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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 2-21 have been examined.
Claim(s) 1 have been cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claim 2, 11, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims recite “determining a plurality of items associated with the item of interest based in part of the characteristics…” but it should likely read “based in part on the characteristics”.
The claims “wherein the encrypted token is usable to authenticate the user and allow for the processing the purchase using a digital wallet” but it should likely read “allow for processing of the purchase using a digital wallet”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, claims 2, 11, and 18 each recite tokenizing “user data associated with the user” and then recite that the resulting “encrypted token is usable to authenticate the user”. However, the specification uses “user data” as a term with a settled meaning.
[0015] – “The user data may include a location of the user, item interest (e.g., a shopping list, purchase preferences)…”
[0029] – “Input components 120 may be utilized to collect user data associated with the user…” describing a shopping list, search history, prior purchase history, and price preferences.
[0062] – “the user data may comprise a location of the user, past shopping by the user, purchase preferences of the user, a schedule of the user, or a required purchase by the user.”
In contrast, the only tokenization described anywhere in the spec is of payment credentials in [0012] which describes tokenization services that “tokenize secure or sensitive data (e.g., payment instrument, authentication credentials, and/or account identifier allowing for processing of payments) by substituting the data for a token” and [0032] which states that the token “identifies the account and authenticates the user” and “may be encrypted and/or provided through a secure channel to authenticate the user and/or the user’s digital wallet.”
So the claim is ambiguous as to what is actually tokenized. On the spec’s own usage of “user data” the claim reads on tokenizing a shopping list or location history, and then it requires that the token derived from that data authenticate the user and enable a digital wallet purchase, which is not possible. The scope is thus unclear because the two halves of the limitation point at different categories of data.
The examiner recommends looking at what the parent application recites in regards to the token.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2, 11, and 18 recites the limitation "the user". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 2, 11, and 18 recites the limitation "the item" (e.g., “determining item data associated with the item…” and elsewhere) and claims 3-4, 12-13, 19-20, also recite “the item”. However, “an item” is never introduced (only “an item of interest”). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 2, 11, and 18 recites the limitation "a recommendation for a matching item of the plurality of items or the item of interest". The claims then subsequently recite “the matching item” yet there may have been no matching item if the recommendation was of “the item of interest.” Therefore, the scope is unclear.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite a judicial exception which is not integrated into a practical application and the claims lack an inventive concept.
Step 1 is the first inquiry into eligibility analysis and asks whether the claims are directed to a statutory category. In this instance, the answer must be in the affirmative because they recite a method, medium, and system.
Step 2A prong 1 is the next step in the eligibility analyses and asks whether the claimed invention recites a judicial exception. In this instance, the claims recite the following limitations which comprise the abstract idea:
receiving a search request for an item of interest;
determining item data associated with the item, wherein the item data is crowd-sourced from a plurality of users associated with a plurality of locations;
determining, characteristics associated with the item of interest;
determining a plurality of items associated with the item of interest based in part of the characteristics associated with the item of interest;
determining a communication platform for a presentation of a recommendation for a matching item of the plurality of items or the item of interest based on the search request and a past interaction by the user with the communication platform;
in response to detecting an input by the user, presenting a recommendation for a matching item;
wherein the recommendation includes a purchase option that allows the purchase of the matching item;
updating the item data based on an interaction with at least one of the recommendation or the matching item by the user;
processing the purchase of the matching item using the encrypted token, wherein the encrypted token is usable to authenticate the user and allow for the processing the purchase using a digital wallet;
This is an abstract idea because it is a certain method of organizing human activity that involves commercial interactions such as marketing activities and/or behaviors.
Step 2A prong 2 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 use 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 such as:
one or more processors;
one or more machine-readable storage media having instructions stored thereon that, in response to being executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
providing a component layer that interfaces with one or more applications associated with the communication platform to serve data to the device, wherein the component layer enables the presentation on the user device of the recommendation via the communication platform;
receiving via a user interface of a device via the component layer;
tokenizing, for the purchase option via a tokenization system associated with the system, user data associated with the user, wherein the tokenizing the user data includes substituting the user data for a token referencing the user data to the tokenization system;
transmitting the token to the device;
in response to a selection of the purchase option, receiving, via a secure channel, the token in an encrypted form;
wherein the presenting is via the communication platform using the component layer;
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 designed to monopolize the exception.
In addition, the recitations of these additional limitations 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 designed 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 designed to monopolize the exception. For example, claims 2-6 are directed to the abstract ideal itself. As for claims 7-10, these claims do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above.
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:
one or more processors;
one or more machine-readable storage media having instructions stored thereon that, in response to being executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
providing a component layer that interfaces with one or more applications associated with the communication platform to serve data to the device, wherein the component layer enables the presentation on the user device of the recommendation via the communication platform;
receiving via a user interface of a device via the component layer;
tokenizing, for the purchase option via a tokenization system associated with the system, user data associated with the user, wherein the tokenizing the user data includes substituting the user data for a token referencing the user data to the tokenization system;
transmitting the token to the device;
in response to a selection of the purchase option, receiving, via a secure channel, the token in an encrypted form;
wherein the presenting is via the communication platform using the component layer;
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they 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 designed to monopolize the exception.
In addition, 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.
Examiner Remarks
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, the rejection is maintained. Unlike the parent application, which created an improvement in online shopping through the use of increased security through the use of “generating a secure digital token for a digital wallet associated with a user using a tokenization service, wherein the secure digital token substitutes a sensitive identifier for the digital wallet for another identifier”, the present claims merely tokenize user data (e.g., a shopping list) which does not lead to an improvement in security
Additional prior art relevant to the invention but not relied upon includes:
Reference U (see PTO-892) teaches using crowdsourced data to comparative shop inside of a retail store.
WOUHAYBI (US 2016/0048856) teaches using crowdsourced information collected from digital receipts to assist in shopping.
Bezos (US 8,180,689) teaches allowing shoppers to share information with each other about various products.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW E ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5278. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm M-T, 8-12pm W.
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 at (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.
/MATTHEW E ZIMMERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights