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 .
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.
1. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to determining recommended warehouse space, which is considered a commercial interaction. Commercial interactions fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claim 1-12 recite a method and at least one step. Claims 13-19 recite a system with one or more hardware processors and a memory. Claim 20 recites a machine-storage medium that is explicitly defined by the specification as non-transitory in nature. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, apparatus, manufacture).
Under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim sets forth a process in which warehouse space is recommended for a fulfillment partner, including through the facilitation of business-to-business interaction, in the following limitations:
onboarding warehouse space of a fulfillment partner, the onboarding comprising:
receiving size information for the warehouse space;
determining location information associated with the warehouse space;
receiving a warehouse request to warehouse inventory in a remote location;
determining one or more warehouse spaces that satisfy a spacing requirement for the inventory; and
causing presentation of a warehouse recommendation indicating the one or more warehouse spaces
The above-recited limitations establish a commercial interaction with a fulfillment partner to make a product/service (i.e., warehouse space) recommendation and between a business and another business to aid in the determination of the recommendation. This arrangement amounts to both a sales activity or behavior; and business relations. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claim 1 does recite additional limitations:
by an onboarding engine of a network system
persisting the warehouse space of the fulfillment partner with the size information and the location information to data storage;
by a warehousing engine of the network system from a client device
by a recommendation hardware module of the network system
on the client device
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (“by an onboarding engine of a network system”, “by a warehousing engine of the network system from a client device”, “by a recommendation hardware module of the network system”, “on the client device”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (persisting). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs [0083]-[0090] and [0114] indicate that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of 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, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, 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 limitations 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 effect a transformation 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 technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). In the instant case, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) persisting data (i.e., electronic recordkeeping) and presenting information (e.g., offers) have been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Independent Claims 13 and 20 are parallel in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Regarding Claims 2, 14
Claims 2, 14 set forth:
identify probabilities of items selling in a plurality of transaction zones.
Such a recitation merely embellishes the abstract idea of recommended warehouse space, including facilitating interaction between businesses. While the claims do set forth the additional limitation of “training a machine learning model to”, this recitation is similar to the additional limitations in claims 1 and 13, as it does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are ineligible for similar reasons to claims 1 and 13.
Regarding Claims 3-5, 15
Claims 3-5, 15 merely serve to embellish the abstract idea of claims 2 and 14, applied to the same technological environment. Accordingly, they do not confer eligibly on the claimed invention and are ineligible for similar reasons to claims 2 and 14.
Regarding Claims 6-12, 16-19
Claims 6-12 and 16-19 merely serve to embellish the abstract idea of claims 1 and 13, applied to the same technological environment. Accordingly, they do not confer eligibly on the claimed invention and are ineligible for similar reasons to claims 1 and 13.
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.
2. Claims 1, 9-11, 13, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gadre et al. (US 20160078510 A1, hereinafter Gadre).
Regarding Claim 1
Gadre discloses a method comprising: onboarding, by an onboarding engine of a network system, warehouse space of a fulfillment partner, the onboarding comprising:
receiving size information for the warehouse space (Gadre: see at least ¶212)
determining location information associated with the warehouse space; (Gadre: see at least abstract, ¶23)
persisting the warehouse space of the fulfillment partner with the size information and the location information to data storage; (Gadre: see at least ¶116, 124, 143)
receiving, by a warehousing engine of the network system from a client device, a warehouse request to warehouse inventory in a remote location (Gadre: see at least ¶23)
determining, by a recommendation hardware module of the network system, one or more warehouse spaces that satisfy a spacing requirement for the inventory; (Gadre: see at least ¶23)
causing presentation of a warehouse recommendation indicating the one or more warehouse spaces on the client device (Gadre: see at least ¶23)
Regarding Claims 13, 20
Claims 13 and 20 are substantially similar in scope to claim 1 and are rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding Claim 9
Gadre further discloses:
determining the spacing requirement to warehouse one or more items of the inventory, wherein the one or more warehouse spaces satisfy the spacing requirement. (Gadre: see at least ¶23, 116, 124, 143)
Regarding Claim 10
Gadre further discloses:
determining a number of items to warehouse at the one or more warehouse spaces. (Gadre: see at least ¶212)
Regarding Claims 11,19
Gadre further discloses:
monitoring sales of items of the inventory at a warehouse location; and based on the monitoring, providing a notification to move more of the items of the inventory to the warehouse location in response to the inventory reaching a low threshold. (Gadre: see at least ¶159)
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.
3. Claims 2-5, 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gadre in view of Shi (US 10504061 B1).
Regarding Claims 2, 14
Gadre disclose the claimed invention except for the following, which Shi teaches in a similar environment:
training a machine learning model to identify probabilities of items selling in a plurality of transaction zones (Shi: see at least col. 25: 35-65)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Gadre with the features of Shi, since such a modification would have provided improved systems and methods for managing inventory placement that has ability to minimize delivery time and shipping fees while obviating the need to determine the customer's shipping location for each product before assigning the product for inventory placement in a fulfillment center. (Shi: col. 1: 63 – col. 2: 3)
Regarding Claims 3, 15
Gadre discloses:
wherein the determining the one or more warehouse spaces comprises: determining one or more transaction zones based on item attributes of the inventory, wherein the determining the one or more warehouse spaces is based on the one or more transaction zones (Gadre: see at least ¶206)
Gadre does not explicitly disclose, but Shi teaches in a similar environment:
using the machine learning model (Shi: see at least col. 3: 57 – col. 4: 32)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Gadre with the features of Shi, since such a modification would have provided improved systems and methods for managing inventory placement that has ability to minimize delivery time and shipping fees while obviating the need to determine the customer's shipping location for each product before assigning the product for inventory placement in a fulfillment center. (Shi: col. 1: 63 – col. 2: 3)
Regarding Claims 4, 5
Gadre discloses:
wherein the determining the one or more transaction zones comprises predicting item sale probabilities for at least some of the plurality of transaction zones based on the inventory, the one or more transaction zones comprising a transaction zone having one or more highest item sale probabilities for an item of the inventory. (Gadre: see at least ¶135-137)
wherein determining the one or more transaction zones comprises determining a combination of an item of the inventory and the one or more transaction zones where the item is recommended to be warehoused, wherein the warehouse recommendation indicates the item to be warehoused. (Gadre: see at least ¶23, 135-156, 206)
4. Claims 6-8, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gadre in view of Seefeld et al. (US 20110178836 A1, hereinafter Seefeld).
Gadre discloses the claimed invention except for the following, which Seefeld teaches in a similar environment:
prior to the persisting the warehouse space, performing a risk and validation assessment of the fulfillment partner by evaluating ratings and reviews of the fulfillment partner (Seefeld: see at least figs. 15-20, ¶86-101)
wherein the performing the risk and validation assessment further comprises evaluating a length of time on the network system by the fulfillment partner (Seefeld: see at least figs. 15-20, ¶86-101)
monitoring a fulfillment service performed by the fulfillment partner; and updating the risk and validation assessment of the fulfillment partner based on the monitoring (Seefeld: see at least figs. 15-20, ¶86-101, 142)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Gadre with the features of Seefeld, since such a modification would have provided consistent or efficient process for presenting approval decisions for potential business partners to appropriate decision makers within a business, for example, based on the risks associated with such potential business partners. (Seefeld: see at least ¶3-4)
5. Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gadre in view of Kodgers (US 10535023 B1).
Gadre discloses the claimed invention except for the following, which Kodgers teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the one or more warehouse spaces comprise a warehouse space of another seller on the network system. (Kodgers: see at least col. 16: 44-67)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Gadre with the features of Kodgers, since such a modification would have provided improved planning and conducting of a product launch occurring on a predetermined product launch date. (See Kodgers: col. 1: 29-33)
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
6. Claims 1-5, 9-15, 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,033,114.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patent anticipate the present claims.
7. Claims 6-7, 16-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,033,114 in view of Seefeld.
The Claims of the patent anticipate the present claims, except for the following, which Seefeld teaches in a similar environment:
prior to the persisting the warehouse space, performing a risk and validation assessment of the fulfillment partner by evaluating ratings and reviews of the fulfillment partner (Seefeld: see at least figs. 15-20, ¶86-101)
wherein the performing the risk and validation assessment further comprises evaluating a length of time on the network system by the fulfillment partner (Seefeld: see at least figs. 15-20, ¶86-101)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the claimed invention of the patent with the features of Seefeld, since such a modification would have provided consistent or efficient process for presenting approval decisions for potential business partners to appropriate decision makers within a business, for example, based on the risks associated with such potential business partners. (Seefeld: see at least ¶3-4)
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,462,223.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patent anticipate the present claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cai (US 20210294930 A1) discloses computer-aided warehouse space planning, including recommending a warehouse address based on space needs of an enterprise.
Robinson et al. (US 20100262521 A1) discloses an online merchants to third party warehouse providers broker and order fulfillment system, including determining third party warehousing providers to meet stocking needs.
Deshpande et al. (US 20150120599 A1) discloses a computer implemented method of selecting a partner marketing communication, including determining warehouse locations based on proximity to fulfillment.
“Logistify AI is a Ugandan on-demand startup for warehouses in Africa” (PTO-892 Reference U) discloses a marketplace of warehouses to help business help find storage for their inventory.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A MISIASZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-6961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday. 8:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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. 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.
/MICHAEL MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
