corresponds to an itemId. The user location information is the information of the self- pickup point where the user is located, that is, StationCode…Based on the existing data of itemId and StationCode, the corresponding relationship between itemId and StationCode can be determined, and the most matching product can be determined through the preset offline recommendation model.]]).
Regarding claim 10, Reference N discloses the interaction method according to claim 1, further comprising, before establishing the binding relationship between the user and the same item of the item distribution center of the content distribution region:
for the item selected by the user, presenting distribution information of same items in item distribution centers of different regions according to an item distribution mode (page 8, paragraphs 5-7 [“operators can bind relevant matching products by configuring the association of live broadcast products in the main domain. The server can directly obtain the relevant most matching products though the associated configuration model, and push and display them to the user as domain-specific live broadcast products”] and page 4, paragraph 13 to page 5, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 14, Reference N discloses the interaction method according to claim 1, wherein, the recommending items for content distribution by the user comprises: recommending the items for content distribution by the user according to user preference and item distribution mode (page 5, paragraph 6 [“By replacing the main domain live broadcast products on the live broadcast end with the same product, the sub-domain live broadcast products corresponding to each sub-region can be automatically synchronized and based on the user's LBS (LocationBasedServices: location-based service) information to push the corresponding domain-specific live broadcast products to users. The operation structure of centralized live broadcast and sub-regional supply can meet the shopping needs of users in various sub- regions in one live broadcast scenario, thereby increasing the user's order rate and improving the user's shopping experience.”]).
Regarding claims 15-20, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claims 1-3, except claims 15-17 are directed to a machine and claims 18-20 are directed to an article of manufacture, while claims 1-3 are directed to a process. The added elements of “electronic device, comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor being configured to perform, based on instructions stored in the memory” and “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having thereon stored a computer program which, when executed by a processor, implements a interaction” are also taught by Reference N (page 2, paragraph 5 and page 2, paragraphs 1-2). Therefore, claims 15-20 are rejected for the same rational over the prior art in claims 1-3.
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.
Claim(s) 5-8 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference N in view of Liu et al. (US 2023/0063711 A1 [previously recited]).
Regarding claim 5, Reference N discloses the interaction method according to claim 1. While Refence N discloses wherein the binding relationship comprises a binding relationship (page 7, paragraph 4 [“For example, as shown in Figure 4, the operator of the live broadcast room of the e-commerce platform configures the live broadcast event, through the live broadcast console, taking a selected regional distribution center (RDC) as an example, by creating a live broadcast event, configuring The main domain live broadcast product and live event configuration and other operations complete the relevant configuration of the live event.”] and page 8, paragraphs 5-7 [“operators can bind relevant matching products by configuring the association of live broadcast products in the main domain… the server replaces the live products in the main domain of the live broadcast terminal based on the same product replacement logic to obtain live products in different domains, which may also include live product information based on the main domain and user location information, according to the preset offline search model , the search model and the associated configuration model determine the domain-specific live broadcast commodities through a weighted algorithm.”] and page 5, paragraph 6 [“By replacing the main domain live broadcast products on the live broadcast end with the same product, the sub-domain live broadcast products corresponding to each sub-region can be automatically synchronized and based on the user's LBS (LocationBasedServices: location-based service) information to push the corresponding domain-specific live broadcast products to users. The operation structure of centralized live broadcast and sub-regional supply can meet the shopping needs of users in various sub- regions in one live broadcast scenario, thereby increasing the user's order rate and improving the user's shopping experience.”]), and for the item selected by the user, establishing the binding relationship between the user and the same item of the item distribution center of the content distribution region comprises:
searching for the same item of the item provider in the item distribution center of the content distribution region, to which the item selected by the user belongs (page 4, paragraph 13 to page 5, paragraph 1 [the operation structure of community group buying includes a supplier, a shared warehouse, a central warehouse, a grid warehouse and a self-pickup point. The supplier centrally transports the goods to the shared warehouse corresponding to the e-commerce platform, and the shared warehouse temporarily stores the goods. When there is a demand for supply, the shared warehouse will deliver goods to the central warehouse according to the order information to the corresponding central warehouse. The central warehouse is equipped with multiple regional grid warehouses, such as the grid warehouse shown in Figure 1. The grid warehouse is the transfer station between the e-commerce platform and the offline service site. Each grid warehouse corresponds to an independent area (the self-pickup point shown in Figure 1), and each grid warehouse does not affect each other.], page 8, paragraph 1 [page 7, paragraphs 10-11 [the main domain live broadcast product information is the unique identification information representing the main domain live broadcast product, that is, itemId. Each main domain live broadcast product information uniquely corresponds to an itemId. The user location information is the information of the self- pickup point where the user is located, that is, StationCode…Based on the existing data of itemId and StationCode, the corresponding relationship between itemId and StationCode can be determined, and the most matching product can be determined through the preset offline recommendation model.]]); and
binding the user with the item selected by the user and the same item of the item provider in the item distribution center of the content distribution region, to establish the binding relationship between the user and same items (page 8, paragraph 5 [“operators can bind relevant matching products by configuring the association of live broadcast products in the main domain.”] in view of page 4, paragraph 13 to page 5, paragraph 1 and page 5, paragraph 6 [“by replacing the main domain live broadcast products on the live broadcast end with the same product, the sub-domain live broadcast products corresponding to each sub-region can be automatically synchronized and based on the user's LBS (LocationBasedServices: location-based service) information to push the corresponding domain-specific live broadcast products to users”]),
Refence N does not explicitly disclose a second binding relationship, searching for the same item of other item provider in the item distribution center, wherein the other item provider is different from the item provider and binding the user and the other item provider to establish a second binding relationship. However, in the field of displaying item information by matching specified geographic information of the audience to objects (abstract), Liu et al., hereinafter Liu, teaches establishing a second binding relationship between other item provider of a same item, wherein the other item provider is different from the item provider and binding the user and the other item provider to establish a second binding relationship (Figs. 2-6; ¶¶0035-0048). The step of Liu is applicable to the method of Refence N as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing location based recommendations to users over the Internet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the item providers as taught by Refence N with the other item providers with binding relationships as taught by Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the method of Refence N in order to provide items from different cooperative merchants (¶0035).
Regarding claim 6, Reference N in view of Liu teaches the interaction method according to claim 5. Liu further teaches wherein searching for the same item of other item provider in the item distribution center of the content distribution region comprises:
searching for the same item of the other item provider in the item distribution center of the content distribution region according to related text information and picture information of an item (Figs. 2-6; ¶¶0032-0048). The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Reference N are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, Reference N in view of Liu teaches the interaction method according to claim 5. Liu further teaches creating a second association, to associate item identifications of same items of item distribution centers of different regions according to related information of an item (Figs. 2-6; ¶¶0032-0048). The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Reference N are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 8, Reference N in view of Liu teaches the interaction method according to claim 7. Liu further teaches wherein searching for the same item of another item provider in the item distribution center of the content distribution region comprises:
searching for an item, of which an item identification has the second association with the item selected by the user, in the content distribution region, as the same item of the other item provider in the item distribution center of the content distribution region (Figs. 2-6; ¶¶0032-0048). The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Reference N are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 11, Reference N discloses the interaction method according to claim 10. While Reference N discloses, wherein:
for same items of item distribution centers of different regions belonging to a same item provider, presenting first distribution information (page 8, paragraphs 5-7 [“operators can bind relevant matching products by configuring the association of live broadcast products in the main domain. The server can directly obtain the relevant most matching products though the associated configuration model, and push and display them to the user as domain-specific live broadcast products”] and page 4, paragraph 13 to page 5, paragraph 1),
Reference N does not explicitly disclose for same items of item distribution centers of different regions not belonging to a same item provider, presenting second distribution information, wherein the second distribution information is different from the first distribution information. However, in the field of displaying item information by matching specified geographic information of the audience to objects, Liu teaches for same items of item distribution centers of different regions not belonging to a same item provider, presenting second distribution information, wherein the second distribution information is different from the first distribution information (Figs. 2-6, 8; ¶¶0035-0048, ¶0058). The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Reference N are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 12, Reference N discloses the interaction method according to claim 1. While Reference N discloses wherein, the content distribution region comprises a first content distribution region and a second content distribution region, the first content distribution region being a content distribution region where the user is located, and the second content distribution region being another content distribution region than the first content distribution region (page 4, paragraph 13 to page 5, paragraph 1), and for the item selected by the user, establishing the binding relationship between the user and the same item of the item distribution center of the content distribution region comprises:
establishing a binding relationship between the user and the selected item on a server of the first content distribution region (page 8, paragraphs 5-7 and page 2, paragraph 5); and
establishing a binding relationship between the user and a same item of an item distribution center of the second content distribution region by a mirroring operation (page 8, paragraph 1 [page 7, paragraphs 10-11 [the main domain live broadcast product information is the unique identification information representing the main domain live broadcast product, that is, itemId. Each main domain live broadcast product information uniquely corresponds to an itemId. The user location information is the information of the self- pickup point where the user is located, that is, StationCode…Based on the existing data of itemId and StationCode, the corresponding relationship between itemId and StationCode can be determined, and the most matching product can be determined through the preset offline recommendation model.], page 8, paragraphs 5-7 and page 2, paragraph 5; Examiner notes most matching product is comparable to mirroring operation),
Reference N does not explicitly disclose on a server of the second content distribution region. However, in the field of displaying item information by matching specified geographic information of the audience to objects, Liu teaches the server may be a server cluster disturbed on multiple remote physical servers (Figs. 1-6, 8; ¶0025). The step of Liu is applicable to the method of Refence N as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing location based recommendations to users over the Internet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the server taught by Refence N with the plurality of remote servers as taught by Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the method of Refence N in order to not be limited to an independent server (¶0025).
Regarding claim 13, Reference N discloses the interaction method according to claim 1. While Reference N discloses wherein in response to the user publishing content by using the selected item, presenting, for the selected item, the item link corresponding to the content distribution region comprises:
determining, in the content distribution region, whether a same item exists in an item distribution center that belongs to a same item provider as the item selected by the user according to the binding relationship (page 4, paragraph 13 to page 5, paragraph 1 [the operation structure of community group buying includes a supplier, a shared warehouse, a central warehouse, a grid warehouse and a self-pickup point. The supplier centrally transports the goods to the shared warehouse corresponding to the e-commerce platform, and the shared warehouse temporarily stores the goods. When there is a demand for supply, the shared warehouse will deliver goods to the central warehouse according to the order information to the corresponding central warehouse. The central warehouse is equipped with multiple regional grid warehouses, such as the grid warehouse shown in Figure 1. The grid warehouse is the transfer station between the e-commerce platform and the offline service site. Each grid warehouse corresponds to an independent area (the self-pickup point shown in Figure 1), and each grid warehouse does not affect each other.], page 8, paragraph 1 [page 7, paragraphs 10-11 [the main domain live broadcast product information is the unique identification information representing the main domain live broadcast product, that is, itemId. Each main domain live broadcast product information uniquely corresponds to an itemId. The user location information is the information of the self- pickup point where the user is located, that is, StationCode…Based on the existing data of itemId and StationCode, the corresponding relationship between itemId and StationCode can be determined, and the most matching product can be determined through the preset offline recommendation model.]]);
in response to in the content distribution region, a same item existing in an item distribution center that belongs to a same item provider as the item selected by the user, presenting an item link corresponding to the same item (page 5, paragraph 6 [“By replacing the main domain live broadcast products on the live broadcast end with the same product, the sub-domain live broadcast products corresponding to each sub-region can be automatically synchronized and based on the user's LBS (LocationBasedServices: location-based service) information to push the corresponding domain-specific live broadcast products to users. The operation structure of centralized live broadcast and sub-regional supply can meet the shopping needs of users in various sub- regions in one live broadcast scenario, thereby increasing the user's order rate and improving the user's shopping experience.”], page 6, paragraph 13 [“in step S200, the server determines the regional distribution center corresponding to the user based on the location information.”], page 7, paragraph 2 [“In step S300, the server pushes the information of the domain-specific live broadcast commodity corresponding to the regional distribution center to the user terminal. Domain-specific live broadcast products are obtained by replacing the live broadcast products in the main domain of the live broadcast terminal based on the replacement logic of the same product.”]),
Reference N does not explicitly disclose in response to in the content distribution region, no same item existing in an item distribution center that belongs to the same item provider as the item selected by the user, searching for a same item of other item provider in the item distribution center of the content distribution region and presenting an item link corresponding to the same item of the other item provider, wherein the other item provider is different from the item provider, to which the item selected by the user belongs. However, in the field of displaying item information by matching specified geographic information of the audience to objects, Liu teaches searching for a same item of other item provider in the item distribution center of the content distribution region and presenting an item link corresponding to the same item of the other item provider, wherein the other item provider is different from the item provider, to which the item selected by the user belongs (Figs. 2-6, 8; ¶¶0035-0048, ¶0058). The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Reference N are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 9-10 of the Remarks filed 7/08/2026, with respect to the previous 35 USC §101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the amended claims recite a specific technical improvement in computer-distributed systems. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, Applicant argues the claims solves a specific technical problem though a concrete backend data processing workflow: automatically determining same-provider availability and conditionally routing the binding relationship to an alternative provider if necessary. As an initial matter, Examiner notes that the argued concept of the claims being directed to “automatically determining same-provider availability and conditionally routing the binding relationship to an alternative provider if necessary” is itself an abstract idea, which is encompassed in the stated abstract idea of “recommending items and presenting item information to a user based on selections.” Further, as noted above in the full rejection of the claims, claims 1-11, 13, and 14 do not recite any additional elements. MPEP 2106.04(d) uses the term additional elements to refer to claim features, limitations, and/or steps that are recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception. Claims 1-11, 13, and 14 are directed to the abstract idea of “recommending items and presenting item information to a user based on selections” and does not contain any additional elements, such as hardware, beyond the abstract idea itself. Abstract ideas are not patent eligible, therefore these limitations cannot provide integration.
While claims 12 and 15-20 recite additional elements, these elements represent the mere use of generic computing components to facility the abstract idea. Notably, the specification provides only a brief description of “a server”, “an electronic device, comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor being configured to perform, based on instructions stored in the memory”, and “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having thereon stored a computer program which, when executed by a processor” and are recited 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 the abstract idea) (see Figs. 6 and 7; paragraphs [00103]- [00127]).
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional function of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Although the specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, it must describe the invention such that eh improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary sill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
Applicant’s specification does not provide the requisite detail necessary such that one of ordinary skill in the art could recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Applicant’s specification does not provide sufficient detail with respect to either a server, device, or the argued backend technical improvements, and is specific only in their use in facilitating the abstract idea of recommending items and presenting item information to a user based on selections.
The character of the claims as a whole is not directed to improving computer performance and do not recite any such benefit. The claims of the instant application, however, merely represent the use of generic computing technology used as a tool to perform the abstract idea in an online environment. The claims lack any restriction on the manner in which the computing operations are to be performed. The manner in which the currently pending claims are written is much more akin to the myriad of ineligible court decisions that employed generic computer components at a high-level to achieve improvements in commercial processes.
In review of the claimed invention, and in consideration of the specification as originally filed, the Examiner asserts that:
(i) the claimed invention does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, but instead improves an abstract, commercial process, and,
(ii) the specification, as originally filed, does not provide sufficient discloser or technical explanation such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have determined that the disclosed invention provided an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field.
Even assuming a relationship of the claimed invention to another technology or technical field, if it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological process, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure most provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Even when a specification explicitly asserts an improvement, examiner should not determine a claim improves technology when only a bare assertion of an improvement is present without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
Further, the instant claims are not directed to improving “the existing technological process” requiring the generic components to operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality or requiring the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces to improve a technical process. As currently recited, the instant claims are directed to improving the business task of providing “different item links in different content distribution regions, so that when a user (e.g., a creator) publishes content in different regions by using a selected item, users (e.g., consumers) in the different regions can all see item links corresponding to the regions where they are located, so as to meet requirements for item (see Specification ¶0008), or more simply “recommending items and presenting item information to a user based on selections” (i.e., the abstract idea).
Therefore, the Examiner maintains the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception and maintains the rejection Step 2A, Prong Two.
Applicant argues on page 10 that the amended claims provides an inventive concept under Step 2B. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above in the full rejection of the claims, the claimed additional elements were evaluated individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of the claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). 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 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. The description of the additional elements within the Specification demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer.
Further, as referenced to both previously and above, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) outlines various computer functions that he courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. Most notably, the Examiner pointed out that the claimed invention utilized receiving or transmitting data over a network, storing and retrieving information in memory, and presenting offers. Additionally, the Examiner points out that the argued “backend” and “database” arguments are unpersuasive as the claims do not claim a database. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually and do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Accordingly, the Examiner maintains the 101 rejection of the claims.
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 10-12 of the Remarks filed 7/08/2026, with respect to the 35 USC §102 and 35 USC §103 rejections have been fully considered but are unpersuasive and moot in view of the new 35 USC §102 and 35 USC §103 rejections applied to applicant’s amended claims.
Applicant argues on pages 10-11 the references fail to teach or suggest features regarding how to establish the binding relationship between the user and the same item as recited by the independent claims. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant on page 11 of the Remarks, that Chen completely fails to teach or suggest a backend condition check to determine the absence of a same-provider item, nor does it teach routing the binding relationship to a different item provider when such an absence is detected. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., requiring the determination of the absence of a same-provider item and routing the binding relationship to a different item provider when such an absence is detected) are not recited in the argued and rejected independent claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As acknowledged on page 11 of Applicant’s Remarks, Chen discloses the same item or item variant exists within the same provider’s regional inventory. As currently claimed, the claims recite “determining… whether a same item exists in an item distribution center that belongs to a same item provider as the item selected by the user; and establishing the binding relationship between the user and the same item of the same item provider, or establishing the binding relationship between the user and the same item of other item provider…” (emphasis added). As currently claimed, the argued “establishing” limitation is claimed in the alternative. As noted above in the full rejection of the claims and in Applicant’s Remarks, Chen discloses “determining… whether a same item exists in an item distribution center that belongs to a same item provider as the item selected by the user; and establishing the binding relationship between the user and the same item of the same item provider.” Accordingly, Examiner maintains Chen discloses these limitations as currently claimed and the claims, as currently recited, do not require the absence of a same-provider item.
Applicant argues on pages 11-12 of the Remarks that the combination of Chen as modified by Liu relies heavily on impermissible hindsight bias. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Further, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Chen discloses pushing product information based on an e-commerce platform (page 1, paragraphs 3 and 11). While Chen discloses pushing product information about domain-specific live broadcast products corresponding to the reginal distribution center to the user end (page 1, paragraph 11), Liu teaches an e-commerce live broadcast room selling items from a plurality of businesses by establishing a second binding relationship between other item provider of a same item, wherein the other item provider is different from the item provider and binding the user and the other item provider to establish a second binding relationship (Figs. 2-6; ¶0003, ¶¶0035-0048). The step of Liu is applicable to the method of Refence N as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing e-commerce location based recommendations to users over the Internet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the item providers as taught by Refence N with the other item providers with binding relationships as taught by Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the method of Refence N in order to provide items from different cooperative merchants (¶0003, ¶0035).
Accordingly, examiner maintains it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the e-commerce system of Chen using the argued “same-provider” concept with the e-commerce system of Liu using the argued “different-provider” concept in order to provide items from different cooperative merchants (¶0003, ¶0035).
Accordingly, the Examiner maintains the 102 and 103 rejection of the claims.
Examiner’s Comment
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Reference A of the Notice of References Cited Zheng et al. (US 2024/0126413 A1) discloses identifying a plurality of target providers that satisfy preset conditions such as according to at least one of a user’s location after receiving a user input.
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 LINDSEY B SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6 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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764 and/or the examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
LINDSEY B. SMITH
Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/LINDSEY B SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/MARISSA THEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights