Detailed Action
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is in reply to the Amendment filed on 1/23/2026. Claims 1-22 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 11, 17-19, 21 have been amended. The claim objections have been overcome by amendment. Applicant is invited to request a telephonic interview prior to next response.
Claim Rejection - 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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. In the instant case, claims 1-18 are directed to a machine, 19-20 are directed to a process, and claims 21-22 are directed to an article of manufacture. Therefore, claims 1-22 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 as described in MPEP 2106 (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong Two of Step 2A).
Claims 1, 19, and 21 recite at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
providing, by a redirecting module of a processing subsystem, one of a first checkout path and a second checkout path to a user, in response to the user interacting with an advertisement of one or more products displayed in a source, wherein the one or more products are hosted by a merchant, wherein,
the first checkout path is adapted to enable the user to configure one or more options for the one or more products and purchase the one or more products within the context of the advertisement or an offer displayed in the source; and
the second checkout path is adapted to redirect the user to the merchant and allow the user to view the one or more products prior to the purchase of the one or more products,
wherein the second checkout path is within one of the context of the advertisement and within the context of the source;
injecting, by a generating module of the processing subsystem, dynamically inject a checkout widget template which is templatized based on the context of the source, the user and the merchant for a streamlined checkout experience in response to the user accessing a cart page wherein the checkout widget template replaces an existing checkout experience seamlessly;
displaying, by a rendering module of the processing subsystem, a checkout page based on the context provided by the source in response to the user selecting a checkout integrated with the checkout widget template, wherein the checkout page displays user information that is pre-filled thereby providing a speedy checkout experience to the user;
fetching, by an intelligent coupon means of the processing subsystem, desirable discount for the one or more products and apply the desirable discount to a data corresponding to a profile of the user; and
determining and displaying, by a payment module of the processing subsystem, a desirable payment method to the user to complete the purchase of the one or more products in the merchant wherein the desirable payment method provides additional benefits as part of the purchase to the user.
The above limitations recite the concept of checkout support. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106, in that they recite commercial interactions, e.g. sales activities/behaviors, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, e.g., following rules or instructions. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A, claims 19-22 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Prong Two of Step 2A is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or user the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements of:
a computer-implemented system comprising a processor, a memory coupled to the processor, wherein the memory comprises a set of program instructions in the form of a processing subsystem, configured to be executed by the processor, wherein the processing subsystem is hosted on a server, wherein the processing subsystem is configured to execute on a network to control bi-directional communications
the method being computer-implemented
an application
a website
code
a button
automatic steps
metadata
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform a method
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
In addition, the recitations are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. For example, claims 2, 7-9, 13-14, 16-18, 20 and 22 are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above.
As for claims 3-6, 10-12, 15, these claims are similar to the independent claims except that they recite the further additional elements of further websites, log-ins, tokens, steps being automatic, a database. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. Therefore, the dependent claims do not create an integration for the same reasons.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
a computer-implemented system comprising a processor, a memory coupled to the processor, wherein the memory comprises a set of program instructions in the form of a processing subsystem, configured to be executed by the processor, wherein the processing subsystem is hosted on a server, wherein the processing subsystem is configured to execute on a network to control bi-directional communications
the method being computer-implemented
an application
a website
code
a button
automatic steps
metadata
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform a method
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims lack one or more limitations which amount to an inventive concept in the claims.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Rejection – 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-
obviousness.
Claims 1-16, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subbarao et al (US 20140279274 A1), hereinafter Subbarao, in view of Akbarpour et al (US 20150302449 A1), hereinafter Akbarpour.
Examiner notes with reference to MPEP 2117 that the “first checkout path” and “second checkout path” are alternative usable members of a Markush group; e.g. only one needs to be present in the prior art to teach the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, prior art has been applied to both alternative elements.
Regarding Claim 1, Subbarao discloses a computer-implemented system to dynamically inject multiple checkout capabilities comprising: a processor; a memory coupled to the processor, wherein the memory comprises a set of program instructions in the form of a processing subsystem, configured to be executed by the processor, wherein the processing subsystem is hosted on a server, wherein the processing subsystem is configured to execute on a network to control bidirectional communications among a plurality of modules (Subbarao: [0009], [0097], Fig. 1) comprising:
a redirecting module configured to provide one of a first checkout path and a second checkout path to the user, in response to the user clicking on an advertisement [advertisement/results] of one or more products displayed in a source application, wherein the one or more products are hosted on a merchant’s website (Subbarao: “a request is received from a user to make a purchase for at least one item of goods or services at one or more merchants.” [0085] – “the purchase process of at least one item of goods or services (hereinafter referred to as the at least one item) is initiated when a user clicks on advertisements posted on various internet websites” [0042] – “the list of results pertaining to the item searched is then displayed to the user. ” [0069] – “The merchant website may contain the description of the at least one item ” [0055]) wherein,
the first checkout path is adapted to enable the user to configure one or more options for the one or more products and purchase the one or more products within the context of the advertisement (Subbarao: “receiving a request from a user to make a purchase for at least one item of goods or services at the one or more merchants without the user visiting a website corresponding to each of the one or more merchants” [0009] – “the list of results pertaining to the item searched is then displayed to the user. Along with the list of results, other relevant options such as selection tabs corresponding to variants of the item are also presented, which may include options to choose the quantity of the item, options to specify price budget range. ” [0069]– “ online search engine's webpage in which…the user clicks on the ‘ZIPTHRU BUY’ option corresponding to the selected merchant to purchase the product …a clickable option (such as ‘checkout’, as shown in FIG. 5) appears on the user interface, which the user needs to click to initiate checkout processing of the selected one or more items. On clicking said option, the processing of the user's request is initiated by the transaction server 110” [0073-0077] -See also [0085]); and
the second checkout path is adapted to redirect the user to the merchant's website and allow the user to view the one or more products prior to the purchase of the one or more products, wherein the second checkout path is within one of the context of the advertisement and within the context of the source app (Subbarao: “the user may select the at least one item from the merchant of the one or more merchants displayed in the search results on the computing device by clicking on the merchant name. In such as case, the user will then be redirected to the website of the merchant that displays one or more items for sale, a list comprising the name of those one or more items. The website of the merchant will also include the price, description, and any other relevant information presented in Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) in the regarding the one or more items. The user may then select the at least one iter [sic] from the one or more of the items to add to one of his/her universal on line shopping lists (carts) ” [0044] – “The option to pre-select specific online retailers that the user is interested in, may also be displayed to the user, based on the search engine that the user is browsing on the computing device.” [0069]);
a generating module operatively coupled to the redirecting module wherein the generating module is configured to dynamically inject a checkout widget code template which is templatized based on the context of the source application, the user and the merchant's website for a streamlined checkout experience wherein the checkout widget code template replaces an existing checkout experience seamlessly (Subbarao: “a webpage that renders one or more options for the user for initiating checkout processing …the wallet 222 appears on the user interface at the computing device. … passes the stored credentials to the transaction server … select a preferred mode of payment and/or shipping depending upon one or more discount offers at one or more merchant websites” [0074] – “the checkout traversal module 212 then facilitates the registration process with the merchant. The checkout traversal module 212 will then submit the inputs required for completing the registration with the merchant by retrieving inputs from the wallet 222 or the request.” [0053] – “While the checkout traversal module 212 is facilitating the checkout processing of the request at the merchant, the presentation module 214 is configured for presenting to the user on his/her computing device one or more status messages pertaining to the checkout processing of the request. The one or more status message includes the messages indicating that the at least one item is added to the shopping cart, the shipping details are sent, the payment details are sent, waiting for the merchant for confirmation, or the like” [0060]);
a rendering module operatively coupled to the generating module wherein the rendering module is configured to display a checkout page based on the context provided by the source application in response to the user selecting a checkout button [buy option] integrated with the checkout widget code template, (Subbarao: “Once the user has clicked the ‘checkout’ option displayed in FIG. 5, the check out processing of the request of the user is initiated” [0078] – “a screen displayed to the user presenting a review order message in accordance …after submitting all details required for the checkout processing of the request, … the ‘review order’ information is rendered to the user. The ‘review order’ information may include, but is not limited to, product quantity, payment method, shipping address/mode, and delivery/installation date details. …Along with the ‘review order’ details, a clickable option for confirming the placed order details appears, which, if the user clicks, passes a signal to the transaction server 110, indicating confirmation to proceed with the placed order at the website of the merchant.” [0081] – See Figures 5-7.),
wherein the checkout page displays user information that is pre-filled thereby providing a speedy checkout experience to the user (Subbarao: “the ‘review order’ information is rendered to the user. The ‘review order’ information may include, but is not limited to, product quantity, payment method, shipping address/mode, and delivery/installation date details” [0081] – “server 110 may automatically select a preferred mode of payment and/or shipping” [0074] – “the checkout traversal module 212 facilitates the automatic filling/selecting of one or more fields at the merchant with at least the portion of the user data. The one or more fields includes one or more shipping fields, one or more payment fields, one or more billing fields, and one or more discount code fields.” [0058]);
an intelligent coupon code module configured to fetch a desirable discount [discount/coupon] for the one or more products and automatically apply the desirable discount to a metadata corresponding to a profile of the user (Subbarao: “the checkout traversal module 212 facilitates the automatic filling/selecting of one or more fields at the merchant with at least the portion of the user data. The one or more fields includes one or more shipping fields, one or more payment fields, one or more billing fields, and one or more discount code fields.” [0058] – “coupon codes can be automatically applied without the user having to type it in.” [0046] – The order information constitutes metadata [0081]); and
a payment module configured to determine and display a desirable payment method to the user automatically to complete the purchase of the one or more products in the merchant website wherein the desirable payment method provides additional benefits as part of the purchase to the user (Subbarao: “The one or more review order messages are then presented to the user on the computing device … the information may contain at least one of one or more filled/selected fields received from the merchant for the confirmation on details of the at least one of the one or more filled/selected fields from the user. … the user may amend or change the details in the one or more review order messages presented to the user. The details of one of the one or more review order messages may include the … payment method details, shipping details, delivery date, and installation date.” [0061-0062] – “server 110 may automatically select a preferred mode of payment and/or shipping depending upon one or more discount offers at one or more merchant websites.” [0074]).
While Subbarao teaches a “checkout traversal” that replaces a merchant’s checkout for the user [0053], it does not specifically teach providing the checkout experience in response to the user accessing a cart page.
However, Akbarpour teaches a system for an automated shopping cart (Akbarpour: [0053]), including that the checkout experience is provided in response to the user accessing a cart page (Akbarpour: “The system may be configured to store the user's product selections, but not complete additional steps described below until the user decides to move forward with the purchase… by accessing a “saved items” cart and/or the like. … only accessible to the user and anyone designated by the user to view the cart.” [0069] – “automatically apply any coupons, … in real time at the point of purchase.” [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, Subbarao would continue to teach that the checkout page displays user information that is pre-filled thereby providing a speedy checkout experience to the user, except that now it would also teach that the checkout experience is provided in response to the user accessing a cart page, according to the teachings of Akbarpour. This is a predictable result of the combination.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because it would result in an improved efficiency to online retail business (Akbarpour: [0039]).
Regarding Claim 2, Subbarao/Akbarpour teach the system as claimed in claim 1 wherein the first checkout path and the second checkout path are merged to provide a third checkout path wherein the third checkout path provides a dual checkout capability to the user, in response to the user clicking the advertisement displayed in the source application (Subbarao: “receiving a request from a user to make a purchase for at least one item of goods or services at the one or more merchants without the user visiting a website corresponding to each of the one or more merchants” [0009] – “the list of results pertaining to the item searched is then displayed to the user. Along with the list of results, other relevant options such as selection tabs corresponding to variants of the item are also presented, which may include options to choose the quantity of the item, options to specify price budget range. …The option to pre-select specific online retailers that the user is interested in, may also be displayed to the user, based on the search engine that the user is browsing on the computing device.” [0069]).
Regarding Claim 3, Subbarao/Akbarpour teach the system as claimed in claim 1 comprising: a user information module configured to prepopulate user details in response to the user selecting the checkout button wherein the user details are fetched from previous check out pages completed by the user on multiple merchant websites within the context of the source application (Subbarao: “the one or more default preferences corresponding to a specific merchant of the one or more merchants are stored in the wallet 222 for each of the one or more merchants, which have been previously visited by the user. In an embodiment, the default preferences may include one or more shipping method details and the like.” [0058]).
Regarding Claim 4, Subbarao/Akbarpour teach the system as claimed in claim 1 comprising: a delegated identity propagation module operatively coupled to the user information module wherein the delegated identity propagation module is configured to integrate with the merchant's website to seamlessly provide a logged in checkout experience to the user by validation thereby discarding the need of the user to log in multiple times during checkout (Subbarao: “the checkout traversal module 212 transmits automatically at least the portion of the user data associated with the user to the merchant of the request. … the valid authentication information may correspond to a successful entry of the login id and password of the web transaction system 200. ” [0050] – “ if the at least one merchant is found to be the old merchant, then the checkout traversal module 212 directly log into the website of at least one merchant, by retrieving and using the pre-stored username and password corresponding to the at least one merchant stored in the wallet 222 ” [0052]).
Regarding Claim 5, Subbarao/Akbarpour teach the system as claimed in claim 4 wherein the delegated identity propagation module is configured to provide at least one of a username and a validated secure identity token to the user thereby allowing the user to continue as an authenticated user with the said username, at the occurrence of the merchant's website supporting social login corresponding to the user (Subbarao: “the checkout traversal module 212 transmits automatically at least the portion of the user data associated with the user to the merchant of the request. … the valid authentication information may correspond to a successful entry of the login id and password of the web transaction system 200. ” [0050] – “ if the at least one merchant is found to be the old merchant, then the checkout traversal module 212 directly log into the website of at least one merchant, by retrieving and using the pre-stored username and password corresponding to the at least one merchant stored in the wallet 222 ” [0052]).
Regarding Claim 6, Subbarao/Akbarpour teach the system as claimed in claim 4 wherein the delegated identity propagation module is configured to provide an authenticated session token for the transaction to the user in response to the user using a one time passcode thereby discarding the requirement of the user to remember one or more passwords across one or more merchant website's, at the occurrence of the user shopping from the source application (Subbarao: “ if the at least one merchant is found to be the old merchant, then the checkout traversal module 212 directly log into the website of at least one merchant, by retrieving and using the pre-stored username and password corresponding to the at least one merchant stored in the wallet 222 or may be presented in the request.” [0052] – “if the merchant is found to be the new merchant, the checkout traversal module 212 then facilitates automatic generation and entry of a login username and a password for logging into the website corresponding to the merchant.” [0053])
Regarding Claim 7, Subbarao/Akbarpour teach the system as claimed in claim 1 wherein the desirable payment method to the user is determined based on a success rate of previous payments made by the user and the previously used payment method of the user (Subbarao: “the checkout traversal module 212 will determine if the merchant is an old merchant (that is, the user has already made a prior purchase) … if the at least one merchant is found to be the old merchant, then the checkout traversal module 212 directly log into the website of at least one merchant, … different profiles for different merchants stored in the wallet 222 that can be retrieved by the checkout traversal module” [0051-0052] – “one or more default preferences corresponding to a specific merchant of the one or more merchants are stored in the wallet 222 for each of the one or more merchants, which have been previously visited by the user.” [0058] – “ the wallet 222 is configured to store at least a portion of user data associated with each of one or more users. The at least portion of the user data of each of the one or more users include profiles of each of the one or more users, … particular to each merchant website of the one or more merchants …The at least portion of the user data of each of the one or more users further include each of the one or more users payment method details. … include one or more default preferences for the one or more payment method details” [0039-0040] – See also [0076]).
Regarding Claim 8, Subbarao/Akbarpour teach the system as claimed in claim 1 wherein the payment module supports multiple payment methods to the user and allows the user to purchase an insurance, in response to the user purchasing the one or more products within the context of the source application (Subbarao: “The one or more fields further include fields such … a warranty selection option, …the filling/selecting of the above mentioned one or more fields at the merchant for the web-based purchase is facilitated by the checkout traversal module 212” [0059]).
Regarding Claim 9, Subbarao/Akbarpour teach the system as claimed in claim 1 comprising: a loyalty module operatively coupled to the user information module and configured to: accumulate loyalty points offered to the user by a plurality of merchant websites; and allow the user to redeem the said loyalty points, upon accumulation, for subsequent payments (Akbarpour: “automatically apply any coupons, rewards, gift cards, loyalty programs, and/or the like (collectively referred to as “Value Elements” or “VEs”) in real time at the point of purchase.” [0039])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Akbarpour with Subbarao for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10, Subbarao/Akbarpour teach the system as claimed in claim 1 comprising a seller integration module operatively coupled to the generating module and configured to: automatically validate the merchant website and activate the checkout widget code template in response to successful validation; automatically detect one or more changes on the merchant website to render the details of the one or more products corresponding to the one or more changes; and integrate seamlessly with the checkout capabilities of the merchant website (Subbarao: “ the transaction server 110 then facilitates the collection of metadata rendered on the website of the selected merchant, and the ‘review order’ information is rendered to the user. The ‘review order’ information may include, but is not limited to, product quantity, payment method, shipping address/mode, and delivery/installation date details. The layout of a typical screen rendering the ‘review order’ details at the user interface on the computing is shown in FIG. 7. Along with the ‘review order’ details, a clickable option for confirming the placed order details appears, which, if the user clicks, passes a signal to the transaction server 110, indicating confirmation to proceed with the placed order at the website of the merchant. ” [0081]).
Regarding Claim 11, Subbarao/Akbarpour teach the system as claimed in claim 10 wherein the seller integration module is configured to activate and deactivate a self-healing process in occurrence of an error in the merchant website (Subbarao: “while the purchase is being performed by the transaction module 218, if there are one or more errors being generated at the website of the merchant, then the one or more errors are captured by the reporting module 220 and presented to the user by the presentation module 214. In one example, the one or more errors may correspond to that the at least one item not available in stock, invalid promotion code, invalid discount code, invalid or no address input, invalid or no shipping field, or invalid payment field.” [0066]).
Regarding Claim 12, Subbarao/Akbarpour teach the system as claimed in claim 1 comprising a database to store information of the user wherein the information is pre-populated in the checkout token based on the context (Subbarao: “the wallet 222 can be a database store maintained by the transaction server 110 or a third party wallet that passes the stored credentials to the transaction server” [0074] – “retrieves the inputs to the one or more fields form the details communicated in the request or with the user data retrieved from the wallet 222, and fills/selects the one or more fields at the website of the merchant.” [0058]).
Regarding Claim 13, Subbarao/Akbarpour teach the system as claimed in claim 1 comprising: a tracking module configured to track an order placed by the user (Subbarao: “the user needs to click to initiate checkout processing of the selected one or more items. On clicking said option, the processing of the user's request is initiated by the transaction server 110 at the website of the merchant.” [0077] – “as depicted in FIG. 6, one or more status messages pertaining to the checkout processing of the request is presented to the user on the computing device while the transaction server 110 is facilitating the checkout processing of the request. The one or more status message includes the messages indicating that the item is added to the shopping cart, the shipping details are sent, the payment details are sent, and waiting for the merchant for confirmation.” [0080] – See Figure 6.).
Regarding Claim 14, Subbarao/Akbarpour teach the system as claimed in claim 1 comprising: a catalog synchronization module configured to fetch content, inventory and pricing of the products displayed to the user (Subbarao: “the transaction server 110 may present one or more status messages at the time of initiating the checkout processing such as ‘product out of stock’, price of the product, product options, etc. In an embodiment, in a case, where the selected product is out of stock, after displaying the corresponding message to the user on the computing device, the user may be rerouted to the search results page as depicted in FIG. 3, to select other merchant. [0079]).
Regarding Claim 15, Subbarao/Akbarpour teach the system as claimed in claim 1 wherein the details of the one or more products is rendered to the user and subsequently the user is allowed to visit a corresponding merchant web site (Subbarao: “the user may select the at least one item from the merchant of the one or more merchants displayed in the search results on the computing device by clicking on the merchant name. In such as case, the user will then be redirected to the website of the merchant that displays one or more items for sale, a list comprising the name of those one or more items. The website of the merchant will also include the price, description, and any other relevant information presented in Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) in the regarding the one or more items. The user may then select the at least one iter [sic] from the one or more of the items to add to one of his/her universal on line shopping lists (carts)” [0044] – “The option to pre-select specific online retailers that the user is interested in, may also be displayed to the user, based on the search engine that the user is browsing on the computing device.” [0069]).
Regarding Claim 16, Subbarao/Akbarpour teach the system as claimed in claim 1 wherein the user is rendered with a plurality of browsing features to confine the user to pay attention to a pre-defined number of products to purchase (Subbarao: “Based on the user search query, the list of results pertaining to the item searched is then displayed to the user. Along with the list of results, other relevant options such as selection tabs corresponding to variants of the item are also presented, which may include options to choose the quantity of the item, options to specify price budget range. ” [0069] – See Figure 3.)
Regarding Claim 18, Subbarao/Akbarpour teach the system as claimed in claim 1 wherein the checkout button is adapted to change based on the context of the source application (Subbarao: “Once the user has clicked the ‘checkout’ option displayed in FIG. 5, the check out processing of the request of the user is initiated” [0078] – “a screen displayed to the user presenting a review order message in accordance …after submitting all details required for the checkout processing of the request, … the ‘review order’ information is rendered to the user. The ‘review order’ information may include, but is not limited to, product quantity, payment method, shipping address/mode, and delivery/installation date details. …Along with the ‘review order’ details, a clickable option for confirming the placed order details appears, which, if the user clicks, passes a signal to the transaction server 110, indicating confirmation to proceed with the placed order at the website of the merchant.” [0081] – See Figures 5-7.)
Regarding Claim 19, Subbarao discloses computer-implemented method to dynamically inject multiple checkout capabilities comprising:
providing, by a redirecting module of a processing subsystem, one of a first checkout path and a second checkout path to a user, in response to the user clicking on an advertisement [advertisement/results] displayed in a source application (Subbarao: “a request is received from a user to make a purchase for at least one item of goods or services at one or more merchants.” [0085] – “the purchase process of at least one item of goods or services (hereinafter referred to as the at least one item) is initiated when a user clicks on advertisements posted on various internet websites” [0042] – “the list of results pertaining to the item searched is then displayed to the user. ” [0069] – “The merchant website may contain the description of the at least one item ” [0055]) wherein,
the first checkout path is adapted to enable the user to configure one or more options for one or more products and purchase the one or more products within the context of the advertisement or an offer displayed in the source application (Subbarao: “receiving a request from a user to make a purchase for at least one item of goods or services at the one or more merchants without the user visiting a website corresponding to each of the one or more merchants” [0009] – “the list of results pertaining to the item searched is then displayed to the user. Along with the list of results, other relevant options such as selection tabs corresponding to variants of the item are also presented, which may include options to choose the quantity of the item, options to specify price budget range. ” [0069]– “ online search engine's webpage in which…the user clicks on the ‘ZIPTHRU BUY’ option corresponding to the selected merchant to purchase the product …a clickable option (such as ‘checkout’, as shown in FIG. 5) appears on the user interface, which the user needs to click to initiate checkout processing of the selected one or more items. On clicking said option, the processing of the user's request is initiated by the transaction server 110” [0073-0077] -See also [0085]);
the second checkout path is adapted to redirect the user to a merchant's website and allow the user to view one or more products prior to the purchase of the said one or more products, wherein the second checkout path is within one of the context of the advertisement displayed in the source application and within the context of the source application(Subbarao: “the user may select the at least one item from the merchant of the one or more merchants displayed in the search results on the computing device by clicking on the merchant name. In such as case, the user will then be redirected to the website of the merchant that displays one or more items for sale, a list comprising the name of those one or more items. The website of the merchant will also include the price, description, and any other relevant information presented in Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) in the regarding the one or more items. The user may then select the at least one iter [sic] from the one or more of the items to add to one of his/her universal on line shopping lists (carts)” [0044] – “The option to pre-select specific online retailers that the user is interested in, may also be displayed to the user, based on the search engine that the user is browsing on the computing device.” [0069]);
injecting, by a generating module of the processing subsystem, dynamically inject a checkout widget code template which is templatized based on the context of the source application, user and merchant's website for a streamlined checkout experience wherein the checkout widget code template replaces an existing checkout experience seamlessly(Subbarao: “a webpage that renders one or more options for the user for initiating checkout processing …the wallet 222 appears on the user interface at the computing device. … passes the stored credentials to the transaction server … select a preferred mode of payment and/or shipping depending upon one or more discount offers at one or more merchant websites” [0074] – “the checkout traversal module 212 then facilitates the registration process with the merchant. The checkout traversal module 212 will then submit the inputs required for completing the registration with the merchant by retrieving inputs from the wallet 222 or the request.” [0053] – “While the checkout traversal module 212 is facilitating the checkout processing of the request at the merchant, the presentation module 214 is configured for presenting to the user on his/her computing device one or more status messages pertaining to the checkout processing of the request. The one or more status message includes the messages indicating that the at least one item is added to the shopping cart, the shipping details are sent, the payment details are sent, waiting for the merchant for confirmation, or the like” [0060]);
displaying, by a rendering module of the processing subsystem, a checkout page based on the context provided by the source application in response to the user selecting a checkout button integrated with the checkout widget code template (Subbarao: “Once the user has clicked the ‘checkout’ option displayed in FIG. 5, the check out processing of the request of the user is initiated” [0078] – “a screen displayed to the user presenting a review order message in accordance …after submitting all details required for the checkout processing of the request, … the ‘review order’ information is rendered to the user. The ‘review order’ information may include, but is not limited to, product quantity, payment method, shipping address/mode, and delivery/installation date details. …Along with the ‘review order’ details, a clickable option for confirming the placed order details appears, which, if the user clicks, passes a signal to the transaction server 110, indicating confirmation to proceed with the placed order at the website of the merchant.” [0081] – See Figures 5-7.),
wherein the checkout page displays user information that is pre-filled thereby providing a speedy checkout experience to the user(Subbarao: “the ‘review order’ information is rendered to the user. The ‘review order’ information may include, but is not limited to, product quantity, payment method, shipping address/mode, and delivery/installation date details” [0081] – “server 110 may automatically select a preferred mode of payment and/or shipping” [0074] – “the checkout traversal module 212 facilitates the automatic filling/selecting of one or more fields at the merchant with at least the portion of the user data. The one or more fields includes one or more shipping fields, one or more payment fields, one or more billing fields, and one or more discount code fields.” [0058]);
fetching, by an intelligent coupon code of the processing subsystem, desirable discount for the one or more products and automatically apply the desirable discount to a metadata corresponding to a profile of the user (Subbarao: “the checkout traversal module 212 facilitates the automatic filling/selecting of one or more fields at the merchant with at least the portion of the user data. The one or more fields includes one or more shipping fields, one or more payment fields, one or more billing fields, and one or more discount code fields.” [0058] – “coupon codes can be automatically applied without the user having to type it in.” [0046] – The order information constitutes metadata [0081]); and
determining and displaying, by a payment module of the processing subsystem, a desirable payment method to the user automatically to complete the purchase of the one or more products in the merchant website wherein the desirable payment method provides additional benefits as part of the purchase to the user (Subbarao: “The one or more review order messages are then presented to the user on the computing device … the information may contain at least one of one or more filled/selected fields received from the merchant for the confirmation on details of the at least one of the one or more filled/selected fields from the user. … the user may amend or change the details in the one or more review order messages presented to the user. The details of one of the one or more review order messages may include the … payment method details, shipping details, delivery date, and installation date.” [0061-0062] – “server 110 may automatically select a preferred mode of payment and/or shipping depending upon one or more discount offers at one or more merchant websites.” [0074]).
While Subbarao teaches a “checkout traversal” that replaces a merchant’s checkout for the user [0053], it does not specifically teach providing the checkout experience in response to the user accessing a cart page.
However, Akbarpour teaches a system for an automated shopping cart (Akbarpour: [0053]), including that the checkout experience is provided in response to the user accessing a cart page (Akbarpour: “The system may be configured to store the user's product selections, but not complete additional steps described below until the user decides to move forward with the purchase… by accessing a “saved items” cart and/or the like. … only accessible to the user and anyone designated by the user to view the cart.” [0069] – “automatically apply any coupons, … in real time at the point of purchase.” [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, Subbarao would continue to teach that the checkout page displays user information that is pre-filled thereby providing a speedy checkout experience to the user, except that now it would also teach that the checkout experience is provided in response to the user accessing a cart page, according to the teachings of Akbarpour. This is a predictable result of the combination.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because it would result in an improved efficiency to online retail business (Akbarpour: [0039]).
Regarding Claim 20, Subbarao/Akbarpour teach the computer-implemented method as claimed in claim 19 comprising displaying an order confirmation page from the merchant website subsequent to an order is placed to purchase the one or more products by transmitting user details to the order confirmation page (Subbarao: “the transaction server 110 retrieves the URL for viewing a receipt of the placed order, from the website of the selected merchant and provides a link for viewing the order receipt at the website of the selected merchant, to the user, along with the snapshot of the order confirmation webpage.” [0083] – See Figure 8).
Regarding Claims 21-22, the limitations of claims 21-22 are closely parallel to the limitations of claims 19-20, with the additional limitation of a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform a method (Subbarao: [0036]), and are rejected on the same basis.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subbarao, in view of Akbarpour, and further in view of Yang et al (US 20060235816 A1), hereinafter Yang.
Regarding Claim 17, Subbarao/Akbarpour teach the system as claimed in claim 16 wherein the plurality of browsing features comprises a micro browse adapted to display at least four products to the user thereby increasing the probability of the user purchasing at least one of the four products, thereby allowing the user to browse in a single catalog and transact within the said products and a maxi browse adapted to transit the user to the merchant website thereby allowing the user to browse and purchase desired products directly from the said merchant website (Subbarao: “the user performs the search on the computing device. The user may use any suitable search engine at the marketplace over the internet on the computing device without limiting the scope of disclosed embodiments in order to run a search query for any item that the user may want to purchase. Based on the user search query, the list of results pertaining to the item searched is then displayed to the user. ” [0069] – See Figure 3 – “the user may select the at least one item from the merchant of the one or more merchants displayed in the search results on the computing device by clicking on the merchant name. In such as case, the user will then be redirected to the website of the merchant that displays one or more items for sale, a list comprising the name of those one or more items. The website of the merchant will also include the price, description, and any other relevant information presented in Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) in the regarding the one or more items. The user may then select the at least one iter [sic] from the one or more of the items to add to one of his/her universal on line shopping lists (carts)” [0044]),
but do not specifically teach a mini browse adapted to display at least a hundred products thereby allowing the user to browse in a single catalog and transact within the said hundred products.
However, Yang teaches a system for providing search results (Yang: Abstract), including a mini browse adapted to display at least a hundred products (Yang: “a searcher sets search configuration for a search results page displaying method, a number of search results to be displayed” [0041] – It is recognized that if the user can set the number of results to be displayed, then they can set the number to be “at least a hundred”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, Subbarao/Akbarpour would continue to teach a micro browse adapted to display at least four products to the user thereby increasing the probability of the user purchasing at least one of the four products, thereby allowing the user to browse in a single catalog and transact within the said products and a maxi browse adapted to transit the user to the merchant website thereby allowing the user to browse and purchase desired products directly from the said merchant website, except that now it would also teach a mini browse adapted to display at least a hundred products, according to the teachings of Yang. This is a predictable result of the combination.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because it would result in an improved ability to effectively search for items in a manner desired by the searcher (Yang: [0007]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/23/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
Applicant argues with respect to Step 1 that claims 1-18, as amended, now fall within a statutory category as a machine, rather than software per se.
Examiner agrees.
Applicant argues with respect to Step 2A Prong 1 that “the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the focus of the claims is not on any disembodied concept, but rather on a specific improvement in how computer systems manage redirection, session continuity, and interface rendering across heterogeneous application.”
Examiner disagrees. With reference to the rejection above, the claims recite steps which amount to a concept for checkout support, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106, in that they recite commercial interactions, e.g. sales activities/behaviors, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, e.g., following rules or instructions. The claims are directed to this abstract idea except for the recitation of computer-related additional elements as evaluated in subsequent steps of the 101 analysis.
Applicant argues with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 that the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. Applicant argues with reference to the Specification that the claims recite improvements, including that “maintaining context” will “allow authenticated sessions to persist across systems, eliminating repeated login requirements.” Applicant argues that “these advantages arise directly from the claimed technical architecture and not from any abstract concept.”
Examiner disagrees. The additional limitations present in the claims do not improve computer technology or provide a solution to a technological problem, but are invoked as mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment, providing only a general linking to computer technology. [MPEP 2106.05(f)]
Applicant argues with respect to Step 2B that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea, arguing, similar to Prong 2, that the claims recite a “coordinated architecture [that] is neither generic nor routine and constitutes an inventive concept that improves computer operation.”
Examiner disagrees. Similar to the discussion above regarding Prong 2, the additional elements do not improve the functionality of a computer, but are recited at a high level of generality and invoked as mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment, providing only a general linking to computer technology. [MPEP 2106.05(f)], such that any alleged improvement is at best a business improvement stemming solely from the abstract idea.
Applicant argues that claims 19-22 are allowable for similar reasons to those discussed with respect to claims 1-18.
Examiner disagrees for the reasons addressed above.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
Applicant argues that the claimed system “does not cause context loss,” arguing that such context includes specific “configurable options such as size, color,” arguing with reference to portions of the Specification that the system allows for “user metadata preserved from the source application” to be reused, and that Subbarao “does not disclose any transition from a source application into a merchant checkout environment, nor does it disclose maintaining or propagating advertisement or source-application context during such a transition. Applicant argues that Subbarao’s disclosure “stands in direct contrast to amended claim 1, which expressly requires a second checkout path,” and that Akbarpour “likewise fails to disclose the claimed invention.”
Examiner disagrees. Claims 1 does not “require[] a second checkout path,” it requires either a first or a second checkout path, not both. Nonetheless, prior art has been applied to both. Similarly, the claims do not recite preserving user selections of color, size, etc. in on application and automatic population in another application/website; as amended, the claims require that operations occur “within the context” of the advertisement or source application. Without further clarification, operations originating from an advertisement or source application are understood to occur in the context of a user’s having accessed those systems; in other words, the claims do not recite that the very specific data argued is passed over, merely that an advertisement can allow a user to navigate to a page to select options; or that an advertisement can let a user navigate to the merchant website from the source application.
Subbarao teaches web-based purchasing techniques “without a user visiting one or more merchant websites or without one or more merchants requiring to change anything on their websites” [Abstract]. The user is presented with search results [0069], which are understood to constitute an offering or advertisement of goods for sale; the results can explicitly be an advertisement on a website as well [0042]. The products listed are products described on a merchant website [0055], and are selectable by the user [0085]. Subbarao teaches both of the alternative claim limitations for checkout techniques – the user may choose to checkout in the context/same page as the advertisement, configuring options [0069] and performing a checkout without navigating away from the advertisement/search result page [0073-0077]. Alternatively, the user can click on the merchant name and navigate to the merchant website from the advertisement/search results, and can add the item to an online shopping cart [0044] This occurs within the browser, e.g. source application, from the search result page [0069]. The user then checks out via the merchant page [0046]. The system receives user-selected options [0074] and facilitates checkout, via the merchant website, by retrieving user information/inputs [0053] and facilitating the checkout by navigating the merchant website automatically [0060]. The user is shown a checkout screen [0078] and reviews their order, including their selected options which have been transferred to this page [0081], such that fields are automatically filled based on the user data, including discount codes [0058], and coupon codes automatically applied [0046]. A payment method is selected and applied to automatically complete the payment and checkout [0061-0062], and the payment method can be automatically selected [0074].
While Subbarao teaches a “checkout traversal” that replaces a merchant’s checkout for the user [0053], it does not specifically teach providing the checkout experience in response to the user accessing a cart page. However, Akbarpour teaches a system for an automated shopping cart (Akbarpour: [0053]), including storing user’s product selections and moving forward with additional operations (such as automatically applying coupons [0039]) when a user accesses their cart to checkout [0069]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because it would result in an improved efficiency to online retail business (Akbarpour: [0039]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Faith et al (US 20130332277 A1) teaches checkout systems that automatically populate coupon codes into a merchant website.
Narasimhan et al (US 20210174415 A1) teaches single-step checkout from an advertisement without having to navigate to a seller website.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS JOSEPH SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9736. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8-5 PT.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached on 571-272-6764. 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.
/T.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/MARISSA THEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights