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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 12,417,426. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-23 of patent # 12,417,426 contain every element of claim 1 of the instant application and as such anticipate claim 1 of the instant application.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “receiving a request for web content associated with one of a plurality of products sold on an e-commerce platform; and replying to the request, the replying comprising: extracting, from a data structure, delivery schedule information for the one product, the data structure comprising: a plurality of delivery schedule tables, and a mapping of each of the plurality of products sold on the e-commerce platform to a respective one of the plurality of delivery schedule tables, wherein each of the plurality of delivery schedule tables is based on a respective different set of one or more categories to which multiple ones of the plurality of products map; based on the delivery schedule information extracted from the data structure, generating an indication including delivery time information relating to the one product; incorporating the indication into the web content; and transmitting the web content over the network for display.”
The recited limitations above are a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation done by a human using generic computer components under certain methods of organizing human activity under sales and business relations. For example, “receiving”, “replying”, “extracting”, “generating”, “incorporating” and “transmitting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user to manually receive a request for an item sold online and generating a delivery schedule.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements- a “user device” to perform the above recited steps. The computer elements recited at a high-level of generality (generic computer elements performing a generic computer function of receiving information, identifying solutions and determining what should be presented to a user) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements recited do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the computer elements to perform the steps of claim 1 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rafii et al. referred herein as Rafii (U.S. Patent No. 11,526,831).
As to claim 1, Rafii teaches a method comprising:
receiving, from a user device over a network, a request for web content associated with one of a plurality of products sold on an e-commerce platform; (col 14 lines 6-14)
replying to the request, the replying comprising: extracting, from a data structure, delivery schedule information for the one product, the data structure comprising: (col 14 lines 23-36)
a plurality of delivery schedule tables, (col 11 lines 12-35)
a mapping of each of the plurality of products sold on the e-commerce platform to a respective one of the plurality of delivery schedule tables, (col 11 lines 12-35 and col 14 lines 23-41)
wherein each of the plurality of delivery schedule tables is based on a respective different set of one or more categories to which multiple ones of the plurality of products map; (col 14 lines 23-41)
based on the delivery schedule information extracted from the data structure, generating an indication including delivery time information relating to the one product; (col 14-15 lines 42-22)
incorporating the indication into the web content; (col 14-15 lines 42-22)
transmitting the web content over the network for display on the user device. (col 14-15 lines 42-22)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEINA ELCHANTI whose telephone number is (313)446-6561. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM 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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached on 571-272-4602. 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.
/ZEINA ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights