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.
Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-22 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) limitations drawn to mental processes/ organized human activity (fundamental economic transactions) as it pertains to locating low priced resources. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because limitations they are performed using generic computer components being applied to a particular environment. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the elements of memory, processing devise, etc. are merely generic computer components applied to the environment and cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Re method claim 10, the limitations of identifying is a mental step, scanning is routine data gathering, determining is mental steps by generic computer, determining is mental steps by generic computer, receiving data value based on geolocation is routine data gathering, automatically identifying lowest prices is mental steps, determining a period for the resource to reach the user is mental/ math steps, generating an interface component and configuring the lowest value interface component are both drawn to displaying results, similar to concepts described in Electric Power, the receiving the request is routine data gathering as part of completing the transaction, and completing the request is performing the abstract idea. The corresponding independent system and computer readable medium claims (1 and 12) are rejected for similar reasons. The dependent claims are drawn to further specifying details of the abstract idea such as specifics of information, data, displaying results, and routine data gathering limitations.
Re the newly added limitations of a real time database and determining unavailability (zero), the Examiner notes that such limitations are seen as routine data gathering as part of the abstract idea of database/ inventory managing.
Re the newly added limitations of retrieving values from a database, this is seen as routine data gathering as part of the abstract idea.
Re the newly added limtaitons that the geolocations are entity locations, the Examiner notes that such limitations are merely specifying details of the data, and does not recite a specific structure or practical application, and as such receiving data from a database is routine data gathering.
Re the newly added limtaitosn of a combined view display, the Examiner notes that the limitations are seen as insignificant post solution activity. Such limitations are similar to MPEP 2106.056.I., specifically, examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality, and includes: vi. Instructions to display two sets of information on a computer display in a non-interfering manner, without any limitations specifying how to achieve the desired result, Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d 1553, 1559-60 (Fed. Cir. 2018);
Appropriate correction is requested.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, 11-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (US 11410120) in view of Das et al. (US 20150039439) and Kashima (US 20150310522).
Thomas et al. teaches: a system for determining an availability of a resource in a specific entity network, the system comprising: a memory device with computer-readable program code stored thereon; at least one processing device operatively coupled to the at least one memory device and the at least one communication device, wherein executing the computer- readable code is configured to cause the at least one processing device to (abstract+):
identify a specific entity location associated with a user device (abstract and FIG. 3+ where an out of stock item is scanned and other store locations that have the item are provided, thus it would be implicit to identify a current location in order to recognize locations close by);
scan a readable indicia to identify a resource identifier associated with a specific entity (FIG. 3+ which scans a code at a current location);
determine a physical unavailability of a resource associated with the resource identifier within the specific entity location (scanning is done when a product is not available and other stores are searched by the system);
determine a location of the resource to be at a different location from the specific entity location (second location such as taught in FIG. 4+);
determine a period for the resource associated with the resource identifier to reach a geolocation identified by a user of the system (col 11, lines 4+ wherein the dates/ times of availability is stored); and
generate, in response to the determination of the resource at the different location from the specific entity location, an availability of the resource user interface component to configure a graphical user interface of the user device (while silent to such explicit teachings, given that Thomas et al. teaches location and purchasing of items unavailable at a first location at a first time, it would have been obvious to configure a user interface with the updated information to complete the purchase of the item that is currently unavailable, such as to increase the convenience and reduce wait time of the consumer).
Re the limitation of a real time resource transaction comprising a real time value and completing the transaction using the real time value, such limitations are interpreted to be read on by the purchase transaction being completed for the price of the items indicated, as known in the art, and obviated by FIG. 4+ of Thomas et al., and/ or the use of balance reward points such as per claim 5.
Re the limitations of receiving a plurality of values associated with the resource based on a plurality of geolocations comprising an object associated with the resource, automatically identifying the lowers value of the values, and generating a lowest value interface component, configuring an interface of the device with the lowest value interface and availability of a resource component and the transaction comprises the lowest value based on user acceptance of the period for the resource to reach the geolocation identified by the user and a user acceptance of the lowest value resource, the Examiner notes that while Thomas et al. is silent to such limtaitons, Das et al. teaches such limitations such as in FIG. 4A wherein scanning an item results in other vendor at other locations pricing to be obtained, including the lowest price which appears bolded in the figure, and nonetheless, emphasizing a lowest price via a display is an obvious expedient to point it out to a user. Though silent, it would have been obvious that by visiting the site and completing that transaction that the availability and period for the resource to reach the geolocation. The Examiner notes that as both online and retailers are listed, it would have been obvious as part of good practice for ordering items, that the estimated shipping time be communicated to inform the user of a decision. Even further, the geolocation can be intpereted as the user when purchasing from an online vendor or in the case of a retailer, picking up from the store itself or deliver is also obviated.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings in order to determine desired pricing for a customer.
Re the newly added limitation of querying a real time database to confirm zero on hand quantity, the Examiner notes that the prior art above teaches that the inventory tracker shows the availability/ unavailability of the resource (abstract+ and the product availability database). It would have been obvious to be real time for accurate database availability information or lack thereof.
Re the newly added limitations of the geolocations are specify locations and the values are retrieved from a resource database, the Examiner notes that FIG. 4A of Das et al. obviates such teaches by showing different vendors and different prices at different locations, where fetching price data from a database is an obvious expedient for data storage fetching purposes. The entity locations are interpreted as the vendors. Databases for pricing/ inventory has been discussed above. The plurality of values are interpreted as the prices offered at different merchants.
Re the newly added limitation of a combined view showing the lowest value and estimated delivery simultaneously, Thomas/ Das et al. is silent to such teachings, Kashima teaches at FIG. 2 teaches the low price and delivery dates of products together.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to provide more details to enable an educated decision.
Re claim 2, as discussed above col 4, lines 11+ teaches storing information in a database that would have been obvious to display to a user such as the time that the item is to be available at different locations, in order to provide such information to the user.
Re claim 3, product information view 402 includes information of a delivery option for a user. Given the teachings of the database it would have been obvious to provide information required to reach a location (such as time required) in order to provide up to date shipping information, for example. Alternatively, as the instant location of the user device is known (current store) the product availability database storing expected times of availability would be interpreted to read on the current location (store) availability dates. Accordingly, in order to have the products delivered, a location of a user/ device is an obvious expedient to provide the delivery information required.
Re claim 4, as discussed above re col 4, lines 11+, a database stores the current availability of products at various locations, indicative of the up to date inventory.
Re claim 5, as discussed above, the location can be the instant store or it can be a different store.
Re claim 7, as discussed above, the lowest value interface component is the display of the data of the lowest value of the values of resources which is selected for a real time resource transaction, and while it appears bolded in FIG. 4A as discussed above, it would have been obvious to purchase in order to facilitate the transaction.
Re claims 8-9, the product information view 402 provides information about where the product is located in a particular store such as a particular shelving unit, where in a store, etc. As this is tied to the database, it would have been obvious to update/ provide quantity information so as to decide if there is enough for the customer to purchase and configuring the user interface to provide such information so as to make a purchase, for example.
Re the limitations of claim 9, the Examiner note that the addition of the real time resource amount of the resource for a different location at a current/ instant time is obviated by the above mentioned teachings that the item can be at a different price at different locations, wherein this is interpreted to read on the amount for a current time based on real time data, wherein the pricing is interested as real time amount/ data.
Re the limitations of real time transactions, the Examiner notes that the use of real time information for inventory in both online and brick and mortar stores is obvious for accurate and up to date inventory tracking.
Re claim 11, as discussed above, the items can be purchased from different locations when unavailable at a current location. This obviates receiving an indication of purchase items, and configuring a user interface to facilitate the purchase at a different location than the current location such as providing such information to the user. Providing location information is an obvious expedient to provide information.
Re claims 12-15, the limitations are discussed above, re claims 1-4.
Re claims 17-20, the limitations have been discussed above re claims 1-4.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al./ Das et al./ Kashima, as discussed above, in view of Rago et al. (US 11593857) and Croak et al. (US 11210731).
Re claim 7, the teachings of Thomas et al./ Das et al./ Kashima have been discussed above but is silent to a plurality of values, automatically identifying a lowest value, and then displaying the lowest value interface to purchase, as FIG. 4A appears to show bolded lowest pricing but does not specifically provide details.
Rago et al. teaches that pricing of products can be different at different locations (FIG. 5+ which teaches different prices of the same product at different locations).
Prior to the effective filing date it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to enable the purchase of items at different locations subject to availability realizing that different locations can have different pricing. One would have been motivated to identify the lowest price of interest to the customer, such as by sorting, in order to provide the various prices in an order.
Thomas et al./ Rehn/ Rago et al. are silent to automatically identifying the lowest value and configuring the interface with the lowest value as a selected value for real time transaction.
Croak et al. teaches displaying the lowest price and location for each product (abstract+).
Prior to the effective filing date it would have been obvious to combine the teachings to automatically display the lowest priced amount and location for cost savings by the user who is performing the transaction. Thomas et al. teaches using balance points to purchase on the app or selecting a deliver to me option and Rehn as discussed above teaches completing the purchase transaction on the mobile device as known in the art.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al./ Das et al./ Kashima, as discussed above, in view of Wilkinson et al. (US 20180174188), Becker et al. (US 2170177685) and Dar (US 20160034879).
Re claim 10, as discussed above, the items can be purchased from different locations when unavailable at a current location. This obviates receiving an indication of purchase items, and configuring a user interface to facilitate the purchase at a different location than the current location.
Re the limitations of claim 10 that the plurality of potential resources is based on a query of resource identifiers, previous resource transactions of the user, previous resource transaction of other users at the entity location, and previous resource transactions of other users in a same region, while using historic data is known to provide suggested items, the prior art it silent to such specifics.
Wilkinson et al. predicts item in a shopping list based on previous purchases and other customers purchases made in a geographic area (paragraph [0219]+). Becker et al. teaches recommending products based on user search history and previous purchases. Dar teaches online and instore recommendations by looking at previously purchased products at the cashier station (paragraph [0010]+).
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for an item recommendation means/ algorithm that uses preferred means to determine recommendations based on system constraints and a preferred output/ recommendation by using known means to estimate/ predict using desired modeling parameters.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. / Das et al./ Kashima, as discussed above, in view of Birmingham et al. (US 7681790).
The teachings of Thomas et al./ Das et al. / Kashima have been discussed above but are silent to tracking the resources as added and sold in inventory.
Birmingham et al. teaches available quantities displayed (FIG. 4E+) wherein it would have been obvious to update the quantities available based upon adding or selling, in order to provide up to date inventory information.
Prior to the effective filing date it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for accurate inventory information.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al./ Das et al./ Kashima/ Wilkinson et al./ Becker et al./ and Dar, as discussed above, in view of Wolinsky et al. (US 20150112790).
The teachings of Thomas et al./ Das et al./ Kashima/ Wilkinson et al./ Becker et al./ Dar have been discussed above but are silent to potential resources to purchase similar to the resources and available at a current time.
Wolinsky et al. at FIG. 4b+ teaches such limitations via the displaying of related items available for purchase.
Prior to the effective filing date it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for marketing to sell similar/ related items to a customer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in light of the rejections and art above. Additionally, Colmen et al. (US 20190108566) teaches suggested items to be purchased at a store based on those bought by other customers (paragraph [0059]+).
Re the 103 rejection, the Examiner has provided new art showing an interface/ display with pricing and delivery information. Re the limitations regarding a real time inventory tracker, the Examiner notes that real time inventory tracking (database) is well known and conventional in the art, and nonetheless the prior art teaches database for inventory storage. Rain checks and zero items in stock has been discussed above as well, including other locations for items and their prices and delivery information.
Re the 101 rejection, the Examiner maintains the 101. Re the Applicants argument re claim 3 of example 36 of the 2019 guidance, the Examiner note that claim 3 of example 36 dealt with RFID and GPS. The instant claims do not recite structures for geolocation (sensors, GPS structures) and is not combined with an additional technology such as RFID, such as to provide a combination of specific positively recited structures for providing a practical application.
Re the Applicants argument regarding the newly recited combined view limitations, the Examiner points to MPEP 2106.056.I. for examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality: vi. Instructions to display two sets of information on a computer display in a non-interfering manner, without any limitations specifying how to achieve the desired result, Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d 1553, 1559-60 (Fed. Cir. 2018), and is similar to the recited limitations, whereas they are merely seen as insignificant post solution activity of displaying results.
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 DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached 7-9pm.
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, Steven Paik can be reached on 571-272-2404. 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.
/DANIEL I WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights