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 .
Detail Action
In the amendment filed on 11/05/2025, claims 1-11 and 13-20 are pending. Claims 1, 13, and 17 are amended. Claim 12 is cancelled.
This is a Final Action.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 and 13-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments focused on the following:
Applicant argued that following limitations “transmitting, to an events database, a request to retrieve event records that each satisfy a criterion and includes a parameter…”, ”extracting records…”, “storing the subgroup of records…without converting…into the csv format,”, “generating Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) requests,” “transmitting the HTTP request…” and “causing serial processing” that allow the claims to pass Alice’s two prongs.
Examiner disagrees.
The courts have found following to be abstract idea/ Mental Process:
A claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
A claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
Here, the claim includes the limitation of “event records that each satisfy a criterion and includes a parameter,” which can be considered as collecting, comparing, and analyzing known information. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea/mental process.
In addition, the courts have found followings to be well understood, routine, conventional activity:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Here, “transmitting, to an events database, a request to retrieve event records …”, ”extracting records…”, “storing the subgroup of records…without converting…into the csv format,” can be consider as storing and retrieving information in memory. And “generating Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) requests,” “transmitting the HTTP request…” and “causing serial processing” can be considered as part of receiving or transmitting data over a network. These limitations can be considered as well-understood, routine, conventional activity and do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Therefore, these limitations do not help the claims pass Alice’s two prong test.
35 USC § 103
Applicant argued that combination of Vizer, Dong, and Hope fails to teach “storing the subgroup of records without converting…into the csv format,” “generating transmitting the HTTP requests to the API one by one,” and “causing serial processing of respective records.”
Examiner disagrees.
Dong teaches “storing the subgroup of records without converting…into the csv format,” because Dong teaches storing job status, event, record and track in ECSA without converting to CSV format. see Dong p0049.
Dong teaches transmitting data using any interface or protocol such as internet, WAN, LAN and other; See Dong p0091 and Hong teaches using HTTP protocol to access data process agent. (see Hong Fig. 6- Fig.7, p0043-p0044) Therefore, the combination of Vizer, Dong, and Hong teaches these limitation.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea/mental process without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites the step of:
causing an events database to identify event records that each satisfy a criterion and includes a parameter;
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recite a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites mere instructions to apply an exception (A computer-implemented method performed by a computer system for determining status of events collected in records for a network service provider), with additional elements comprising only insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 1 recites the additional element of:
wherein the criterion includes a time-dependent value for an event;
wherein the parameter includes a type or source of the event;
retrieving, from the events database, a group of records of respective events having the parameter and satisfying the criterion;
extracting records from the group of records to generate a subgroup of records configured for converting into a comma-separated-value (csv) format and batch processing by an application programming interface (API);
storing the subgroup of records temporarily at a memory of the computer system without converting the subgroup of records into the csv format, wherein the subgroup of records are arranged serially at the memory of computer system for processing by the API;
generating hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) requests to the API to serially process each event in the subgroup of records;
transmitting the Http requests to the API one by one;
responsive to the http requests in an application layer protocol, causing serial processing of respective records of the subgroup of records by the API, wherein each record in the subgroup of records is removed from the memory of the computer system when processed by the API, and
wherein the API compares each record in the subgroup of records against indications of completed events; and
performing at least one self-executing action based on an output of the API including an indication of a status of a particular event in the subgroup of records, wherein the status indicates that the particular event is complete or incomplete.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Further, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 1 and 2 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 2 recites the additional element of:
The method of claim 1, wherein: the events collected in records are associated with service agreements or user device purchases for users subscribing to the network service provider, and the network service provider is a wireless service provider.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 1 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 2, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 3 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 3 recites the additional element of:
wherein the indications of completed events are received from a database of a telecommunications network service provider, wherein the database of the telecommunications network service provider is separate and distinct from the computer system and independent of the API, and wherein the API is in communication with the database of the telecommunications network service provider and configured to access the indications of the completed events.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 1 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 3, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 4 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 4 recites the additional element of:
generating, by the computer system, the requests in accordance with the application layer protocol based on the respective records in the subgroup of records, wherein the requests identify events of the respective records.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 1 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 4, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Claim 5 also recites the step of:
comparing the respective records against the indications of completed events includes comparing the respective records against the indications of completed events based on the respective records.
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recites a mental process.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 5 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 5 recites the additional element of:
wherein the requests identify events of the respective records in the subgroup of records, and wherein
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 1 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 5, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 6 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 6 recites the additional element of:
when a status of a particular event is indicated as completed in the status indications received from the API, the computer system stores information about the completed status associated with the particular event to the events database.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 1 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 6, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 7 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 7 recites the additional element of:
when a status of a particular event is indicated as non-completed in the status indications received from the API, the computer system sends a notification to a device of a user associated with the particular event.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 1 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 7, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Claim 8 also recites the step of:
wherein a pending status indicates that the payment request is unpaid.
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recites a mental process.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 8 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 8 recites the additional element of:
wherein the event records including the parameter and satisfying the criterion indicate payment requests send to customers associated with a network service provider, and
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 1 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 8, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Claim 9 also recites the step of:
whether a payment request has been pending for longer than a preset threshold time.
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recites a mental process.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 9 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 9 recites the additional element of:
wherein the event records include indications of payment requests associated with transactions, and wherein the time-dependent value indicates, and
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 1 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 9, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 10 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 10 recites the additional element of:
wherein the source of the event includes an online transaction or an in-person store transaction.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 1 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 10, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 11 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 11 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (a method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 11 recites the additional element of:
wherein the type of the event includes a service agreement or a purchase agreement.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 1 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 11, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claims 13-16 and 17-20 are directed to a computer implemented method and a computer system comprise the steps which the at least one processing platform of the method of claims 1, 3-5 are configured to perform. Claims 13-16 and 17-20 recite the same limitations as claims 1, 3-5, respectively; therefore, claims 13-16 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a method process/abstract idea without significantly more for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 1, 3-5. See 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, 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 1-6, 8-9, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vizer US 2018/0107528 in view of Dong US 2023/0214265 and Hope US 2007/0067773.
18/075,201
Vizer US 2018/0107528 in view of Dong US 2023/0214265 and Hope US 2007/0067773;
Claim 1
A computer-implemented method performed by a computer system for determining status of events collected in records for a network service provider, the method comprising:
Vizer p0019, p0024-p0029;
Transmitting to an events database, a request to retrieve event records that each satisfy a criterion and includes a parameter;
Vizer p0020; p0029;
wherein the criterion includes a time-dependent value for an event;
Vizer p0062-p0069;
wherein the parameter includes a type or source of the event;
Vizer p0036-p0039;
Responsive to the request, retrieving, from the events database, a group of records of respective events having the parameter and satisfying the criterion;
Vizer p0085-p0110;
extracting records from the group of records to generate a subgroup of records configured for converting into a comma-separated-value (csv) format and batch processing by an application programming interface (API);
Vizer teaches uses csv format; p0054; and collect module uses csv format structure. See Vizer p0073
Vizer teaches identify abnormal event from the bucket of events. See Vizer p0045.
storing the subgroup of records temporarily at a memory of the computer system without converting the subgroup of records into the csv format, wherein the subgroup of records are arranged serially at the memory of computer system for processing by the API;
Vizer storages aggregate based event module on a memory. See Vizer p0098 and Vizer p0112;
Dong teaches storing non-csv format jobs and trackers in the shared memory. (see Dong p0049-0057)
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Dong’s teaching with method of Vizer in order to allow user to track jobs and use memory efficiently.
Generating Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) requests to the API to serially process each event in the subgroup of records;
Transmitting the HTTP request to the API one by one;
Dong teaches using transmit data using any interface or protocol such as internet, WAN, LAN and other. See Dong p0091
Hope uses http: to link with the application. See Hope Fig. 4-7;
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Dong and Hope’s teaching with method of Vizer in order to in order to provide cloud computing over WAN.
responsive to the HTTP requests in an application layer protocol, causing serial processing of respective records of the subgroup of records by the API, wherein each record in the subgroup of records is removed from the memory of the computer system when processed by the API, and wherein the API compares each record in the subgroup of records against indications of completed events; and
Dong teaches removed tracker and job from shared memory upon completion. See Dong p0059.
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Dong’s teaching with method of Vizer in order to allow user to track jobs and use memory efficiently.
performing at least one self-executing action based on an output of the API including an indication of a status of a particular event in the subgroup of records, wherein the status indicates that the particular event is complete or incomplete.
Dong teaches removed tracker and job from shared memory upon completion. See Dong p0059.
Claim 2
The method of claim 1, wherein: the events collected in records are associated with service agreements or user device purchases for users subscribing to the network service provider, and the network service provider is a wireless service provider.
Dong teaches metering and Pricing provide cost tracking as resources are utilized within the cloud computing environment, and billing or invoicing for consumption of these resources. In one example, these resources may include application software licenses. Security provides identity verification for cloud consumers and tasks, as well as protection for data and other resources. User portal provides access to the cloud computing environment for consumers and system administrators. Service level management provides cloud computing resource allocation and management such that required service levels are met. Service Level agreement (SLA) planning and fulfillment provide pre-arrangement for, and procurement of, cloud computing resources for which a future requirement is anticipated in accordance with an SLA. See Dong p0083
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Dong’s teaching with method of Vizer in order to allow user to provide dynamic procurement of computing resource that are utilized to perform tasks within a network environment.
Claim 3
The method of claim 1: wherein the indications of completed events are received from a database of a telecommunications network service provider, wherein the database of the telecommunications network service provider is separate and distinct from the computer system and independent of the API, and wherein the API is in communication with the database of the telecommunications network service provider and configured to access the indications of the completed events.
Dong teaches removed tracker and job from shared memory upon completion. See Dong p0059.
Dong teaches separate system independent systems. See Dong fig. 1.
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Dong’s teaching with method of Vizer in order to allow user to provide security.
Claim 4
The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating, by the computer system, the requests in accordance with the application layer protocol based on the respective records in the subgroup of records, wherein the requests identify events of the respective records.
Vizer p0045
Dong teaches removed tracker and job from shared memory upon completion. See Dong p0059.
Claim 5
The method of claim 1: wherein the requests identify events of the respective records in the subgroup of records, and wherein comparing the respective records against the indications of completed events includes comparing the respective records against the indications of completed events based on the respective records.
Vizer p0045
Dong teaches removed tracker and job from shared memory upon completion. See Dong p0059.
Claim 6
The method of claim 1, further comprising: when a status of a particular event is indicated as completed in the status indications received from the API, the computer system stores information about the completed status associated with the particular event to the events database.
Vizer p0074 collected and store event.
Dong teaches store current status of the event. See Dong p0027;
Claim 8
The method of claim 1: wherein the event records including the parameter and satisfying the criterion indicate payment requests send to customers associated with a network service provider, and wherein a pending status indicates that the payment request is unpaid.
Vizer p0019, p0024-p0029;
Hope teaches send message to all customer whose payment are 60 days overdue. (see Hope p0082)
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Hope’s teaching with method of Vizer in order to notify user of overdue payment.
Claim 9
The method of claim 1: wherein the event records include indications of payment requests associated with transactions, and wherein the time-dependent value indicates whether a payment request has been pending for longer than a preset threshold time.
Vizer p0019, p0024-p0029;
Hope teaches send message to all customer whose payment are 60 days overdue. (see Hope p0082)
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Hope’s teaching with method of Vizer in order to notify user of overdue payment.
As per claim 13, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1. See rejection above.
As per claim 14, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3. See rejection above.
As per claim 15, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4. See rejection above.
As per claim 16, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5. See rejection above.
As per claim 17, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1. See rejection above.
As per claim 18, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3. See rejection above.
As per claim 19, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4. See rejection above.
As per claim 20, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5. See rejection above.
Claims 7, 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vizer US 2018/0107528 in view of Dong US 2023/0214265, Hope US 2007/0067773 and Daniels US 2021/0373960.
18/075,201
Vizer US 2018/0107528 in view of Dong US 2023/0214265; Hope US 2007/0067773; Daniels US 2021/0373960
Claim 7
The method of claim 1, further comprising: when a status of a particular event is indicated as non-completed in the status indications received from the API, the computer system sends a notification to a device of a user associated with the particular event.
Vizer p0019, p0024-p0029;
Daniels teaches determine suspended event based on threshold. See Daniels p0112
Daniels teaches a communication (e.g., a notification) may be provided to entity identifying of events satisfying the criteria. The entity may then respond to the communication and indicate an approval of the suspension of the event. See Daniels p0066 and p0069;
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Daniel’s teaching with method of Vizer in order to allow system to verify payment.
Claim 10
The method of claim 1, wherein the source of the event includes an online transaction or an in-person store transaction.
Daniel p0049.
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Daniel’s teaching with method of Vizer in order to allow system to verify payment.
Claim 11
The method of claim 1, wherein the type of the event includes a service agreement or a purchase agreement.
Dong p0079, p0083;
Daniel p0052;
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Dong and Daniel’s teaching with method of Vizer in order to provide service based on agreement.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PENG KE whose telephone number is (571)272-4062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-5:00.
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, Kevin Young can be reached at (571) 270-3180. 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.
PENG KE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2194
/PENG KE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194
/PENG KE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194