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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant rejection. No claims have been added. No claims have been cancelled. Claims 1, 7, 9, and 15 have been amended. The rejection of the pending claims is hereby made final.
Response to Remarks
101
Examiner finds Applicant’s amendments and remarks persuasive. As cited in the previous Office Action, the examiner submits that the claims as a whole recite systems and methods for price matching in a retail environment, which, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, would be considered advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors, which is all activities that fall under the judicial exception of certain methods of organizing human activity. he Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as abstract ideas. In particular, in Alice, the Court concluded that the use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and thus an abstract idea. 573 U.S. at 219–20, 110 USPQ2d at 1982. In addition, the Court in Alice described the concept of risk hedging identified as an abstract idea in Bilski as ‘‘a method of organizing human activity’’. Id. Previously, in Bilski, the Court concluded that hedging is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and therefore an abstract idea. 561 U.S. at 611–612, 95 USPQ2d at 1010.
The term "certain" qualifies the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as a reminder of several important points. First, not all methods of organizing human activity are abstract ideas (e.g., "a defined set of steps for combining particular ingredients to create a drug formulation" is not a certain "method of organizing human activity"), In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160-61, 129 USPQ2d 1008, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Second, this grouping is limited to activity that falls within the enumerated sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people, and is not to be expanded beyond these enumerated sub-groupings except in rare circumstances as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(3). Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. "Commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations.
An example of a claim reciting a commercial or legal interaction, where the interaction is an agreement in the form of contracts, is found in buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d. 1350, 112 USPQ2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The agreement at issue in buySAFE was a transaction performance guaranty, which is a contractual relationship. 765 F.3d at 1355, 112 USPQ2d at 1096. The patentee claimed a method in which a computer operated by the provider of a safe transaction service receives a request for a performance guarantee for an online commercial transaction, the computer processes the request by underwriting the requesting party in order to provide the transaction guarantee service, and the computer offers, via a computer network, a transaction guaranty that binds to the transaction upon the closing of the transaction. 765 F.3d at 1351-52, 112 USPQ2d at 1094. The Federal Circuit described the claims as directed to an abstract idea because they were "squarely about creating a contractual relationship--a ‘transaction performance guaranty’." 765 F.3d at 1355, 112 USPQ2d at 1096. An example of a claim reciting advertising is found in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714-15, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1753-54 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Ultramercial claimed an eleven-step method for displaying an advertisement (ad) in exchange for access to copyrighted media, comprising steps of receiving copyrighted media, selecting an ad, offering the media in exchange for watching the selected ad, displaying the ad, allowing the consumer access to the media, and receiving payment from the sponsor of the ad. 772 F.3d. at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754. The Federal Circuit determined that the "combination of steps recites an abstraction—an idea, having no particular concrete or tangible form" and thus was directed to an abstract idea, which the court described as "using advertising as an exchange or currency." Id. Similar to Ultramercial Inc. V. Hulu, the claimed invention utilizes computing technology to display information to a user to incite a purchase (offering a lower price to incentivize a user to purchase an item within said retail location), and as such, is similarly found to be an abstract idea. The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have identified a number of considerations as relevant to the evaluation of whether the claimed additional elements demonstrate that a claim is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. The list of considerations here is not intended to be exclusive or limiting. Additional elements can often be analyzed based on more than one type of consideration and the type of consideration is of no import to the eligibility analysis. Additional discussion of these considerations, and how they were applied in particular judicial decisions, is provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a) through (c) and MPEP § 2106.05(e) through (h).
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e). The examiner submits that when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception, into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two and whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B, examiners should consider whether the judicial exception is applied with, or by use of, a particular machine. "The machine-or-transformation test is a useful and important clue, and investigative tool" for determining whether a claim is patent eligible under § 101. Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 604, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (2010). Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("We are not persuaded by the appellant's argument that the claimed method is tied to a particular machine because it ‘would not be necessary or possible without the Internet.’ . . . Regardless of whether "the Internet" can be viewed as a machine, it is clear that the Internet cannot perform the fraud detection steps of the claimed method"). For example, as described in MPEP § 2106.05(f), additional elements that invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process will generally not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. See, e.g., Versata Development Group v. SAP America, 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must "play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly"). Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610, 95 USPQ2d at 1009 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978)), and CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 99 USPQ2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citations omitted) ("[N]othing in claim 3 requires an infringer to use the Internet to obtain that data. The Internet is merely described as the source of the data. We have held that mere ‘[data-gathering] step[s] cannot make an otherwise non-statutory claim statutory.’" 654 F.3d at 1375, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citation omitted)). See MPEP § 2106.05(g) & (h) for more information on insignificant extra-solution activity and field of use, respectively. The examiner submits that the pending claims rely on the usage of at least one processor as implemented in a server (see at least Figures 1 and 3 of Applicant’s specification) to parse the data from a price matching claim, make a determination as to whether a price match should be performed in view of a search and subsequent analyses of competitor data and store policy data, generating a touchless transfer to transmit the results of said determination, and then based upon receipt of said transferred data, automatically updating the point-of-sale interface to reflect a price modification or denial of said price modification, and further updating a machine learning model in response to the results of the transaction to further refine the results for subsequent transactions. The examiner submits that each method step requires the use of a computer device to perform specific steps, which, in combination, result in the automatic modification and presentation of data that goes beyond the judicial exceptions as outlined above, and that the examiner submits to be considered significantly more, at least in view of 2106.05(b) and (e). For at least the reasoning provided above, the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 101 is hereby withdrawn.
103
Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered by the Examiner, but are found to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al (US 2015/0051955) in view of Grigsby et al (US 2009/0289114) and Moss et al (US 2005/0159974).
Regarding claim 1, the prior art discloses a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, by one or more processors, a price-matching claim for a product through a defined Application Programming interface (see at least paragraph [0018] to Kumar et al “application programming interfaces (APIs)”) via a first user computing device of a shopper at the beginning of a transaction at a point-of-sale terminal (see at least paragraph [0025] to Kumar et al “ A transaction processing application 190, which may be part of payment application 175 or separate, may be configured to receive information from a user device and/or merchant device 140 for processing and storage in a payment database 195… transaction processing application 190 may store details of an order from individual users, including funding source used, credit options available, identities of purchased items, prices of purchase items, price matching policies, and etc.); parsing and analyzing, by a server, the price matching claim (see at least paragraph [0028] to Kumar et al, wherein merchant device 140 may send information regarding identities of items being purchased and prices of items being purchased to payment provider server 170. The identities of the purchased items may include Universal Product Codes (UPC), product specifications, manufacturer, model number, pictures, or the like. The prices of the purchased items may be the actual purchasing prices of the items including discounts or coupons, sales tax, shipping and handling cost, and etc.);
determining, by the one or more processors, whether the product is eligible to be price-matched based on the analysis (see at least paragraph [0029] to Kumar et al “ At step 206, payment provider server 170 may perform price comparison of the items being purchased based on the price matching policy of the merchant”); responsive to determining the product is eligible to be price-matched, detecting, by the one or more processors, a lowest price of the product from the one or more details of the price-matching claim (see at least paragraph [0030] to Kumar et al “Payment provider server 170 may search and identify lowest prices of the same items being purchased and compare these lowest prices with the actual purchasing prices of the items offered at the merchant. In one embodiment, prices of similar products offered at the other merchants also may be searched and included in the price comparison”); to automatically adjust a current price of the product to match the lowest price of the product detected(see at least paragraph [0033] to Kumar et al “When payment provider server 170 determines that the items qualify for price matching at step 210, payment provider server 170 may adjust prices of items to be purchased based on the lower prices found and the price matching policy… in one embodiment, the adjustment is done automatically at checkout”); and responsive to generating the form of touchless transfer of data, triggering an approval validation process and adjusting, by a graphic user interface, the current price on a computing device to match the lowest price of the product detected (see at least paragraphs [0033] and [0034] to Kuman et al wherein payment provider server 170 may adjust the purchasing prices to be slightly lower than the lower prices found, based on the price matching policy. In one embodiment, the adjustment is done automatically at checkout and wherein payment provider server 170 may send price matching information to notify the customer. For example, payment provider server 170 may send the price matching information to merchant device 140 to be displayed on display device 165).
Kumar et al does not explicitly disclose generating, by the one or more processors, a form of touchless transfer of data; and refining, by the one or more processors, a learning module to learn that the product was eligible for price-matching based on one or more factors in order to handle a subsequent price matching claim of the product;
refining, by the one or more processors, a learning module to learn that the product was eligible for price-matching based on one or more factors in order to handle a subsequent price matching claim of the product, wherein the learning module learns a pricing strategy and a pattern of pricing of the one or more major products of the merchant and dynamically maintains a competitor list of the one or more competitors of the merchant; and classifying the price-matching claim on a predetermined scale, wherein the classifying of the price-matching claim comprises filtering out price-matching claims over time and preventing repetitive information from being generated and from being sent to the first user.
However, Grigsby et al discloses a price guarantee tracking service and method, further comprising generating, by the one or more processors, a form of touchless transfer of data (see at least paragraph [0014] to Grigsby et al); and refining, by the one or more processors, a learning module to learn that the product was eligible for price-matching based on one or more factors in order to handle a subsequent price matching claim of the product (see at least paragraphs [0025] and [0026] to Grigsby et al);
refining, by the one or more processors, a learning module to learn that the product was eligible for price-matching based on one or more factors in order to handle a subsequent price matching claim of the product, wherein the learning module learns a pricing strategy and a pattern of pricing of the one or more major products of the merchant and dynamically maintains a competitor list of the one or more competitors of the merchant (see at least paragraph [0025] to Grigsby et al); and classifying the price-matching claim on a predetermined scale, wherein the classifying of the price-matching claim comprises filtering out price-matching claims over time and preventing repetitive information from being generated and from being sent to the first user (see at least paragraph [0025] to Grigsby et al).
The aforementioned prior art references do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more details of the price-matching claim comprise a producer of the product, brand name, size, weight, color, quantity, and model number.
However, Moss et al discloses techniques for identifying and comparing local retail prices, wherein the one or more details of the price-matching claim comprise a producer of the product, brand name, size, weight, color, quantity, and model number (see at least Figure 1, to Moss et al).
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). The examiner submits that the combination of the teaching of the system and method for automatic price matching, as disclosed by Kumar et al and the price guarantee tracking service and method as taught by Grigsby et al, further in view of the system and method for identifying and comparing local retail prices, as taught by Moss et al, in order to enable a user to effectuate a price reduction at the point of sale in real time, could have been readily and easily implemented, with a reasonable expectation of success. As such, the aforementioned combination is found to be obvious to try, given the state of the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: subsequent to generating the form of touchless transfer of data to automatically adjust the current price of the product to match the lowest price of the product detected, enabling, by the one or more processors, a completion of the transaction using the lowest price of the product detected on the point-of-sale terminal of a merchant see at least paragraph [0033] to Kumar et al “When payment provider server 170 determines that the items qualify for price matching at step 210, payment provider server 170 may adjust prices of items to be purchased based on the lower prices found and the price matching policy. For example, based on the price matching policy, payment provider server 170 may reduce the purchasing prices to be the same as the lower prices found. In one embodiment, payment provider server 170 may adjust the purchasing prices to be slightly lower than the lower prices found, based on the price matching policy. In one embodiment, the adjustment is done automatically at checkout”)The examiner submits that the usage of the QR codes and NFC during a point of sale transaction at a retail location was well known and understood within the state of the art at the time of filing. The omission of the terms “NFC” and “QR code” from the disclosure of the applied prior art does not differentiate the language of the claimed invention from the disclosure of the applied prior art, because the inclusion of such technology in the performance of a purchase transaction is implicit within the disclosure of the applied prior art.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more details of the price-matching claim include at least one of one or more details about the product, one or more competitors who sell the product, one or more advertisements distributed by the one or more competitors depicting the product, a web address of the one or more advertisements distributed by the one or more competitors depicting the product, a web address of a website of the one or more competitors, a set price at which the one or more competitors are selling the product, an availability of the product sold by the one or more competitors, a period of time during which the product will be sold at the set price, one or more discounts on the product offered by the one or more competitors, and a geo-location of the one or more competitors (see at least paragraph [0029] to Kumar et al “At step 206, payment provider server 170 may perform price comparison of the items being purchased based on the price matching policy of the merchant. For example, payment provider servicer 170 may store the price matching policy of the merchant indicating the price matching geographical region, price matching competitors, and the like. For example, if the price matching geographical region indicates Austin, Tex., the merchant matches the prices of the same item sold by other merchants located within Austin, Tex. Price matching policy also may identify main competitors of the merchant whose prices the merchant wishes to match. Price matching policy also may indicate online merchants whose prices the merchant wishes to match”).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein determining whether the product is eligible to be price-matched by analyzing the one or more details of the price-matching claim further comprises: applying, by the one or more processors, a series of comparative cognitive techniques to the one or more details of the price-matching claim; and validating, by the one or more processors, each detail of the one or more details of the price-matching claim (see at least paragraph [0032] to Kumar et al “If lower prices are found at step 208, payment provider server 170 may confirm whether the lower prices from other merchants qualify for price matching based on the price matching policy at step 210. For example, payment provider server 170 may confirm whether the items being purchased are designated by the merchant for price matching”).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art discloses the computer implemented method of claim 4, wherein validating each detail of the one or more details of the price-matching claim further comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, whether the details of the price-matching claim meet the price-matching criteria of the merchant (see at least paragraph [0032] to Kumar et al “If lower prices are found at step 208, payment provider server 170 may confirm whether the lower prices from other merchants qualify for price matching based on the price matching policy at step 210”); determining, by the one or more processors, whether the one or more details of the product sold by the merchant match the product sold by the one or more competitors (see at least paragraph [0029] to Kumar et al “For example, payment provider servicer 170 may store the price matching policy of the merchant indicating the price matching geographical region, price matching competitors, and the like”); determining, by the one or more processors, whether the one or more advertisements distributed by the one or more competitors depicts the product (see at least paragraph [0028] to Kumar et al “merchant device 140 may send information regarding identities of items being purchased and prices of items being purchased to payment provider server 170. The identities of the purchased items may include Universal Product Codes (UPC), product specifications, manufacturer, model number, pictures, or the like. The prices of the purchased items may be the actual purchasing prices of the items including discounts or coupons, sales tax, shipping and handling cost, and etc.”); determining, by the one or more processors, whether the one or more advertisements distributed by the one or more competitors is valid during a specified period of time (see at least paragraph [0030] to Kumar et al “Price matching policy may indicate whether only identical products are searched or similar products are allowed in the price comparison. In the price comparison process, Payment provider server 170 may take into account additional costs, such as taxes, shipping, and the availability of the items, such as estimated shipping time”); determining, by the one or more processors, whether the set price at which the one or more competitors are selling the product is valid during the specified period of time; and determining, by the one or more processors, whether the product is available for the merchant to sell during the specified period of time (see at least paragraph [0030] to Kumar et al “Price matching policy may indicate whether only identical products are searched or similar products are allowed in the price comparison. In the price comparison process, Payment provider server 170 may take into account additional costs, such as taxes, shipping, and the availability of the items, such as estimated shipping time”).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the product is eligible to be price-matched by analyzing the one or more details of the price-matching claim further comprises: detecting, by the one or more processors, whether a fraudulent price-matching activity has occurred to implicate a lower price than a true lowest price (see at least paragraph [0032] to Kumar et al “payment provider server 170 may confirm whether the items being purchased are designated by the merchant for price matching. The merchant may restrict certain products from being price matched. Further, individual sellers may post personal items for sale on the internet at much lower prices than those sold by business merchants. Such personal items sold by individual sellers usually do not include product warranty and has no after-sale return or service policy. Thus, the merchant may restrict price matching policy from being applied to items sold by online individual sellers”).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: subsequent to detecting the lowest price of the product from the one or more details of the price-matching claim, identifying, by the one or more processors, a seller of the product at the lowest price of the product detected (see at least paragraph [0031] to Kumar et al “At step 208, payment provider server 170 may determine whether lower prices are found for the items being purchased within the geographical area or from main competitors, as defined by the price matching policy”); outputting, by the one or more processors, the price-matching claim to the point-of-sale terminal of the merchant, using an NFC tag, for approval responsive to the merchant approving the price-matching claim(see at least paragraph [0033] to Kumar et al “When payment provider server 170 determines that the items qualify for price matching at step 210, payment provider server 170 may adjust prices of items to be purchased based on the lower prices found and the price matching policy. For example, based on the price matching policy, payment provider server 170 may reduce the purchasing prices to be the same as the lower prices found. In one embodiment, payment provider server 170 may adjust the purchasing prices to be slightly lower than the lower prices found, based on the price matching policy. In one embodiment, the adjustment is done automatically at checkout”)The examiner submits that the usage of the QR codes and NFC during a point of sale transaction at a retail location was well known and understood within the state of the art at the time of filing. The omission of the terms “NFC” and “QR code” from the disclosure of the applied prior art does not differentiate the language of the claimed invention from the disclosure of the applied prior art, because the inclusion of such technology in the performance of a purchase transaction is implicit within the disclosure of the applied prior art.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: subsequent to detecting the lowest price of the product from the one or more details of the price-matching claim, identifying, by the one or more processors, the seller of the product at the lowest price of the product detected (see at least paragraph [0030] to Kumar et al “Payment provider server 170 may search and identify lowest prices of the same items being purchased and compare these lowest prices with the actual purchasing prices of the items offered at the merchant”); outputting, by the one or more processors, the price-matching claim to the point-of-sale terminal of the merchant for approval; responsive to the merchant rejecting the price-matching claim, outputting, by the one or more processors, a rejection to the shopper as an alert notification (see at least paragraph [0031] to Kumar et al “payment provider server 170 may notify the customer that price matching has been performed and that the merchant has the best price”); enabling, by the one or more processors, the shopper to approve the rejection; responsive to the shopper approving the rejection, completing, by the one or more processors, the transaction on the point-of-sale terminal of the merchant (see at least paragraph [0031] to Kumar et al “If no lower prices are found at step 208, payment provider server 170 may complete the checkout process at step 220. For example, payment provider server 170 may debit the purchase amount from the customer's payment account and credit the purchase amount to the merchant's account”); and adding, by the one or more processors, a rejection note to the price-matching claim (see at least paragraph [0036] to Kumar et al “ the price matching policy of the merchant does not apply to the lower prices found at step 210, payment provider server 170 may notify the customer regarding items that are not matched by the merchant at step 214. For example, payment provider server 170 may send lower-price information to merchant device 140 to be displayed to the customer on display device 165 at the checkout counter. In one embodiment, payment provider server 170 may send the lower-price information to user device 110 to be displayed to the customer”).
Claims 9-20 each contain recitations substantially similar to those addressed above and, therefore, are likewise rejected.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The examiner has considered all references listed on the Notice of References Cited, PTO-892.
The examiner has considered all references cited on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted by Applicant, PTO-1449.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TALIA F CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5397. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 8:30 AM-4:30 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, Fahd A Obeid can be reached on 571-270-3324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TALIA F CRAWLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights