Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on 1/7/2025.
Claims 1-14 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-14, under Step 2A, recites a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claims 1 and 14 as representative recite:
obtaining a first information request for a first item including information on a first quantity of the first item from a first terminal of a first user; identifying that a first stock keeping unit (SKU) corresponding to the first item is one of a plurality of SKUs arranged in first-type zone groups within a plurality of fulfillment centers; determining a product delivery date (PDD) of the first item based on at least one of information on a time of obtaining the first information request, information on a type of a camp corresponding to a first address set as a delivery location by the first user, stock information of the first-type zone groups, and the information on the first quantity; and providing the first terminal with information on the PDD of the first item.
The claims as a whole describe determining when a requested product can be delivered based on inventory availability, customer location and order timing. These limitations recite the concepts directed to inventory levels, determining delivery commitments and allocating inventory to fulfill customer demands is a commercial practice performed by merchants, warehouses. The claim limitations recite an abstract idea because the claim recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas, such as commercial activity, inventory management, order fulfillments, sales activities.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), viewed individually or as a whole the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claims 1 and 14 recite additional elements including electronic apparatus, SKU, fulfillment centers, first terminal . Although reciting additional elements, these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements 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 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 computers or computing networks). The claimed “first-type zone groups”, “second-type zone groups”, “first type camps”, “second-type camps” merely represent categories used in the business logic and do not impose any technological implementation that improves computer operation. Similarly, the claimed determination of a product delivery date based on inventory information merely uses information as an input to a commerce decision. The claims do not recite any technological manner of collecting, storing, processing or transmitting the information.
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application 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.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 1 and 14 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see again: 2019 PEG)
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of dependent claims 2-13 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. In view of the above, claims 1-14 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.
Returning to claims 1 and 14 taken individually or as a whole the additional elements 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 additional elements are generic computer components performing their well-understood routing and conventional functions. An ordered combination of conventional steps does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. 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 1 and 14 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 and retrieving information in memory
performing repetitive calculations
Further, see MPEP 2106.05(f), “Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);”.
See MPEP 2106.05(d), “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));”
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of dependent claims 2-13 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually. In view of the above, claims 1-14 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopson (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0068443), in view of Jenkins (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0188499).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Hopson teaches obtaining a first information request for a first item including information on a first quantity of the first item from a first terminal of a first user; (The online shopping system first presents identifications of items on a web page for selection by a customer…the system next presents an online display permitting the customer to submit a purchase order for the item; and upon receiving a submission of a purchase order for the item, [12]),
determining a product delivery date (PDD) of the first item based on at least one of information on a time of obtaining the first information request, information on a type of a camp corresponding to a first address set as a delivery location by the first user, and the information on the first quantity; providing the first terminal with information on the PDD of the first item, (nd upon receiving a submission of a purchase order for the item, the system compares a time of submission of the purchase order to the order cutoff time associated with the delivery window. An online display is then presented that accepts the customer's submission of the purchase order for the item in response to the time of submission being before the order cutoff time, [12].. providing to a customer available service windows for different order types, [13].. the system retrieves all possible service windows for the selected order and service types over a time and/or date interval, [14].. After receiving the delivery address of the customer, the online shopping system can determine which of the stores should fill the order, for example, store 36. The online shopping system 20 has the capability of providing different order types, for example, groceries, flowers, liquor, catering, etc. and different service types, for example, delivery, pick up, print shopping list, [32].
Hopson does not explicitly disclose identifying that a first stock keeping unit (SKU) corresponding to the first item is one of a plurality of SKUs arranged in first-type zone groups within a plurality of fulfillment centers; stock information of the first-type zone groups
However, Jenkins teaches A central component of the distribution module 200 is the planning component 210 used to generate planned arrivals and planned orders to meet replenishment requirements for stock-keeping units (SKUs), [27], he system projects stock on hand at the destination as the sum of the current inventories on hand, the total amount of SKU in transit into inventory that will be available by a required delivery date, and future amounts of the SKU to be received before a delivery date, [46].. Level zero may consist of SKUs that have no destinations or parents. Level one SKUs are sources or subordinates that replenish SKUs at level zero, (first-type zone group), [39].. optimizing inventories across a multi-echelon network, [16].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify delivery date presentation system of Hopson to include Jenkin’s multi-location SKU inventory tracking, in order to return a more accurate PDD to the user, (Jenkins, [108]). The combination is only a routine application of known multi-echelon inventory management technique to a known e-commerce delivery scheduling framework, yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Hopson teaches the determining of the PDD of the first item comprises, when the time of obtaining the first information request is before a first order deadline, determining the PDD of the first item as a first time zone, (compares a time of submission of the purchase order to the order cutoff time associated with the delivery window. An online display is then presented that accepts the customer's submission of the purchase order for the item in response to the time of submission being before the order cutoff time, [12].
Regarding claim 3-5, Hopson teaches the determining of the PDD of the first item comprises: when the time of obtaining the first information request is after a first order deadline and before a second order deadline, identifying the first address set as the delivery location by the first user; when the camp corresponding to the first address is a first-type camp, (compares a time of submission of the purchase order to the order cutoff time associated with the delivery window, [12-13], The order cutoff time and date is normally a few hours before the start of the service window, [33]).
Hopson does not explicitly disclose, however, Jenkins teaches identifying a first stock quantity of the first SKU arranged in the first-type zone groups based on the stock information of the first-type zone groups; and when the first stock quantity is greater than or equal to the first quantity, determining the PDD of the first item as a first time zone, when the first stock quantity is less than the first quantity, determining the PDD of the first item as a second time zone, when a sum of the first stock quantity and the second stock quantity is greater than or equal to the first quantity, determining the PDD of the first item as a first time zone, (the system projects stock on hand at the destination as the sum of the current inventories on hand, the total amount of SKU in transit into inventory that will be available by a required delivery date, and future amounts of the SKU to be received before a delivery date, [46]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify time-gates delivery date determination delivery date presentation system of Hopson to include Jenkin’s quantity stock check, in order to prevent the system from early delivery decision when there is no sufficient stock quantity.
Regarding claim 6, Hopson teaches when the time of obtaining the first information request is after a first order deadline and before a second order deadline, identifying the first address set as the delivery location by the first user; and when the camp corresponding to the first address is a second-type camp, determining the PDD of the first item as a second time zone, [32].
Regarding claim 7-11, Hopson teaches obtaining information on a first order including information on a first order quantity and a first order time of the first item from the first terminal; and based on the information on the type of the camp corresponding to the first address and the stock information of the first-type zone groups, when the camp corresponding to the first address is a first-type camp, identifying a third stock quantity of the first SKU arranged in the first-type zone groups based on the stock information of the first-type zone groups; and when the third stock quantity is greater than or equal to the first order quantity, when the third stock quantity is less than the first order quantity, (he assignment of pick routes for orders is determined by the experience and preference of a picker for a particular area of the store, [12-15].
Hopson does not explicitly disclose, however, Jenkins teaches allocating the first SKU of the third stock quantity to one or more first zone groups having the first SKU in stock among the first-type zone groups and allocating the first SKU of a quantity after subtracting the third stock quantity from the first order quantity to one or more second zone groups having the first SKU in stock among second-type zone groups; allocating the first SKU of the first order quantity to one or more first zone groups having the first SKU in stock among the first-type zone groups; identifying stock information of second-type zone groups; identifying a fourth stock quantity of the first SKU arranged in the second-type zone groups based on the stock information of the second-type zone groups; and when the fourth stock quantity is greater than or equal to the first order quantity, allocating the first SKU of the first order quantity to one or more second zone groups having the first SKU in stock among the second-type zone groups, allocating the first SKU of the fourth stock quantity to one or more second zone groups having the first SKU in stock among the second-type zone groups and allocating the first SKU of a quantity after subtracting the fourth stock quantity from the first order quantity to one or more first zone groups having the first SKU in stock among the first-type zone groups.
(For a distribution planning SKU that is replenished by more than one source, the system splits the net requirements among the sources. The system then calculates the replenishment quantities for each source, [47]… level zero may consist of SKUs that have no destinations or parents. Level one SKUs are sources or subordinates that replenish SKUs at level zero…quantity levels, [127-130]).
Regarding claims 12-13, Hopson teaches the first information request includes at least one of: a request for a search result page about a list of a plurality of items including the first item; a request for a product detail page about the first item; a request for a cart page about one or more items including the first item; and a request for a payment page about the one or more items, (the online shopping system first presents identifications of items on a web page for selection by a customer..an online display acknowledging the customer's selection of the an item.. an online display permitting the customer to submit a purchase order for the item, [12]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILENA RACIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5933. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm 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, Florian (Ryan) Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MILENA RACIC/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights