DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Prosecution Status
Applicant’s amendments filed 7/29/2025 have been received and reviewed. The status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 1-25 are pending.
Claims 16-20 were previously withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-15, 21-25 are rejected.
Election/Restrictions
The Examiner notes that, while the previous PTOL-326 indicated the accurate claims status that claims 16-20 were withdrawn, and the previous Office Action properly treated only claims 1-15 on the merits, the Office Action did set forth: “Claims 1-15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.” This statement was a typographical error, and should have read “Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.”
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.
1. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-15, 21-25 are directed to recommending goods or service providers to facilitate purchases of target goods or services, which is considered a commercial interaction. Commercial interactions fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claim 1-15, 21-25 recite a system comprising a computing device comprising a processor memory, and graphical user interface. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (apparatus).
Under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim sets forth a process in which product or service provided recommendations are determined for a consumer and purchases of targeted goods or services are facilitated, including through the facilitation of consumer-to-business interaction, in the following limitations:
make searches and compare prices across the plurality of goods or service providers
receive a search query from a user;
in response to that the search query indicates a target goods or service: identify a recommended goods or service provider providing the target goods or service with a lowest price;
display information regarding the recommended goods or service provider;
in response to that the search query indicates a target goods or service provider;
identify if the target goods or service provider is new or existing, from the user's past order history;
in response to the target goods or service provider being existing: display information regarding a past order;
provide a choice between reordering according to the past order and making a new order.
The above-recited limitations establish a commercial interaction with a consumer to make a product/service provider recommendation and between a consumer and business to facilitate purchase of the target goods or service. This arrangement amounts to both a sales activity or behavior; and business relations. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claim 1 does recite additional elements:
a computing device, the computing device comprising a processor, a memory, and a graphical user interface;
wherein the computing device is in electronic communication with a chatbot operable on a primary server;
wherein, the primary server has access to a plurality of secondary servers associated with a plurality of goods or service providers via internet
wherein, the primary server is operable to…
via the plurality of secondary servers;
wherein the chatbot is operable to communicate with the plurality of secondary servers via internet, through a plurality of application programming interfaces, each corresponding to one of the plurality of secondary servers;
wherein, the primary server stores a user's past order history;
wherein, the chatbot is operable to:
in response to the target goods or service provider being new: display a link to the target goods or service provider;
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (e.g., “a computing device”, “the first server is operable to”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (store, display a link). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs 16-17 indicate that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). In the instant case, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network), storing information (i.e., storing and retrieving information in memory), and basic web browser functionality have been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Regarding Claims 2-15, 15-25
The dependent claims merely set forth embellishments to the abstract idea of determining products or services providers to recommend to a consumer and facilitating purchases of target products or services, including facilitating interaction between consumers and businesses. While the claims do set forth additional limitations, these recitations are similar to the additional limitations in claim 1, as they do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As such, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
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.
2. Claims 1-5, 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jadhav et al. (US 20180232741 A1, hereinafter Jadhav) in view of Barron et al. (US 20240311407 A1, hereinafter Barron) and De Langis (US 20160358235 A1).
Regarding Claim 1
Jadhav discloses an integrated system for online shopping comprising:
a computing device, the computing device comprising a processor, a memory, and a graphical user interface; (Jadhav: see at least ¶16-20)
wherein the computing device is in electronic communication with a chatbot operable on a primary server; (Jadhav: see at least ¶16-20)
wherein the chatbot is operable to communicate with a secondary server through an application programming interface. (Jadhav: see at least ¶19, 22, 27, 28)
wherein, the primary server has access to a plurality of secondary servers associated with a plurality of goods or service providers via internet (Jadhav: see at least ¶19, 51)
wherein the chatbot is operable to communicate with the plurality of secondary servers via internet, through a plurality of application programming interfaces, each corresponding to one of the plurality of secondary servers; (Jadhav: see at least ¶19, 22, 27, 28)
wherein, the primary server stores a user's past order history; (Jadhav: see at least ¶25-26)
Jadhav does not explicitly disclose, but Barron teaches in a similar environment:
wherein, the primary server is operable to make searches and compare prices across the plurality of goods or service providers via the plurality of secondary servers (Barron: see at least ¶23, 27-29)
While Jadhav discloses a chatbot effectuating product purchases, as indicated above, Jadhav does not explicitly disclose, but Barron teaches, in a similar environment:
receive a search query from a user (Barron: see at least ¶28)
in response to that the search query indicates a target goods or service: identify a recommended goods or service provider providing the target goods or service with a lowest price; display information regarding the recommended goods or service provider; (Barron: see at least ¶23, 27-29, 84-87)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Jadhav with the features of Barron, since such a modification would have provided improved user access to product data. (Barron: ¶5)
Jadhav further does not disclose, but De Langis teaches in a similar environment:
in response to that the search query indicates a target goods or service provider; identify if the target goods or service provider is new or existing, from the user's past order history; (De Langis: see at least ¶60)
in response to the target goods or service provider being new: display a link to the target goods or service provider; (De Langis: see at least ¶87)
in response to the target goods or service provider being existing: display information regarding a past order; provide a choice between reordering according to the past order and making a new order. (De Langis: see at least ¶59-63)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Jadhav with the features of De Langis, since such a modification would have provided orders having standards, harmony and coherence in Internet buying and selling, making it easier for buyers to find and compare goods and products of many different sellers. (De Langis: ¶13)
Regarding Claim 2
Jadhav further discloses:
a prompt manager in communication with the chatbot. (Jadhav: ¶28: intelligence to interpret user queries)
Regarding Claim 3
Jadhav further discloses:
a message generator in communication with the chatbot. (Jadhav: ¶28: intelligence to intelligence to make appropriate decisions and respond)
Regarding Claim 4
Jadhav further discloses:
wherein the chatbot is operable to save a plurality of message data in a database (Jadhav: ¶19, 27, 41: customer interaction data stored)
Regarding Claim 5
Jadhav further discloses:
wherein the database is operable on the primary server (Jadhav: ¶17, 42, 43)
Regarding Claim 7
Jadhav further discloses:
wherein the computing device is in electronic communication with the chatbot through a network (Jadhav: fig. 1)
Regarding Claim 8
Jadhav further discloses:
wherein the application programming interface is operable to receive a request from the chatbot (Jadhav: ¶28-30)
Regarding Claim 9
Jadhav further discloses:
wherein the application programming interface is operable to receive a response from the secondary server (Jadhav: ¶28-30)
Regarding Claim 10
Jadhav further discloses:
wherein the computing device is operable to input a message request to purchase a good or a service. (Jadhav: ¶41)
Regarding Claim 11
Jadhav further discloses:
wherein the chatbot is operable to output a message response requesting a confirmation to purchase a good or a service (Jadhav: ¶25, 44)
Regarding Claim 12
Jadhav further discloses:
wherein the graphical user interface is operable to display an initial message for a purchase of a good or a service from a new provider. (Jadhav: ¶25, 41:)
Regarding Claim 13
Jadhav further discloses:
wherein the graphical user interface is operable to display an initial message for a purchase of a good or a service from an existing provider (Jadhav: ¶25, 41)
3. Claims 6, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jadhav in view of Barron and De Langis, as applied above, and further in view of Talmor et al. (US 20190043106 A1, hereinafter Talmor).
Regarding Claim 6
While Jadhav discloses that the computing device may communicate with the chatbot using “any…text messaging platform” (see ¶34), Jadhav does not explicitly discloses that the computing device is in electronic communication with the chatbot through a short message service. However, Talmor teaches that it is known to facilitate communication between a computing device and a chatbot through short message service (see ¶191) in a similar environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Jadhav with the SMS communication taught by Talmor, since such a modification would have provided a faster and more responsive mechanism for responding to network users' inquiries than conventional digital-communication techniques. (see ¶8 of Talmor)
Regarding Claims 14, 15
While Jadhav discloses that the graphical user interface is operable to display message regarding a purchase, as indicated above, Jadhav does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the graphical user interface is operable to display a single link for purchase of a good or service.
wherein the single link is generated by the application programming interface
However, Talmor teaches that it is known to a graphical user interface operable to display a single link for purchase of a good or service generated by an API through a chatbot (see at least ¶110, 202, 206) in a similar environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Jadhav with the link display taught by Talmor, since such a modification would have provided a faster and more responsive mechanism for responding to network users' inquiries than conventional digital-communication techniques. (see ¶8 of Talmor)
4. Claims 21, 22, 24, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jadhav in view of Barron and De Langis, as applied above, and further in view of McClung, III (US 20160162882 A1).
Jadhav in view of Barron and De Langis does not explicitly disclose, but Barron teaches, in a similar environment:
wherein the chatbot is further operable to display a credit balance of the user (McLung: see at least ¶124)
wherein the chatbot is further operable to allow the user to confirm a purchase without using a payment link (McClung: see at least ¶187, 191)
wherein the primary server is further operable to manage a digital wallet, and the user can deposit funds into the digital wallet (McCLung: see at least abstract, ¶23)
wherein the primary server is further operable to subscribe to an online service (McClung: see at least ¶135, 136)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of in view of Barron and De Langis with the features of McCLung, since such a modification would have provided unique features for an eWallet provider which makes the choice of that eWallet provider more desirable to a consumer. (McClung: ¶7)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A MISIASZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-6961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday. 8:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571272-6763. 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.
/MICHAEL MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688