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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/04/2025 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that under Step 2A Prong One, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Examiner disagrees. Step 2A Prong One of the Alice/Mayo test evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. The Federal Circuit has explained that "the 'directed to' inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether 'their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter."' Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. Here in the applicant’s invention, it is clear from the specification (including the claim language) that the independent claims focus on an abstract idea, and not on an improvement to technology and/or a technical field. The specification discloses in [0001] an improved method and system that saves time and provides an agent flexibility by automatically translating a lead from the agent's customer records management system to the same lead on a lead provider site without requiring additional windows or tabs to be opened in a web browser application. The specification also describes the issues with “car dealers, realtors, and other sales agents may have several windows or tabs open in a web browser application that refer to the same lead (e.g., an existing or potential customer) for a possible sales transaction from a customer records management system operated by the agent and a lead provider site. When pursuing multiple sales transactions, an agent may have many tabs open in the web browser application. Having too many windows or tabs open in a web browser application may consume a disproportionate amount of a processing resources, which may result in an overall degradation in a computer's performance and/or the agent's experience with a web browser application.” The invention is related to customer records management regarding the display of lead information or data, and recites claims that correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions, relationships; commercial interactions) as evidenced by limitations detailing receiving customer data and obtaining objects based on the data, selecting the customer object that best matches the customer data, linking to the lead object, and transmitting a URL to the lead object. The claims also correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as evidenced by limitations detailing obtaining customer objects based on the customer data, selecting the customer object that best matches the customer data, and obtaining a lead object based on customer lead identifier. The claims recite an abstract idea. Reciting a “specific technical architecture” does not equate to an improvement in computers or technology. Further, improving agent's experience with a web browser application is not an improvement in computers or technology, but at best an improvement in the judicial exception itself. It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself is not an improvement in technology. "We have also held that improving a user's experience while using a computer application is not, without more, sufficient to render the claims directed to an improvement in computer functionality. For example, in Trading Techs. I, we held patent ineligible claims directed to a computer-based method for facilitating the placement of a trader's order. Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Trading Techs. I). Although the claimed display purportedly 'assist[ed] traders in processing information more quickly,' we held that this purported improvement in user experience did not 'improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem. Id.; see also Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1381, 1384-85 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Trading Techs. II) (holding that claims 'focused on providing information to traders in a way that helps them process information more quickly' did not constitute a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality)." Customedia Technologies v. Dish Network, 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Applicant’s argument regarding mitigating browser navigation overhead is also unpersuasive. Computing overhead is merely a combination of excess computation time, usage, or memory required to perform the specific task, which further indicates that the alleged improvement is an improvement in the business process (being performed via computer) rather than an improvement in the actual computer itself. Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant’s claims are not similar to DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, 773 F.3d 1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The court in DDR Holdings observed that the “claimed solution [was] necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259. The claims in DDR Holdings addressed the problem of retaining website visitors, that if adhering to the routine, conventional functioning of the Internet hyperlink protocol, would be instantly transported away from a host’s website after “clicking” on an advertisement and activating a hyperlink. The invention and claims of DDR were deemed patent eligible because, regardless of what abstract idea it may have been directed towards, it nonetheless represented a solution “necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks” – it was not deemed patent eligible merely because it recited a computer-based solution in a particular field of industry. Applicant’s claims are not similar to that of DDR Holdings, instead their claims recite a computer-based solution in a particular field of industry.
Applicant further argues that under Step 2A Prong Two, their claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner disagrees. As stated above, computing overhead is merely a combination of excess computation time, usage, or memory required to perform the specific task, which further indicates that the alleged improvement is an improvement in the business process (being performed via computer) rather than an improvement in the actual computer itself. Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has not described an unconventional use or arrangement of web browser extensions and pop-up windows, but instead is using general computing functions in a particular field of industry. Improving the user experience by utilizing these general computing functions is not an improvement in computers or technology. Applicant’s argument regarding certain methods of organizing human activity is not persuasive. Certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping, which is the case in the applicant’s invention (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)).
Applicant’s claims are not similar to Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018)..In Core Wireless, the claimed invention was directed to an improved user interface for electronic devices that displays an application summary of unlaunched applications, where the particular data in the summary is selectable by a user to launch the respective application. The claimed invention indicated an improvement in computer-functionality. This is not the case for the applicant’s invention and claims. Applicant’s claim does not improve a user interface, but instead utilizes general computing functions web browser extensions and pop-up windows to display data. Again, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.” Applicant’s claims are also in no way similar to example 37. In example 37, the applicant’s invention addresses the issue of automatically arranging icons in a non-typical arrangement manually on a graphical user interface by moving the most used icons to a position on the GUI, specifically, closest to the “start” icon of the computer system, based on a determined amount of use. The amount of use of each icon is automatically determined by a processor that tracks the number of times each icon is selected or how much memory has been allocated to the individual processes associated with each icon over a period of time. The claim with the additional elements of receiving, via a GUI, a user selection to organize each icon based on the amount of use of each icon, a processor for performing the determining step, and automatically moving the most used icons to a position on the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system based on the determined amount of use as a whole integrates the mental process into a practical application via the additional elements reciting a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices. Applicant’s invention is in no way similar to that of example 37. Claim 1 does not describe or indicate an improved user interface. Applicant’s claim does not improve a user interface, but instead utilizes general computing functions web browser extensions and pop-up windows to display data. Applicant’s claims aren’t even remotely close to Inmar Brand Solutions and the claims do not satisfy the rationale provided by the court.
Applicant’s arguments under Step 2B are unpersuasive and irrelevant. The Office Action recited that the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible. This reasoning adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. There was no mention of well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. At Step 2B, there is no requirement for evidence to support a finding that the exception is not integrated into a practical application or that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception unless the Examiner asserts that additional limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities in Step 2B. Lastly, applicant’s claims are in no way similar to that of BASCOM. The “inventive concept” referred to by the applicant is not claimed as a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces as in BASCOM. The claimed invention in BASCOM utilized standard components (filters), but located the filter in a non-conventional and non-generic manner. This is not present in the applicant’s claimed invention. There is nothing non-conventional and non-generic about the claimed arrangement of the computer components nor functions performed by those components.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-7 recite a method (i.e. process), claims 8-14 recite non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. machine or article of manufacture), and claims 15-20 recite a system (i.e. machine). Therefore claims 1-20 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the limitations of receiving customer data extracted from a [front-end interface] displayed in an [active tab of the web browser application], wherein the customer data comprises a first name, a last name, an email address, and a phone number; obtaining, based on the customer data, one or more customer objects from a customer object database, wherein each of the one or more customer objects comprises a customer identifier; selecting the customer object that best matches the customer data; obtaining, based on the customer identifier of the selected customer object, a customer lead identifier; obtaining, based on the customer lead identifier, a lead object from a lead object database; generating a uniform resource locator to the lead object from the [lead object database]; transmitting the uniform resource locator to the lead object to the
Note: The features or elements in brackets in the above section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: a cloud server from a web browser extension within a web browser application, a front-end interface, a customer object database, a lead object database, and pop-up window. The additional elements are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3, 10, and 16 recite the limitations of submitting a first request to an exchange access token service of an [application programming interface (API) exchange platform] for an [exchange access token], wherein the first request comprises an application identifier and an application secret; obtaining based on the first request, the [exchange access token]; submitting a second request to a gateway access token service of an exchange partner gateway for a [gateway access token], wherein the second request comprises the [exchange access token] and a subscription identifier; and obtaining and based on the second request, the [gateway access token]. The limitations are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claims also recite the additional elements of the cloud server, an API exchange platform, an exchange access token, and a gateway access token. The additional elements of the cloud server and API exchange platform amount to “apply it" or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception. Further, the exchange and gateway access tokens amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 6, 13, and 19 recite the limitations of submitting a third request to a software-as-a-service (Saas) token service of the [API exchange platform] for a [Saas token], wherein the third request comprises a user identifier and a dealer identifier; and receiving, by the cloud server based on the third request, the [Saas token]. The limitations are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claims also recite the additional elements of the cloud server, the API exchange platform, and Saas token. The additional elements of the cloud server and API exchange platform amount to “apply it" or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception. Further, the Saas token amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 20 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above. The claims also recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
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 nonobviousness.
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(s) 1, 8, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azoulay (2019/0340622) in view Semlani (2018/0365333).
Claim 1: Azoulay discloses: A method for reducing processing resource consumption during lead translation, comprising:
obtaining, by the cloud server and based on the customer data, one or more customer objects from a customer object database, wherein each of the one or more customer objects comprises a customer identifier; (Azoulay ¶0139 disclosing accounts associated with the respective customer, e.g. in the customer ID data; accessing the reference dataset to identify a related customer, e.g. by searching the customer profile database to identify a customer profile dataset having the user tracking ID in the customer ID data; customer interaction system may include a reference dataset referencing user tracking ID's from the network tracking system with particular customers, or related ID's, of the customer interaction system; such a reference dataset is stored in server storage, and more particularly in the customer profile database; see also ¶0144)
selecting, by the cloud server, the customer object that best matches the customer data; (Azoulay ¶0139 disclosing accounts associated with the respective customer, e.g. in the customer ID data; accessing the reference dataset to identify a related customer, e.g. by searching the customer profile database to identify a customer profile dataset having the user tracking ID in the customer ID data; customer interaction system may include a reference dataset referencing user tracking ID's from the network tracking system with particular customers, or related ID's, of the customer interaction system; such a reference dataset is stored in server storage, and more particularly in the customer profile database; ¶0144 disclosing customer relationship management system may identify customers with respective customer monitoring ID's such as unique CRM account ID's; customer interaction system may include a reference dataset referencing customer monitoring ID's from the customer relationship management system with particular customers, or related ID's, of the customer interaction system)
obtaining, by the cloud server and based on the customer identifier of the selected customer object, a customer lead identifier from the customer object database; (Azoulay ¶0165 disclosing the profile builder module comprises a method to identify a customer corresponding to the sales record with which to associate the sales record and to identify whether a recent chat should be associated with the sale, and provides an association, if appropriate, as a result; the sales record may itself identify the customer by the customer ID; profile builder module provides this data to the database management module method which creates the sales record as a file containing the sales data received from the computer; ¶0166 disclosing the presentation of the promotion to the customer; message may simply comprise a customer ID and promotion ID; see also ¶0174 disclosing Tara, who herself has a customer ID since she is a user of the customer interaction system; Tara is associated with chat log C1 and sales record S1)
obtaining, by the cloud server and based on the customer lead identifier, a lead object from a lead object database; (Azoulay ¶0166 disclosing the presentation of the promotion to the customer; message may simply comprise a customer ID and promotion ID)
Azoulay in view of Semlani discloses:
receiving, by a cloud server from a web browser extension executing within a web browser application on an agent workstation, customer data extracted from a front-end interface displayed in an active tab of the web browser application, wherein the customer data comprises a first name, a last name, an email address, and a phone number;
Azoulay discloses receiving by a cloud server customer data extracted from a front-end interface wherein the customer data comprises a first name, a last name, an email address, and a phone number: (Azoulay ¶0098 disclosing the system server being implemented using cloud-based server services; ¶0139 disclosing each customer profile dataset comprising one or more data entries identifying devices and accounts associated with the customer, e.g., in the customer ID data; ¶0148 disclosing the customer profile dataset comprising customer identification data including name…phone number,…an email address; ¶0015 disclosing a computing device operable in a physical store premises by a store employee comprising a network communication interface for exchanging data over a data network and display; ¶0068 disclosing the customer interaction system allows the employee to obtain information regarding the customer; a customer profile is compiled, in part from interactions done over the customer interaction system which is provided to the employee and displayed on the in-store computing device). Azoulay does not explicitly disclose receiving, by a cloud server from a web browser extension executing within a web browser application on an agent workstation, customer data extracted from a front-end interface displayed in an active tab of the web browser application, wherein the customer data comprises a first name, a last name, an email address, and a phone number. Semlani suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Semlani ¶0027 disclosing a system and method for enhanced web browsing; user is provided additional on-demand information associated with potential business leads that are referenced within content of a web page that is being displayed by a web browser; ¶0054 web browser includes an executable application; separate software modules that modify the interface and the behavior of the web browser can include, but are not limited to, an add-on or extension associated with the web browser). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Azoulay to include receiving, by a cloud server from a web browser extension executing within a web browser application on an agent workstation, customer data extracted from a front-end interface displayed in an active tab of the web browser application, wherein the customer data comprises a first name, a last name, an email address, and a phone number as taught by Semlani. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Azoulay in order to allow a web browsing user to determine if a potential lead is stored in a database, such as a CRM database, or obtain additional information about the potential lead in a time efficient and convenient manner. (see ¶0007 of Semlani).
generating, by the cloud server, a uniform resource locator to the lead object from the lead object database;
Azoulay discloses generating a link to the lead object from the lead object database: (Azoulay ¶0010 disclosing a promotional database comprising a plurality of promotional datasets each corresponding to a promotional offer and comprising offer data defining the promotional offer and promotional attribute data indicative of a customer attribute associated with the promotional offer), but does not explicitly disclose generating, by the cloud server, a uniform resource locator to the lead object from the lead object database: (Semlani ¶0065 based on a determination that the at least one business entity is associated with at least one record stored in the database, the executable application causes the contents of the web page to be displayed by the browser with the references to the identified one or more potential leads highlighted and linked to the at least one record in the database, e.g., a web page may include a reference to Salesforce™ and Salesforce™ is associated with a record stored in the database. The executable application may provide instructions to the web browser to display an enhanced web page, wherein the presentation of the web page would be changed to highlight all the references to Salesforce™ within the content of the web page; One means for linking the at least one record in the database to the web page would be by mapping the database record to the web page that employ link paths which contain anchor texts from multiple paths through the web ending at the web page). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Azoulay to include generating, by the cloud server, a uniform resource locator to the lead object from the lead object database as taught by Semlani. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Azoulay in order to allow a web browsing user to determine if a potential lead is stored in a database, such as a CRM database, or obtain additional information about the potential lead in a time efficient and convenient manner. (see ¶0007 of Semlani).
transmitting, by the cloud server, the uniform resource locator to the lead object to the web browser extension for display in a pop-up window of the web browser extension without opening an additional tab in the web browser application; and
Azoulay discloses transmitting the lead object, but does not explicitly disclose transmitting, by the cloud server, the uniform resource locator to the lead object to the web browser extension for display in a pop-up window of the web browser extension without opening an additional tab in the web browser application. Semlani suggests or disclose this limitation/concept: (Semlani ¶0065 based on a determination that the at least one business entity is associated with at least one record stored in the database, the executable application causes the contents of the web page to be displayed by the browser with the references to the identified one or more potential leads highlighted and linked to the at least one record in the database, e.g., a web page may include a reference to Salesforce™ and Salesforce™ is associated with a record stored in the database; One means for linking the at least one record in the database to the web page would be by mapping the database record to the web page that employ link paths which contain anchor texts from multiple paths through the web ending at the web page; ¶0067 user viewing the content on the web page on the web browser may select a highlighted reference to the potential lead that is linked to a database record within the content of the web page by clicking on a highlighted reference, hovering over the highlighted reference with a cursor, or the like; when user selects the reference, the executable application causes an object to be displayed by the web browser. The object to be displayed may include at least some of the information from the associated record stored in the database. The object may be a pop-up window displayed by the web browser). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Azoulay to include transmitting, by the cloud server, the uniform resource locator to the lead object to the web browser extension for display in a pop-up window of the web browser extension without opening an additional tab in the web browser application as taught by Semlani. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Azoulay in order to allow a web browsing user to determine if a potential lead is stored in a database, such as a CRM database, or obtain additional information about the potential lead in a time efficient and convenient manner. (see ¶0007 of Semlani).
traversing, by the cloud server, the uniform resource locator to directly retrieve the lead object for display in the pop-up window.
Azoulay discloses a link to the lead object from the lead object database, but does not explicitly disclose traversing, by the cloud server, the uniform resource locator to directly retrieve the lead object for display in the pop-up window. Semlani suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Semlani ¶0067 user viewing the content on the web page on the web browser may select a highlighted reference to the potential lead that is linked to a database record within the content of the web page by clicking on a highlighted reference, hovering over the highlighted reference with a cursor, or the like; when user selects the reference, the executable application causes an object to be displayed by the web browser. The object to be displayed may include at least some of the information from the associated record stored in the database. The object may be a pop-up window displayed by the web browser; ¶0068 user may select a reference to Salesforce™ that is highlighted and linked to a record stored on the database within an enhanced web page. Once the user selects the reference, a pop-up display element is displayed to the user, wherein the pop-up display element includes information associated with 4 different records related Salesforce™. The data, for each of the records, that is displayed includes the name, revenue and website of a potential lead (i.e. Salesforce™) associated with each record. A user may select one of the names of the potential leads that are displayed in the pop-up display element. When the user selects one of the names of the potential leads, another pop-up display object is displayed with additional information that is stored in the corresponding record in the database). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Azoulay to include traversing, by the cloud server, the uniform resource locator to directly retrieve the lead object for display in the pop-up window as taught by Semlani. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Azoulay in order to allow a web browsing user to determine if a potential lead is stored in a database, such as a CRM database, or obtain additional information about the potential lead in a time efficient and convenient manner. (see ¶0007 of Semlani).
Claims 8 and 15: Claims 8 and 15 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium and a system, respectively. Claims 8 and 15 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 1, which is directed towards a method. Claims 8 and 15 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Claim(s) 2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azoulay (2019/0340622) in view Semlani (2018/0365333) further in view of Adil (2021/0209680).
Claim 2: The method of claim 1,
wherein the lead object comprises one or more vehicle preferences, income data, and loan pre-approval status.
Azoulay discloses lead object data, but does not explicitly disclose that the lead object comprises one or more vehicle preferences, income data, and loan pre-approval status. Adil suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Adil ¶0055 disclosing the portal may be used by dealers for generating resource requests; client device associated with a prospective purchaser may provide a dealer lead input, and the designated dealer may convert the dealer lead to a resource request; ¶0021 disclosing receiving, via the client device, user input indicating an association of a selected vehicle with a dealer, an indication of approval for resource borrowing in connection with the selected vehicle; ¶0036 disclosing a customer has identified a vehicle that they can afford, the resource server may provide the customer's information to one or more selected dealers; the resource server may provide, among others, customer identification information, vehicle selections and/or preference data, and pre-qualification information for the customer to dealer computer node(s); ¶0044 disclosing the resource server in communication with a resource usage tracking server maintain a history of borrowing of resources by various entities including, for example, the entity associated with the client device and associated with an account having one or more records in the database; ¶0048 disclosing historical resource usage data may include…income amount; see also ¶0074 & ¶0075; ¶0098 disclosing the server may generate unique identifying information for facilitating interactions between a purchaser entity and their selected dealer(s), e.g., the server may generate a unique identifier, such as a unique number, which is provided to the purchaser entity and the selected dealer via their respective computing systems; sever also sends vehicle preference data, the pre-qualification information). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Azoulay in view of Semlani to include that the lead object comprises one or more vehicle preferences, income data, and loan pre-approval status as taught by Adil. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Azoulay in view of Semlani in order to allow a retailer access to various data about a prospective purchaser to generate a resource request (see ¶0003 of Adil).
Claim 9 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Claim 9 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 2, which is directed towards a method. Claim 9 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 2.
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azoulay (2019/0340622) in view of Semlani (2018/0365333) further in view of Eidam (US 11,740,853).
Claim 3: The method of claim 1, the method further comprising:
Azoulay discloses that the system server associates the computing device with an account and the log-in may be established using a token system (¶0128), but does not explicitly disclose submitting, by the cloud server, a first request to an exchange access token service of an application programming interface (API) exchange platform for an exchange access token, wherein the first request comprises an application identifier and an application secret; obtaining, by the cloud server and based on the first request, the exchange access token; submitting, by the cloud server, a second request to a gateway access token service of an exchange partner gateway for a gateway access token, wherein the second request comprises the exchange access token and a subscription identifier; and obtaining, by the cloud server and based on the second request, the gateway access token. Eidam suggests or discloses this limitation/concept:
submitting, by the cloud server, a first request to an exchange access token service of an application programming interface (API) exchange platform for an exchange access token, wherein the first request comprises an application identifier and an application secret; obtaining, by the cloud server and based on the first request, the exchange access token; (Eidam Col. 28, Ln. 35-60 disclosing generating and transmitting a notification to a customer device (e.g., a user device) to provide an input for authentication; notification generation circuit may be configured to generate a notification requesting user authentication based on information received, via the network, from the smart table management circuit and customer account database; input for authentication may include a personal identification number (PIN), a QR code, a physical key, an electronic key (e.g., a token stored on the user device); Col. 29, Ln. 59-65 disclosing the provider computing system determines whether a device token received from the user device matches a token stored in a token vault of the customer account database and the network interface receiving confirmation or denial of authentication for one or more users)
submitting, by the cloud server, a second request to a gateway access token service of an exchange partner gateway for a gateway access token, wherein the second request comprises the exchange access token and a subscription identifier; and obtaining, by the cloud server and based on the second request, the gateway access token. (Eidam Col. 9, Ln. 14-21 disclosing the provider client application 120 includes an application programming interface (API) and/or a software development kit (SDK) that facilitate the integration of other applications with the provider client application; e.g., the provider client application is configured to utilize the functionality of the branch computing system by interacting with the branch client application through an API; Col. 23, Ln. 46-51 disclosing authentication circuit may be configured to determine whether a user is authenticated to initiate a provider session and/or to complete certain provider tasks; e.g., the authentication circuit may be configured to request an authorization approval from the provider computing system of a received PIN or biometric input)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Azoulay in view of Semlani to include submitting, by the cloud server, a first request to an exchange access token service of an application programming interface (API) exchange platform for an exchange access token, wherein the first request comprises an application identifier and an application secret; obtaining, by the cloud server and based on the first request, the exchange access token; submitting, by the cloud server, a second request to a gateway access token service of an exchange partner gateway for a gateway access token, wherein the second request comprises the exchange access token and a subscription identifier; and obtaining, by the cloud server and based on the second request, the gateway access token as taught by Eidam. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Azoulay in view of Semlani in order to increase security (see Col. 28, Ln. 15 of Eidam).
Claims 10 and 16 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium and a system, respectively. Claims 10 and 16 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 3, which is directed towards a method. Claims 10 and 16 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 3.
Claim(s) 4, 11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azoulay (2019/0340622) in view of Semlani (2018/0365333) further in view of Eidam (US 11,740,853) further in view of Ford (2018/0367506).
Claim 4: The method of claim 3,
wherein the obtaining one or more customer objects from a customer object database further comprises: invoking, by the cloud server, a first call to a customer search API, wherein the first call to the customer search API comprises the customer data, the exchange access token, and the gateway access token.
Azoulay discloses obtaining one or more customer objects from a customer object database, but does not explicitly disclose that the obtaining one or more customer objects from a customer object database further comprises: invoking, by the cloud server, a first call to a customer search API, wherein the first call to the customer search API comprises the customer data, the exchange access token, and the gateway access token. Ford suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Ford ¶0450 the generated token is random, is encrypted, and is associated with the specific user and the specific machine (e.g., a computing device) from which the token was requested; a specific machine ID obtained from the machine requesting the token is used to generate and/or encrypt the token, such that each token is tied to a specific user and a specific machine, and access from that specific machine is required to access any secured content using the token; a specific machine ID may be a GUID (globally unique ID) such as a motherboard ID found on the motherboard of that specific machine and may be obtained by the secure data exchange system by querying the operating system (e.g., IOS/Android for mobile computing devices) of the machine for its motherboard ID; token may be stored locally on the specific machine using machine specific encryption, for example, with the key being the motherboard ID, with other optional machine attributes; the secure data exchange system may register the token, and then validate the token when a user attempts to access secured content from the system (at an initial attempt, and/or at subsequent attempts), such as by ensuring that the token is being received from the specific machine it is tied to; a sync token is required to be stored and protected on the user machine; a standard windows encryption API may, for example, be used for that purpose; ¶0452 token-based authentication that provides a token unique to each user and associated machine; the secure data exchange system may provide each user a unique lease and lease term that is tied to the user's specific machine; ¶0476 discloses data storage nodes store the data content associated with various entities (also referred to herein as customers or business enterprises) using the secure exchange system, including customer identity information and other application related metadata (such as if a customer creates a ‘deal’, then various deal related metadata may be stored); ¶0476 disclosing content stored on the data storage node may be implemented as object storage; each object may include data, metadata, a global unique identifier, and the like; see also ¶0250 and ¶0083). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Azoulay in view of Semlani further in view of Eidam to include that the obtaining one or more customer objects from a customer object database further comprises: invoking, by the cloud server, a first call to a customer search API, wherein the first call to the customer search API comprises the customer data, the exchange access token, and the gateway access token as taught by Ford. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Azoulay in view of Semlani further in view of Eidam in order to provide secure storage, sharing, access of content amongst various users (see ¶0003-¶0005 of Ford).
Claims 11 and 17 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium and a system, respectively. Claims 11 and 17 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 4, which is directed towards a method. Claims 11 and 17 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5-7, 12-14, and 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
No prior art references are applied to the following claims:
Claim 5: The method of claim 4, wherein the obtaining the customer lead identifier from the customer object database further comprises: invoking, by the cloud server, a second call to a lead by customer identifier search API, wherein the second call to the lead by customer identifier search API comprises the customer identifier, the exchange access token, and the gateway access token.
Claim 6: The method of claim 5, the method further comprises: submitting, by the cloud server, a third request to a software-as-a-service (Saas) token service of the API exchange platform for a Saas token, wherein the third request comprises a user identifier and a dealer identifier; and receiving, by the cloud server and based on the third request, the Saas token.
Claim 7: The method of claim 6, wherein the obtaining the lead object from the lead object database further comprises: invoking, by the cloud server, a third call to a lead object search API, wherein the third call to the lead object search API comprises a lead source identifier, the customer lead identifier, the exchange access token, and the Saas token.
Claim 12: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the obtaining the customer lead identifier from the customer object database further comprises: invoking a second call to a lead by customer identifier search API, wherein the second call to the lead by customer identifier search API comprises the customer identifier, the exchange access token, and the gateway access token.
Claim 13: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 12, wherein the operations further comprise: submitting a third request to a software-as-a-service (Saas) token service of the API exchange platform for a Saas token, wherein the third request comprises a user identifier and a dealer identifier; and receiving, based on the third request, the Saas token.
Claim 14: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 13, wherein the obtaining the lead object from the lead object database further comprises: invoking a third call to a lead object search API, wherein the third call to the lead object search API comprises a lead source identifier, the customer lead identifier, the exchange access token, and the Saas token.
Claim 18: The system of claim 17, wherein the obtaining the customer lead identifier from the customer object database further comprises: invoking a second call to a lead by customer identifier search API, wherein the second call to the lead by customer identifier search API comprises the customer identifier, the exchange access token, and the gateway access token.
Claim 19: The system of claim 18, wherein the operations further comprise: submitting a third request to a software-as-a-service (Saas) token service of the API exchange platform for a Saas token, wherein the third request comprises a user identifier and a dealer identifier; and receiving, based on the third request, the Saas token.
Claim 20: The system of claim 19, wherein the obtaining the lead object from the lead object database further comprises: invoking a third call to a lead object search API, wherein the third call to the lead object search API comprises a lead source identifier, the customer lead identifier, the exchange access token, and the Saas token.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628