DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14 are pending in this application. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment dated March 18, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, and 7-14 have been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vahabi et al., US PG Pub 2017/0061310 A1 (hereafter “Vahabi”), previously cited, in view of Krishnamoorthy, US PG Pub 2012/0059848 A1 (hereafter “Krishnamoorthy”), previously cited, in further view of Anders et al., US PG Pub 2020/00034893 A1 (hereafter “Anders”).
Regarding claim 1, Vahabi teaches a computer-implemented method executed via one or more processors, the method comprising:
receiving, via one or more graphical user interfaces (GUIs) of a client computing device of a first user, a first one or more user interactions defining one or more images or videos to be included in a time-limited social post associated with a unique user profile of the first user (¶¶0022-0026, 0034-0036, 0051-0057, and 0060);
receiving, via the one or more GUIs, a second one or more user interactions (¶¶0018, 0025, 0034, 0040, and 0118); and
transmitting, to one or more servers, communications indicating the one or more images or videos and the one or more items to cause the time-limited social post to be generated and made available for viewing at a plurality of second client computing devices via the one or more servers (¶¶0013-0016, 0020, 0030-0031, 0046-0049, 0053-0061, and 0115-0117).
Vahabi teaches a time-limited social post but does not teach defining one or more items to be made available for sale, the one or more items being among an item inventory associated with the unique user profile or wherein the generated time-limited social post enables participation for at least one of the plurality of second client computinq devices in the sale of the one or more items via the generated time-limited social post. Krishnamoorthy teaches defining one or more items to be made available for sale, the one or more items being among an item inventory associated with the unique user profile (¶¶0026, 0032, 0041-0053, and 0073) and enables participation for at least one of the plurality of second client computinq devices in the sale of the one or more items via the generated time-limited social post (¶¶0035, 0053, and 0076-0079). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Vahabi, to include an item available for sale as taught by Krishnamoorthy, in order to “positively influence the changes that the individual will make a similar purchase,” as suggested by Krishnamoorthy (¶0001).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Krishnamoorthy, the results of the combination were predictable.
Vahabi does not teach wherein the generated time-limited social post displays the one or more images or videos in conjunction with real-time information associated with the sale of the one or more items. Anders teaches social infusion of media content including the known technique wherein the generated time-limited social post displays the one or more images or videos in conjunction with real-time information associated with the sale of the one or more items (¶¶0022-0027, 0032, 0036-0038, and 0054). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Vahabi, to include real-time product information as taught by Anders, in order to “increase the odds of audience engagement with the user post significantly,” as suggested by Anders (¶0002).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Anders, the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Vahabi in view of Krishnamoorthy and Anders teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first one or more user interactions include operation of a camera application of the client computing device to capture at least one of the one or more images or videos (Vahabi ¶0027).
Regarding claim 3, Vahabi in view of Krishnamoorthy and Anders teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first one or more user interactions include a selection of one or more images or videos from an item database at the one or more servers (Vahabi ¶¶0032, 0054-0059, and 0129).
Regarding claim 4, Vahabi in view of Krishnamoorthy and Anders teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the second one or more user interactions include interactions to define a new one or more items to be added to the item inventory (Vahabi ¶¶0103-0111).
Regarding claim 5, Vahabi in view of Krishnamoorthy and Anders teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the sale of the one or more items comprises an auction of the one or more items, and wherein the method further comprises receiving, at the client computing device via the one or more GUIs, a third one or more user interactions defining one or more auction parameters for the one or more items (Krishnamoorthy ¶¶0038, 0062, and 0081). The combination would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons stated above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Vahabi in view of Krishnamoorthy and Anders teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the sale of the one or more items comprises an offer for direct purchase of the one or more items, and wherein the method further comprises receiving, at the client computing device via the one or more GUIs, a third one or more user interactions defining one or more purchase parameters for the one or more items (Krishnamoorthy ¶¶0026, 0032, 0041-0053, 0073, and 0081). The combination would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons stated above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Vahabi in view of Krishnamoorthy and Anders teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising, subsequent to transmitting the communications indicating the one or more images or videos and the one or more items: receiving, via the one or more GUIs, a third one or more user interactions indicating an update to one or more parameters associated with the sale of the one or more items; and transmitting further communications to the one or more servers indicating the update to the one or more parameters to cause the one or more servers to update the time-limited social post as viewed at the plurality of second client computing devices (Vahabi ¶¶0033, 0038, 0043-0049, 0054-0058, and 0087-0096).
Regarding claims 8-14, all of the limitations in claims 8-14 are closely parallel to the limitations of method claims 1-7, analyzed above, and are rejected on the same bases.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments regarding the amended limitation are moot in light of the newly cited reference. Applicant argues that Krishnamoorthy does not teach enabling participating in a sale via a social post. Applicant contends that Krishnamoorthy is directed to detecting buyers. However, buying is participating in a sale. Furthermore, as cited Krishnamoorthy teaches the participation of users in a sale through the social media posts by compensating them for reviews and other comments. Through these reviews, etc. the users are participating in the sale. The examiner recommends narrowing the claims to more accurately describe the features of the invention that applicant believes is not taught by the references.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nuzzi et al., US PG Pub 2013/0006816 A1, teaches leveraging a social network to search for local inventory.
Wiesner, US PG Pub 2012/0123837 A1, teaches a social network shopping system and method.
Non-patent literature Piwek, Lukasz, and Adam Joinson teaches patterns of use in time-limited instant messaging service.
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 CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-5549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights