DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 11/25/2025.
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention filed on 11/25/2025 is acceptable.
Claims Status
Claims 1-8, 10-18, 20-28 and 30 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claims 1, 11 and 21 are independent and are newly amended.
Claims 9, 19 and 29 are previously canceled.
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 1-8, 10-18, 20-28 and 30 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, 11 and 21 recite “modifying one or more user input conditions associated with the particular ordered plurality of GUI interactions”. However, the specification doesn’t’ sufficiently describe whether this modification refers to directly altering the ordered interactions themselves or merely relating to them, such as adjusting a submitted price at the time of input.
Claims 2-8, 10, 12-18, 20, 22-28 and 30 are also rejected as they depend on one of the claims 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 1-8, 10-18, 20-28 and 30 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, 11 and 21 recite “modifying one or more user input conditions associated with the particular ordered plurality of GUI interactions”. However, it is unclear whether this modification directly alters the ordered interactions themselves or merely relates to them, such as adjusting a submitted price at the time of input. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as being directed to merely relating to them, such as adjusting a submitted price at the time of input. Correction required.
Claims 2-8, 10, 12-18, 20, 22-28 and 30 are also rejected as they depend on one of the claims 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) 1-2, 7, 10-12, 17, 20-22, 27 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter; Ian et al. (hereinafter Hunter – US 20120284135 A1) in view of Ono; Itsuji et al. (hereinafter Ono – US 20150120483 A1).
Independent Claim 1:
Hunter teaches A computer-implemented method comprising:
displaying, via a display unit of a client computing device of a user, one or more interactive graphical user interfaces (GUIs) displaying real-time item information associated with a current item offered in a live event, (a system may provide/display listings to clients, via user interface(s) on users’ computing devices [displaying, via a display unit of a client computing device, one or more interactive graphical user interfaces (GUIs) displaying…item information], see Abstract, figs. 1, 3, 15, 21-23 and ¶¶ 54-55. This listings are for acquisition of items or services [associated with a current item], e.g., Abstract and ¶ 10. This online marketplace brings together buyers and sellers in real-time, ¶¶ 1 and 5, and includes live information such as “current location” of the buyer/sellers of the items/services, ¶¶ 39 and 54 and Hunter Claim 1, and also includes prices that are subject to increase [real-time item information] during the “live”/“real-time” event, see ¶ 59. At least for these reasons, herein, it is interpreted that items in this online marketplace are “offered in a live event”.)
the real-time item information being received at the client computing device via first communications from one or more servers, (as reflected in fig. 3:330, the listings, with “real-time item information” such a current price of the listings, are provided [communicated] by system 120 to the clients/users, ¶¶ 31, 54 and 66 and fig. 3, and the system 120 can be a server, ¶ 26 and fig. 1.)
the one or more interactive GUIs comprising one or more interactive GUI elements (e.g., a price field and bidding slider) configured to, upon performing a particular ordered plurality of GUI interactions with the one or more interactive GUI elements, cause the client computing device to submit an attempt to acquire the current item at a first price value communicated to the client computing device via the one or more servers, (sending offer requires entering an offer value [or “price”] in a field and a “tap and drag” on a slider [configured to, upon performing a particular ordered plurality of GUI interactions with the one or more interactive GUI elements, cause the client computing device to submit an attempt to acquire the current item], ¶ 58 and fig. 25. client 110 can display a user interface that allows user 112 to review and send the offer. To prevent an inadvertent sending of the offer due to an inadvertent tap of the screen, the user interface can provide a slider control [one or more interactive GUI elements] to send an offer [cause the client computing device to submit an attempt to acquire the current item], such as the "Send Offer" slider depicted in FIG. 25 that can require user 112 to tap and drag the slider to complete command to send the offer, ¶ 58 and fig. 25. as reflected in fig. 3:330, the listings, with a current price and/or new price/offer value of the listings [at a first price value], are provided by system 120 [communicated to the client computing device] to the clients/users, ¶¶ 31, 54 and 66 and fig. 3)
subsequent to displaying the one or more interactive GUIs, obtaining, from the one or more servers, second communications indicating an update to the real-time item information, […]; (after displaying the item at one price, an item’s price is updated be another user and communicated between the users via the system/server 120, ¶¶ 26, 54 and 59, and figs. 1, 3 and 22)
[…] automatically reconfiguring the one or more interactive GUI elements by modifying one or more user input conditions associated with the particular ordered plurality of GUI interactions to, upon performing the particular ordered plurality of GUI interactions, cause the client computing device to submit an attempt to acquire the current item at a second price value […]; (based on a user entering a higher price for a listing, the user can place a bid/offer at the entered price value [submit an attempt to acquire the current item at a second price value], ¶ 59, e.g., using the “Send Offer” slider, ¶ 58 and fig. 25. Herein, at least because bids can be submitted using a computing device by the different/new prices inputted in the price field and based on the actuating of the “Send Offer” slider, these user interface elements [one or more interactive GUI elements] are interpreted as being “reconfigured” to submit the offer using “at a second price value”. Note that the reconfiguring is interpreted as being done “automatically” because the computer’s processors perform the operations based on instructions, ¶ 81. It is noted that the Instant Specification doesn’t include the term “reconfiguring”, or its variant forms, and the interpretation above is broad and consistent with the Instant Specification’s description of enabling the user’s device to submit of bids at different price values, see Instant Specification ¶¶ 47-48 and 50, as filed. Here, the ability to change a price in a field and have the “Send Offer” slider automatically update to submit that new, specific value constitutes the automatic reconfiguration of the GUI elements to match new, user-modified input conditions [automatically reconfiguring the one or more interactive GUI elements by modifying one or more user input conditions associated with the particular ordered plurality of GUI interactions to, upon performing the particular ordered plurality of GUI interactions, cause the client computing device to submit an attempt to acquire the current item at a second price value].)
subsequent to reconfiguring the one or more interactive GUI elements, receiving, via the one or more interactive GUIs via the user input from the user, the ordered plurality of GUI interactions with the one or more interactive GUI elements; (after the abovementioned reconfiguration of the “send offer” slider [subsequent to reconfiguring the one or more interactive GUI element], ¶ 59, the interface “allows user 112 to review and send the offer”, based on the tap and drag on a slider [user input], ¶ 58 and fig. 25)
and responsive to receiving the ordered plurality of GUI interactions, transmitting, to the one or more servers via one or more processors, third communications indicative of the attempt to acquire the current item at the second price value. (the offers are submitted to via system 120 [the communications intermediary], ¶ 61 and figs. 1 and 27, which can be a server, ¶ 26. Herein, it is interpreted that the client performs the functions using “one or more processors”, at least because the clients are computing devices and includes processor(s) such a processor 4110, ¶ 78 and fig. 41. The offers contain a current price/amount a user is willing to pay or an item or service, or a current price/amount a user is will to be paid for an item or service, ¶ 10. Since as mentioned above, the price can be changed by one or more users [“at the second price value”]. Communications of offers are submitted from the users/client to the system/server, ¶¶ 60-61, fig. 4:400,410,420,440,450. The communications related to the offer communications include “third communications”, at least for being different from the communications related to the submitting of listings, mentioned above, e.g., fig. 3:330. Furthermore, the offer communications include “third communication” because multiple offers can be submitted for each listing, as reflected in the discussion of “multiple offers” and related price changes, ¶¶ 68-69)
Hunter does not appear to expressly teach, but Ono teaches:
that the automatic reconfiguring is “responsive to receiving the second communications, and while continuing to display the one or more interactive GUI element” (a system in which a bid can be placed based on a bid price that is communicated by a server and displayed to the user, ¶¶ 67-68, and the displayed price updated at predetermined time intervals, ¶ 8, e.g., every 40 msec [“real-time”] and/or every time item information changes, ¶¶ 38 and 48)
that the update to the item information is “produced by the one or more servers response to an attempt by another user to acquire the current item” (the bid price is set by [produced by] the server, e.g., automatically raised by an increment until a minimum sale price is reached, and after this, incremented when a new bid is made, ¶ 48)
that “the second price value being based on the attempt by the another user to acquire the current item” (new bid prices are determined by the server when users place bids [another user to acquire the current item], ¶ 48)
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 Hunter to include that the automatic reconfiguring is “responsive to receiving the second communications, and while continuing to display the one or more interactive GUI element”, that the update to the item information is “produced by the one or more servers response to an attempt by another user to acquire the current item”, and that “the second price value being based on the attempt by the another user to acquire the current item”, as taught by Ono.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to increase method’s efficiency and convenience to the user, e.g., by not requiring the user to enter every bid price, Ono ¶¶ 4-5, while allowing the flexibility of manually entering bid prices, Ono ¶ 69.
Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Hunter further teaches
wherein the one or more interactive GUI elements comprise a slider element and a slider bar element, and wherein performing the particular ordered plurality of GUI interactions comprises (1) touching the slider element, and (2) dragging the slider element across an area of the display associated with the slider bar element while holding the touch of the slider element. (the slider depicted in fig. 25 reflects a slider element [labeled “Send offer”] and a slider bar within which the slider element slides [or within which the slider element is “dragged”], Hunter ¶¶ 58 and 67 and fig. 25. Herein, it is interpreted that dragging the “slider control” implies that the dragging “while holding the touch of the slider control”, at least in embodiments where the input device of the client is a “touch screen”, e.g., see Hunter ¶ 79 and fig. 41)
Claim 7:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Hunter further teaches
wherein the current item is an item offered for auction via the live event, (the system allows both buyers and sellers to post listings items or services and allow multiple offers [bids] to be made and accepted on such listings via an auction mechanism, e.g., Abstract. The auction is a live event, as explained above for claim 1)
and wherein the attempt to acquire the current item is an auction bid for the current item. (prospective buyers submit offers to sellers in a bidding process of the auction, Abstract and ¶¶ 27 and 57 and fig. 4,)
Claim 10:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Hunter further teaches
wherein the display unit comprises a touchscreen of a mobile computing device. (touch screen of computing device , ¶¶ 78-79 and fig. 41, which can be a mobile computing device, ¶ 26 and fig. 1)
Independent Claims 11 and 21:
Claim(s) 11 and 21 are directed to computer-readable media and computing device for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 1, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claims 12 and 22:
The rejections of claims 11 and 21 are incorporated. Claim(s) 12 and 22 are directed to computer-readable media and computing device for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 2, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claims 17 and 27:
The rejections of claims 11 and 21 are incorporated. Claim(s) 17 and 27 are directed to computer-readable media and computing device for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 7, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claims 20 and 30:
The rejections of claims 11 and 21 are incorporated. Claim(s) 20 and 30 are directed to computer-readable media and computing device for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 10, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim(s) 3, 13 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter (US 20120284135 A1) in view of Ono (US 20150120483 A1), as applied to claims 2, 12 and 22 above, and further in view of McKenzie; Christopher D. et al. (hereinafter McKenzie – US 20220229524 A1).
Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Hunter does not appear to expressly teach
wherein receiving the ordered plurality of GUI interactions via the one or more interactive GUIs comprises: tracking a movement vector of the dragging of the slider element;
and determining that the ordered plurality of GUI interactions have been successfully performed based at least in part upon determining that (1) the movement vector does not exit a bounding box associated with the slider bar element, and/or (2) a component of the movement vector in a first direction orthogonal to a second direction of movement of the slider with respect to the slider bar is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold.
However, McKenzie teaches/suggests
wherein receiving the ordered plurality of GUI interactions via the one or more interactive GUIs comprises: tracking a movement vector [magnitude and direction] of the dragging of the slider element; (a system that tracks the amount, or “magnitude”, and/or direction of input on a slider element, ¶¶ 2, 552-553, 569 and 577 and figs. 21A-21E.)
and determining that the ordered plurality of GUI interactions have been successfully performed based at least in part upon determining that (1) the movement vector does not exit a bounding box associated with the slider bar element, and/or (2) a component of the movement vector in a first direction orthogonal to a second direction of movement of the slider with respect to the slider bar is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold. (the slider position is adjusted based on in accordance with the direction and amount, e.g., speed, distance, duration, etc., of movement, unless a cancelation of input has been detected, ¶ 552 and fig. 21D. Cancellation of input may occur based on movement meeting certain criteria, ¶ 40. E.g., cancellation may occur when the movement is in a direction considered “away from” an initial input element by a threshold distance, ¶ 214 and fig. 9C. Such cancellation threshold distance can be related to positional relationship between, or sizes of, two or more input elements, or may be independent from the same, ¶ 550 and fig. 21D. These teachings at least suggests the limitation, including both items (1) and (2), because moving within a threshold distance from an input element is analogous to a bounding box of slider element, which would limit non-cancelling movement to a specific area around the input element, and is also analogous to limiting movement in any direction within the threshold, including a direction orthogonal to a first direction)
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 Hunter wherein receiving the ordered plurality of GUI interactions via the one or more interactive GUIs comprises: tracking a movement vector of the dragging of the slider element; and determining that the ordered plurality of GUI interactions have been successfully performed based at least in part upon determining that (1) the movement vector does not exit a bounding box associated with the slider bar element, and/or (2) a component of the movement vector in a first direction orthogonal to a second direction of movement of the slider with respect to the slider bar is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold, as taught/suggested by McKenzie.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the flexibility and interaction efficiency afforded by the method by facilitating an input cancellation option without requiring additional inputs, McKenzie ¶ 40.
Claims 13 and 23:
The rejections of claims 12 and 22 are incorporated. Claim(s) 13 and 23 are directed to computer-readable media and computing device for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 3, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim(s) 4, 14 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter (US 20120284135 A1) in view of Ono (US 20150120483 A1), as applied to claims 1, 11 and 21 above, and further in view of Karlsson; David (hereinafter Karlsson – US 20120144298 A1).
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Hunter further seems to at least teach/suggest:
wherein the one or more interactive GUI elements comprise a button element, and wherein the particular ordered plurality of GUI interactions comprises touching the button and holding the touch of the button for at least a predetermined duration of time. (because one of the goals of Hunter is to prevent sending inadvertent offers due to accidental taps on the screen, ¶ 58. This is done by requiring additional drag action(s) on the control after the tap/touch, which would require a longer touching time [holding time] than what is required by solely a tap/touch operation)
Nevertheless, for purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner assumes that Hunter does not appear to expressly teach
wherein the one or more interactive GUI elements comprise a button element, and wherein the particular ordered plurality of GUI interactions comprises touching the button and holding the touch of the button for at least a predetermined duration of time.
However, Karlsson teaches/suggests
wherein the one or more interactive GUI elements comprise a button element, and wherein the particular ordered plurality of GUI interactions comprises touching the button and holding the touch of the button for at least a predetermined duration of time (differentiating between intentional and unintentional touches by analyzing values such as duration, ¶ 52, and checking if the value exceeds a particular threshold, ¶ 72 and fig. 6).
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 Hunter wherein the one or more interactive GUI elements comprise a button element, and wherein the particular ordered plurality of GUI interactions comprises touching the button and holding the touch of the button for at least a predetermined duration of time, as taught/suggested by Karlsson.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to allow differentiation between intentional and unintentional inputs in a known and effective/accurate manner, Hunter ¶ 58 and Karlsson ¶¶ 72 and 74.
Claims 14 and 24:
The rejections of claims 11 and 21 are incorporated. Claim(s) 14 and 24 are directed to computer-readable media and computing device for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 4, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim(s) 5, 15 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter (US 20120284135 A1) in view of Ono (US 20150120483 A1) and Karlsson (US 20120144298 A1), as applied to claims 4, 14 and 24 above, and further in view of McKenzie (US 20220229524 A1).
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Hunter does not appear to expressly teach:
wherein receiving the ordered plurality of GUI interactions via the one or more interactive GUIs comprises:
tracking a movement vector of a dragging operation during the holding of the button;
and determining that the ordered plurality of GUI interactions have been successfully performed based at least in part upon determining that (1) a magnitude of the movement vector is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold, and/or (2) the movement vector does not exit a boundary associated with the button.
However, McKenzie teaches/suggests
wherein receiving the ordered plurality of GUI interactions via the one or more interactive GUIs comprises:
tracking a movement vector of a dragging operation during the holding of the button (a system that tracks the amount, or “magnitude”, and/or direction [movement vector] of input on a slider element, ¶¶ 2, 552-553, 569 and 577 and figs. 21A-21E.)
and determining that the ordered plurality of GUI interactions have been successfully performed based at least in part upon determining that (1) a magnitude of the movement vector is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold, and/or (2) the movement vector does not exit a boundary associated with the button (the slider position is adjusted based on in accordance with the direction and amount, e.g., speed, distance, duration, etc., of movement, unless a cancelation of input has been detected, ¶ 552 and fig. 21D. Cancellation of input may occur based on movement meeting certain criteria, ¶ 40. E.g., cancellation may occur when the movement is in a direction considered “away from” an initial input element by a threshold distance, ¶ 214 and fig. 9C. Such cancellation threshold distance [a magnitude of the movement vector is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold] can be related to positional relationship between, or sizes of, two or more input elements, or may be independent from the same, ¶ 550 and fig. 21D.)
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 Hunter wherein receiving the ordered plurality of GUI interactions via the one or more interactive GUIs comprises: tracking a movement vector of a dragging operation during the holding of the button; and determining that the ordered plurality of GUI interactions have been successfully performed based at least in part upon determining that (1) a magnitude of the movement vector is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold, and/or (2) the movement vector does not exit a boundary associated with the button, as taught/suggested by McKenzie.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the flexibility and interaction efficiency afforded by the method by facilitating an input cancellation option without requiring additional inputs, McKenzie ¶ 40.
Claims 15 and 25:
The rejections of claims 14 and 24 are incorporated. Claim(s) 15 and 25 are directed to computer-readable media and computing device for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 5, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim(s) 6, 8, 16, 18, 26 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter (US 20120284135 A1) in view of Ono (US 20150120483 A1), as applied to claims 1, 11 and 21 above, and further in view of Lowson; Linda (hereinafter Lowson – US 20060112130 A1).
Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Hunter does not appear to expressly teach
wherein displaying the one or more interactive GUIs comprises displaying a real-time video stream associated with the live event, the real-time video stream being received at the client computing device via the one or more servers.
However, Lowson teaches/suggests
wherein displaying the one or more interactive GUIs comprises displaying a real-time video stream associated with the live event, the real-time video stream being received at the client computing device via the one or more servers (a server-based live auction system that is also capable of providing live video communications for direct purchasing and live auctions, Abstract and ¶¶ 15 and 27. Interaction between client and server are suggested by Hunter, as explained above for claim 1).
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 Hunter wherein displaying the one or more interactive GUIs comprises displaying a real-time video stream associated with the live event, the real-time video stream being received at the client computing device via the one or more servers, as taught/suggested by Lowson.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to at least to improve the versatility afforded by the method, Lowson ¶¶ 101-102, by affording a more versatility (variety of communication/interaction types) for managing different types of resources in different types of industries, Lowson Abstract and ¶¶ 2 and 27.
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Hunter does not appear to expressly teach, but Lowson teaches/suggests
wherein the current item is an item offered for direct purchase via the live event, and wherein the attempt to acquire the current item is a purchase of the item offered for direct purchase. (a server-based live auction system that is also capable of providing live video communications for direct purchasing and live auctions, Abstract and ¶¶ 15 and 27. Interaction between client and server are suggested by Hunter, as explained above for claim 1).
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 Hunter wherein the current item is an item offered for direct purchase via the live event, and wherein the attempt to acquire the current item is a purchase of the item offered for direct purchase, as taught/suggested by Lowson.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to at least to improve the versatility afforded by the method, Lowson ¶¶ 101-102, by affording a more versatility (variety of communication/interaction types) for managing different types of resources in different types of industries, Lowson Abstract and ¶¶ 2 and 27.
Claims 16 and 26:
The rejections of claims 11 and 21 are incorporated. Claim(s) 16 and 26 are directed to computer-readable media and computing device for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 6, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claims 18 and 28:
The rejections of claims 11 and 21 are incorporated. Claim(s) 18 and 28 are directed to computer-readable media and computing device for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 8, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's 103 arguments have been fully considered but they are unpersuasive and/or otherwise moot due to new grounds of rejection presented above.
First, the applicant alleges that Hunter fails to teach the new limitation of “by modifying one or more input conditions associated with the particular order plurality of GUI interactions”, and ‘that the teachings of Hunter differ from claim 1's recitation of "modifying one or more user input conditions associated with the particular ordered plurality of GUI interactions. Notably…that amended claim 1 recites a change in how the user interacts with the GUI element.” Remarks Pages 13-15.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because:
The phrase is not clear, as explained in 112(b) rejection section above, and also lacks support in the Instant Specification, as explained in the 112(a) rejection section above. As such, it is unclear how to understand the limitation, much less how it differs from claim 1, which allegedly changes “how the user interacts with the GUI element”.
However, for purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as the modified conditions as merely relating to the ordered interactions, such as adjusting a submitted price at the time of input. As such, Hunter teaches the limitation because it describes the ability of a user to change a price in a field and have the “Send Offer” slider automatically update to submit that new, specific value constitutes the automatic reconfiguration of the GUI elements to match new, user-modified input conditions [automatically reconfiguring the one or more interactive GUI elements by modifying one or more user input conditions associated with the particular ordered plurality of GUI interactions to, upon performing the particular ordered plurality of GUI interactions, cause the client computing device to submit an attempt to acquire the current item at a second price value].)
Second, the applicant also uses similar line of reasoning to allege that Ono fails ‘to teach or suggest at least "automatically reconfiguring the one or more interactive GUI elements by modifying one or more user input conditions associated with the particular ordered plurality of GUI interactions..." as recited by amended claim 1’, because “Ono does not teach or suggest modifying the behavior of one or more GUI elements, as described in para. [0031] of the instant specification”, and concludes “that combining the teachings of Hunter and Ono would still not enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the elements of amended claim 1 as detailed above”, essentially because “neither reference, individually or in combination, addresses or suggests the need for altering the behavior of the GUI element(s)”. Remarks Page(s) 15-16.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because:
Of the reason(s) provided above for the first argument.
Furthermore, Paragraph 31 in the Instant Specification merely describes that "User interface elements" are individual, configurable components (like GUI elements) that make up a user interface, designed to display specific information, behave in particular ways, and respond to user input, and that their appearance and behavior are controlled by non-transitory instructions stored on the device or received from a server. Nothing here illuminates on what the modified input conditions are and exactly how they are being modified to affect, and how they affect, “the particular ordered plurality of GUI interactions”.
Third, the applicant alleges patentability of the remaining claims, based on the argument(s) listed above. Remarks Page 16.
The examiner respectfully disagrees for the same reason(s) provided above.
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:
Carpenter; Brian et al. (US 9064282 B1), pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing a computer generated bid price, which is incremented automatically, col 6:60-7:5.
Green; David et al. (US 20160350843 A1), pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing a method for live auction bidding, fig. 2, which includes the prevention of accidental bidding, such as by requiring the meeting of a motion threshold or the placing of a thumb on an input mechanism before the bid is placed, e.g., Abstract and ¶¶ 13-14 and figs. 1 and 2.
Nassiri; Nicholas N. (US 20160042447 A1), pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing concepts of an auction website interface, see Abstract, that includes a slider and order 2-click system for bid confirmation and prevent accidental bidding, e.g., ¶¶ 10, 48 and 54 and figs. 4A-4B and 9.
Hilliard; Adam et al. (US 20180150889 A1), pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing concepts of auction server for live bidding, e.g., fig. 4 and ¶¶ 57-58.
Pastrana Vicente; Israel et al. (US 20220121344 A1), pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing concepts of preventing the accidental updating of an input slider, e.g., ¶¶ 197-198 and fig. 9E.
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 on (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