DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 4/3/2026.
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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1, 3-11 and 15-20 are pending.
Claims 2 and 12-14 are previously canceled.
Claims 6-9, 11 and 18-20 are withdrawn from consideration for being directed to nonelected subject matter.
Claims 1, 6 and 10 are independent.
Claims 1, 3-5, 10 and 15-17 are currently being examined.
Claims 1 and 10 are newly amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 10 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 10 recite “wherein the identification code is sent directly through the first graphical user interface to the target user”. However, the Instant Specification doesn’t sufficiently describe that the identification code is sent directly through the first graphical user interface to the target user.
Claims 3-5 and 15-17 are also rejected as they depend on the claim(s) above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 10 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 10 recite “wherein the identification code is sent directly through the first graphical user interface to the target user”. Here, this is unclear because it is not in correspondence with the Instant Specification, ¶¶ 38, 77, 95 and 97-99 (as filed), which instead of supporting the claim that the identification code is sent directly through the first graphical user interface to the target user, describes the code as being transmitted to the user indirectly via a server, published in groups/forums, or sent through other communication software, with the target user often inputting the code in a separate window. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as describing a target user receiving the identification code, albeit not directly through the first GUI. Correction is required.
Claims 3-5 and 15-17 are also rejected as they depend on the claim(s) above.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 10 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hom; Tyson et al. (hereinafter Hom – US 6850917 B1), in view of Ma; Ning et al. (hereinafter Ma – US 20140049498 A1) and Kumar; Vivek et al. (hereinafter Kumar – US 20160035005 A1).
Independent Claim 1:
Hom teaches:
A method for sharing information, wherein a first graphical user interface is provided through a first terminal device, and the first graphical user interface comprises a resource list, (e.g., a set of selectable elements/icons/options [resource list] within a vendor’s Web page [first graphical user interface], see fig. 2)
the method comprises:
dynamically generating and displaying an information sharing control on the first graphical user interface in response to detecting a designated […] operation acting on resource information in the resource list; (in step S1, sometime after [in response to] a user selection of a “create shopping cart” option [detecting a designated […] operation acting on resource information in the resource list], an option a “Share Cart” option is generated on the display [generating and displaying an information sharing control on the first graphical user interface], col 3:50-4:4, and figs. 1-2. The described process is “dynamically” generated and displayed because the "Share Cart" option's generation and displaying in step S1 is contingent upon and occurs after a user's prior selection of the "create shopping cart" option, meaning the option only appears in response to specific user interaction rather than being present by default.)
creating an information sharing set comprising first resource information in response to an operation […], (in S2, in response to at least one item being selected for placement or addition to the cart [an operation], the at least one item is added to a sharable shopping cart [creating an information sharing set comprising first resource information], col 4:1-3 and fig. 1. Herein, it is broadly interpreted that the Share Cart option/icon appears on the screen, is overlaid on the underlying GUI [the information sharing control is represented as [an icon] overlaid on the first graphical user interface].)
and generating an identification code associated with the information sharing set, (In S8, a unique cart number is generated, col 4:38-47, and fig. 1)
wherein the identification code is used for enabling a target user to acquire the information sharing set through the identification code. (the cart can be shared, S11, and the cart number supplied by one or more sharees to retrieve/view [enabling a target user to acquire] the shared shopping cart at S13, Abstract, col 4:64-5:5, and fig. 1)
wherein the identification code is sent directly through the first graphical user interface to the target user, (the unique cart number is sent to the sharee(s) via email, Abstract and cols 4:64-5:53 and fig. 1. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as being directed to a target user receiving the identification code, albeit not directly through the first GUI)
wherein the information sharing set is configured to be obtained by a second terminal device of the target user through a second graphical user interface based on the identification code, (the sharee(s) can have access to the shopping cart based on the shopping cart number [identification code], Abstract and cols 4:64-5:53 and fig. 1, using separate user interfaces [second graphical user interface] on their own computers, cols 5:54-6:21 and figs. 1-2.)
[…],
and in response to a sliding operation from second resource information in a resource list of the second graphical user interface to the second information sharing control, the second resource information is added to the information sharing set. (the item(s) are added to shopping cart [sharing set] by dragging [sliding operation] the item’s image into the sharing identifier [sharing control], ¶ 56. Sharees with adequate role assignment are also able to able to add contents to the cart, cols 4:64-5:53 and fig. 1)
Hom does not appear to expressly teach, but Ma teaches:
that the designated operation is a “touch” operation (a device with a touch screen that supports touch operations, ¶¶ 8 and 59)
that the creating operation is one “of moving the first resource information in the resource list to the information sharing control” (information can be collected and/or shared using one or more operations, ¶¶ 5 and 48, on a touch screen, ¶ 59, which includes dragging an image [first resource information] to a sharing identifier [sharing control], ¶ 56).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Hom to include that the designated operation is a “touch” operation and that the creating operation is one “of moving the first resource information in the resource list to the information sharing control”, as taught by Ma.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the functionalities, versatility, and convenience of the method, e.g., by reducing and simplifying the operation steps, and providing the method for touch screens, Ma ¶¶ 8 and 42.
Hom-Ma does not appear to expressly teach, but Kumar teaches:
and the second graphical user interface provides a second information sharing control (if a secondary user, that has received access to a shopping cart [e.g., sharee] created by a primary user, given the adequate permissions, can also edit and reshare the shopping cart, ¶¶ 21 and 52 and figs 2 and 4).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Hom to include and the second graphical user interface provides a second information sharing control, as taught by Kumar.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the functionalities and usability afforded by the method, by including the ability of flexible collaboration/distribution of shared shopping cars, Kumar ¶ 47.
Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Ma further teaches:
wherein the designated touch operation comprises a heavy-press or a long-press operation. (long press, ¶ 56)
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Ma further teaches:
wherein the creating an information sharing set comprising first resource information in response to an operation of moving the first resource information in the resource list to the information sharing control comprises: creating the information sharing set comprising the first resource information in response to a sliding operation from the first information resource information to the information sharing control. (the item(s) are added to shopping cart [sharing set] by dragging [sliding operation] the item’s image into the sharing identifier [sharing control], ¶ 56)
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Hom, as modified, further suggests:
further comprising: adding second resource information to the information sharing set in response to a sliding operation from the second resource information to the information sharing control. (Hom teaches, in discussing the related art, that items in a shopping cart are typically changed “at will” until the shopper is ready to checkout, including adding or removing items, col 1:12-34. Similarly, in discussing its invention, Hom teaches that an individual can change contents of the cart, and the cart creator and/or other individuals authorized to carry out the purchase, can checkout out to pay for the goods, col 6:44-58. And Ma, teaches, as discussed above, that the items are added to a collection via sliding operation(s))
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Hom to include further comprising: adding second resource information to the information sharing set in response to a sliding operation from the second resource information to the information sharing control, as suggested by Hom-Ma.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to apply the benefits of Ma with the flexibility expected in Hom of adding/removing items from the cart at will, until the shopper(s) is ready for checkout, Hom cols 1:12-34 and 6:44-58 and Ma ¶¶ 8 and 42.
Independent Claim 10:
Claim 10 is directed to an apparatus for performing the steps of the method in claim 1, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claims 15-17:
The rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. Claims 15-17 are directed to an apparatus for performing the steps of the method in claims 3–5, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Response to Arguments
The previous 112(d) rejections of claims 4 and 16 has been overcome with by claim amendment.
Applicant's 103 arguments have been fully considered but are unpersuasive or otherwise moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
First, the applicant alleges that the Hom doesn’t teach that the code is sent directly through the first GUI, Remarks Pg(s) 9.
However, this phrase doesn’t seem to be supported by the Instant Specification, as explained in the 112(a) and 112(b) rejection sections above. It seems that the applicant may have intended to claim that the second user receives the identification code. However, this is taught by Hom, as explained in the 103 rejection section above.
Second, the applicant alleges that Hom doesn’t teach that the sharing set is obtain by a second device through a second GUI based on the identification code, Remarks Pg(s) 10.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because the newly added limitation is taught by Hom, as mapped in the 103 rejection section, because a second user (sharee) can access the shopping cart information based on the unique cart number.
Third, the applicant alleges that the other references also fail to teach the claimed invention, Remarks Pg(s) 11-12.
The examiner respectfully disagrees for similar reason(s).
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. Below is a list of these references, including why they are pertinent:
McGregor; Lucas et al. US 11899683 B2, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing sharing items by dragging to items to a contact name [sharing control], col 27:58-65.
Yamada; Kazuhiro US 20160277401 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing access to a shared folder by using access code, ¶ 103, that is generated for a shared folder sharing request, Abstract and ¶ 86.
Baharloo; Siamak et al. US 20120203661 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing a method for creating a shopping cart with a unique identifier that is usable to access the shopping cart, ¶ 123.
Salzano; Doreen Lynn US 20120123865 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing a long touch on an item for identifying an item to added to a shopping cart, which is then followed by a drag gesture of the item into a shopping cart for actually adding the item to the cart, ¶ 102 and fig. 15.
Uysal; Aylin et al. US 20130208000 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing a drop zone section 84 that automatically appears when a visual element is dragged from the grid section 80 onto the drop zone user interface control 48, ¶ 46 and fig. 5.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MERCADO whose telephone number is (408)918-7537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (Eastern Time).
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571) 272-4057. 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.
/Gabriel Mercado/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights