DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 1/20/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would not be a serious search and/or examination burden. This is not found persuasive but is moot as claims 17-20 have been canceled.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 .
Priority
Applicant has not claimed priority to another application. Application 18/244,667 was filed 9/11/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS submitted on 9/11/2023 has been considered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amended claims, filed 1/20/2023, have been entered. Claims 17-20 have been cancelled. Claims 1-16 and 21-24 are currently pending in this application and have been examined.
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 1-16 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the device, as claimed in claims 1-9, are directed to a machine, the method, as claimed in claims 10-16, are directed to a process, and the non-transitory computer-readable media, as claimed in claims 21-24, are directed to an article of manufacture (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A (prong 1):
Claim 1 recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
receive at least a portion of content displayed, wherein the content is associated with an auction;
process the content displayed to determine bid information indicating a first bid placed by a user on a first auction on the auction, wherein the bid information comprises:
an auction end time,
a bid amount, and
one or more item identifiers;
after the auction end time has elapsed, determine, via the auction, auction information that indicates a winning bid amount for the first auction;
receive, from a transactions history and based on the auction end time, a plurality of different candidate financial transactions conducted by a financial account associated with the user;
receive account data, associated with the financial account, that indicates a location associated with the user;
determine an estimated payment amount based on the bid amount and predicted shipping costs associated with the location;
select, based on the winning bid amount and based on comparing the estimated payment amount to each transaction amount of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions, a first financial transaction of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions; and
output an association between the first bid and the first financial transaction.
Claim 10 recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
receiving at least a portion of content displayed, wherein the content is associated with an auction;
processing the content displayed to determine bid information indicating a first bid placed by a user on a first auction on the auction, wherein the bid information comprises:
an auction end time,
a bid amount, and
one or more item identifiers;
after the auction end time has elapsed, determining via the auction, auction information that indicates a winning bid amount for the first auction;
receiving from a transactions history, and based on the auction end time, a plurality of different candidate financial transactions conducted by a financial account associated with the user;
receiving account data, associated with the financial account, that indicates a location associated with the user;
determining an estimated payment amount based on:
the bid amount,
predicted shipping costs associated with the location, and
tax information corresponding to the location;
selecting based on the winning bid amount, and based on comparing the estimated payment amount to each transaction amount of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions, a first financial transaction of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions; and
outputting an association between:
the first financial transaction, and
at least a portion of the one or more item identifiers.
Independent claim 21 recites the same abstract idea as recited in independent claim 1. As such, the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1 is the same for independent claim 21 as described above for independent claim 1.
These limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity, such as performing commercial interactions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined by MPEP 2106.04 as including “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” In this case, the abstract ideas recited in claims 1, 10, and 21 are certain methods of organizing human activity because associating past auction bidding activity with subsequent financial transactions is both managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because it is following rules or instructions and a commercial or legal interaction because it is a advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations. Thus, claims 1, 10, and 21 recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception (see MPEP 2106.04). As stated in the MPEP, when “an additional element merely recites the words ‘apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A computing device configured to associate past auction bidding activity with subsequent financial transactions, the computing device comprising:
one or more processors; and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to:
receive, from a web browser plugin of a web browser application executing on a user computing device and via a network, at least a portion of content displayed via a Document Object Model (DOM) of the web browser executing on the user computing device, wherein the content is associated with an auction website;
process the content displayed via the DOM to determine bid information indicating a first bid placed by a user on a first auction on the auction website, wherein the bid information comprises:
an auction end time,
a bid amount, and
one or more item identifiers;
after the auction end time has elapsed, determine, via the auction website, auction information that indicates a winning bid amount for the first auction;
receive, from a transactions history database and based on the auction end time, a plurality of different candidate financial transactions conducted by a financial account associated with the user;
receive account data, associated with the financial account, that indicates a location associated with the user;
determine an estimated payment amount based on the bid amount and predicted shipping costs associated with the location;
select, based on the winning bid amount and based on comparing the estimated payment amount to each transaction amount of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions, a first financial transaction of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions; and
output, in a user interface, an association between the first bid and the first financial transaction.
In this case, representative claim 10 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A method for associating past auction bidding activity with subsequent financial transactions, the method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, from a web browser plugin of a web browser application executing on a user computing device, and via a network, at least a portion of content displayed via a Document Object Model (DOM) of the web browser executing on the user computing device, wherein the content is associated with an auction website;
processing, by the computing device, the content displayed via the DOM to determine bid information indicating a first bid placed by a user on a first auction on the auction website, wherein the bid information comprises:
an auction end time,
a bid amount, and
one or more item identifiers;
after the auction end time has elapsed, determining, by the computing device and via the auction website, auction information that indicates a winning bid amount for the first auction;
receiving, by the computing device, from a transactions history database, and based on the auction end time, a plurality of different candidate financial transactions conducted by a financial account associated with the user;
receiving, by the computing device, account data, associated with the financial account, that indicates a location associated with the user;
determining, by the computing device, an estimated payment amount based on:
the bid amount,
predicted shipping costs associated with the location, and
tax information corresponding to the location;
selecting, by the computing device, based on the winning bid amount, and based on comparing the estimated payment amount to each transaction amount of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions, a first financial transaction of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions; and
outputting, by the computing device and in a user interface, an association between:
the first financial transaction, and
at least a portion of the one or more item identifiers.
In this case, representative claim 21 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions configured to associate past auction bidding activity with subsequent financial transactions, wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors of a computing device, cause the computing device to:
receive, from a web browser plugin of a web browser application executing on a user computing device and via a network, at least a portion of content displayed via a Document Object Model (DOM) of the web browser executing on the user computing device, wherein the content is associated with an auction website;
process the content displayed via the DOM to determine bid information indicating a first bid placed by a user on a first auction on the auction website, wherein the bid information comprises:
an auction end time,
a bid amount, and
one or more item identifiers;
after the auction end time has elapsed, determine, via the auction website, auction information that indicates a winning bid amount for the first auction;
receive, from a transactions history database and based on the auction end time, a plurality of different candidate financial transactions conducted by a financial account associated with the user;
receive account data, associated with the financial account, that indicates a location associated with the user;
determine an estimated payment amount based on the bid amount and predicted shipping costs associated with the location;
select, based on the winning bid amount and based on comparing the estimated payment amount to each transaction amount of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions, a first financial transaction of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions; and
output, in a user interface, an association between the first bid and the first financial transaction.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment (“a computing device comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device“ process information, receive information “from a web browser plugin of a web browser application executing on a user computing device and via a network”, display information “via a Document Object Model (DOM) of the web browser executing on the user computing device“ on a “website”, receive information from a “database”, output information “in a user interface”, receive information “by a computing device, from a web browser plugin of a web browser application executing on a user computing device, and via a network”, outputting information “by the computing device and in a user interface”, “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by one or more processors of a computing device”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (receiving information, outputting information). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. This is because the additional elements of claims 1, 10, and 21 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea) (see Figs. 1 and 3; paragraphs [0024]- [0028], [0032]-[00471]). The specification indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any 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. The description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered pair, 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 elements 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 transform 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 technology environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
In addition to the above, the recited receiving and outputting steps (even assuming arguendo they do not form part of the abstract idea, which the Examiner does not acquiesce), are at best little more than extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering, presentation of data) that contributes nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed system (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 1, 10, and 21 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to claims 1, 10, and 21, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 1, 10, and 21 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claims 1, 10, and 21 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
presenting offers
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claims 1, 10, and 21 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claims 1, 10, and 21 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 2-9, 11-16, and 22-24
Dependent claim(s) 2-9, 11-16, and 22-24, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claim(s) 2-9, 11-16, and 22-24 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim(s) 1, 10, and 21 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claim claim(s) 1, 10, and 21.
Claims 2-9, 11-16, and 22-24 set forth:
select the first financial transaction by causing the computing device to: determine that a difference between a first transaction amount associated with the first financial transaction and the estimated payment amount satisfies a threshold.
determine the estimated payment amount further based on tax information corresponding to the location.
select the first financial transaction by causing the computing device to: determine that the first financial transaction indicates a merchant associated with the auction website.
select the first financial transaction by causing the computing device to: determine, based on the auction end time, a predicted payment time associated with the first bid; and filter, based on the predicted payment time, the plurality of different candidate financial transactions.
determine, based on comparing a second estimated payment amount associated with a second bid to each transaction amount of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions, that the second bid is not associated with any of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions; and delete, from storage, second bid information associated with the second bid.
determine the auction information by causing the computing device to :determine, via the auction website, that a username associated with the user is indicated as winning the auction.
wherein the bid amount comprises a maximum bid amount, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to select the first financial transaction by causing the computing device to: determine that a first transaction amount associated with the first financial transaction is lower than a sum of the maximum bid amount, the predicted shipping costs, and tax information corresponding to the location.
wherein the bid information comprises one or more item identifiers, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to output an association between the first bid and the first financial transaction by causing the computing device to: output, in the user interface, at least a portion of the one or more item identifiers
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of associating past auction bidding activity with subsequent financial transactions. The claims do not set forth any further additional limitations, and therefore such abstract embellishments are applied to the additional limitations recited in claim(s) 1, 10, and 21, which do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, 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 is ineligible for similar reasons to claim(s) 1, 10, and 21.
Thus, dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, and 22-24 are ineligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-16, 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benkreira et al. (US 2021/0004880 A1) in view of Roberts (US 2011/0087554 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Benkreira et al., hereinafter Benkreira, discloses a computing device configured to associate past activity with subsequent financial transactions (Figs. 1, 5, and 6; abstract), the computing device comprising:
one or more processors (Figs. 1, 5, and 6; ¶¶0075-0076); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (Figs. 1, 5, and 6; ¶¶0075-0076), cause the computing device to:
receive, from a web browser plugin of a web browser application executing on a user computing device and via a network, at least a portion of content displayed via a Document Object Model (DOM) of the web browser executing on the user computing device, wherein the content is associated with an auction website (Figs. 1, 3-6; ¶¶0025-0028 in view of ¶0027 and ¶0033 [Ebay is comparable to an auction website]);
process the content displayed via the DOM to determine bid information indicating a first bid placed by a user on the auction website (Figs. 2D, 4; ¶¶0033-0040 [Examiner notes receipt information is comparable to bid information] in view of ¶0027 and ¶0033), wherein the bid information comprises:
an time (Fig. 2D; ¶¶0038-0040),
a bid amount (¶¶0038-0040 [price]), and
one or more item identifiers (¶¶0038-0040 [item name]);
after the time has elapsed, determine, via the auction website, information that indicates a winning bid amount (Fig. 2D; ¶0037, ¶¶0043-0046, ¶¶0063-0067 in view of ¶0027 and ¶0033);
receive, from a transactions history database and based on the time, a plurality of different candidate financial transactions conducted by a financial account associated with the user (Fig. 4; ¶¶0040-0043, ¶¶0070-0071);
receive account data, associated with the financial account, that indicates a location associated with the user (¶¶0042-0050);
determine an estimated payment amount based on the bid amount and predicted shipping costs associated with the location (¶¶0042-0050);
select, based on the winning bid amount and based on comparing the estimated payment amount to each transaction amount of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions, a first financial transaction of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions (Fig. 4; ¶¶0071-0073); and
output, in a user interface, an association between the first bid and the first financial transaction (Figs. 1 and 4; ¶¶0073-0074).
While Benkreira discloses an auction website (¶0027 and ¶0033) and a bid to purchase a product (¶¶0033-0040), Benkreira does not explicitly disclose auction bidding activity, determining information indicating a first bid placed by a user on a first auction, wherein bid information includes an auction end time, and after the end time has elapsed, determine auction information that indicates a winning bid amount for the first auction. However, in the field of online auctions (abstract), Roberts teaches auction bidding activity that includes a first bid placed by a user of an auction and an auction end time, and after the end time has elapsed, determining information that indicates a winning bid (Figs. 5A-5B; ¶¶0052-0056). The system of Roberts is applicable to the system of Benkreira as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to tracking activity related to orders that are placed over the Internet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the tracked purchases as taught by Benkreira with the auction activity as taught by Roberts. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the system of Benkreira in order to track purchases for goods and services in auction marketplaces and internet-based auctions (¶0006, ¶0052).
Regarding claim 2, Benkreira in view of Roberts teaches the computing device of claim 1, Benkreira further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to select the first financial transaction by causing the computing device to:
determine that a difference between a first transaction amount associated with the first financial transaction and the estimated payment amount satisfies a threshold (¶¶0041-0045).
Regarding claim 3, Benkreira in view of Roberts teaches the computing device of claim 1, Benkreira further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to determine the estimated payment amount further based on tax information corresponding to the location (¶¶0047-0049).
Regarding claim 4, Benkreira in view of Roberts teaches the computing device of claim 1, Benkreira further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to select the first financial transaction by causing the computing device to:
determine that the first financial transaction indicates a merchant associated with the auction website (¶¶0041-0045).
Regarding claim 5, Benkreira in view of Roberts teaches the computing device of claim 1, Benkreira further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to select the first financial transaction by causing the computing device to:
determine, based on the time, a predicted payment time associated with the first bid (¶¶0041-0045); and
filter, based on the predicted payment time, the plurality of different candidate financial transactions (¶¶0041-0045).
Roberts further teaches an auction end time (Figs. 5A-5B; ¶¶0052-0056). The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Benkreira are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Benkreira in view of Roberts teaches the computing device of claim 1, Benkreira further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to determine the information by causing the computing device to:
determine, via the auction website, that a username associated with the user is indicated as winning the auction (Fig. 2C; ¶¶0061-0062 in view of ¶0027 and ¶0033).
Roberts further teaches an auction information (Figs. 5A-5B; ¶¶0052-0056). The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Benkreira are the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Benkreira in view of Roberts teaches the computing device of claim 1. While Benkreira further discloses wherein the bid amount comprises a bid amount (¶¶0038-0040), and wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to select the first financial transaction by causing the computing device to:
determine that a first transaction amount associated with the first financial transaction corresponding to the location (Fig. 4; ¶¶0071-0073), Benkreira does not explicitly disclose a maximum bid amount and determining an amount is lower than a sum of the maximum bid amount, the predicted shipping costs, and tax information. However, Roberts further teaches a maximum bid amount and determining if an amount is lower than a sum of the maximum bid amount, the predicted shipping costs, and tax information corresponding to the location (¶0027).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the bid amount as taught by Benkreira with the max bid amount lower than a sum of max bid amount, shipping costs, and tax information as taught by Roberts. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the system of Benkreira in order to allow a buyer to set price terms with the total max they are willing to pay (¶0027).
Regarding claim 9, Benkreira in view of Roberts teaches the computing device of claim 1, Benkreira further discloses wherein the bid information comprises one or more item identifiers (Figs. 1 and 4; ¶¶0033-0040, ¶¶0073-0074), and wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to output an association between the first bid and the first financial transaction by causing the computing device to:
output, in the user interface, at least a portion of the one or more item identifiers (Figs. 1 and 4; ¶¶0073-0074).
Regarding claim 10, Benkreira discloses a method for associating past activity with subsequent financial transactions (abstract), the method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, from a web browser plugin of a web browser application executing on a user computing device, and via a network, at least a portion of content displayed via a Document Object Model (DOM) of the web browser executing on the user computing device, wherein the content is associated with an auction website (Figs. 1, 3-6; ¶¶0025-0028 in view of ¶0027 and ¶0033);
processing, by the computing device, the content displayed via the DOM to determine bid information indicating a first bid placed by a user on the auction website (Figs. 2D, 4; ¶¶0033-0040 [Examiner notes receipt information is comparable to bid information] in view of ¶0027 and ¶0033), wherein the bid information comprises:
an time (Fig. 2D; ¶¶0038-0040),
a bid amount (¶¶0038-0040 [price]), and
one or more item identifiers (¶¶0038-0040 [item name]);
after the time has elapsed, determining, by the computing device and via the auction website, information that indicates a winning bid amount (Fig. 2D; ¶0037, ¶¶0043-0046, ¶¶0063-0067 in view of ¶0027 and ¶0033);
receiving, by the computing device, from a transactions history database, and based on the time, a plurality of different candidate financial transactions conducted by a financial account associated with the user (Fig. 4; ¶¶0040-0043, ¶¶0070-0071);
receiving, by the computing device, account data, associated with the financial account, that indicates a location associated with the user (¶¶0042-0050);
determining, by the computing device, an estimated payment amount (¶¶0042-0050) based on:
the bid amount (¶¶0042-0050),
predicted shipping costs associated with the location (¶¶0042-0050), and
tax information corresponding to the location (¶¶0042-0050);
selecting, by the computing device, based on the winning bid amount, and based on comparing the estimated payment amount to each transaction amount of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions, a first financial transaction of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions (Fig. 4; ¶¶0071-0073); and
outputting, by the computing device and in a user interface, an association (Figs. 1 and 4; ¶¶0073-0074) between:
the first financial transaction (Figs. 1 and 4; ¶¶0073-0074), and
at least a portion of the one or more item identifiers (Figs. 1 and 4; ¶¶0073-0074).
While Benkreira discloses an auction website (¶0027 and ¶0033) and a bid to purchase a product (¶¶0033-0040), Benkreira does not explicitly disclose auction bidding activity, determining information indicating a first bid placed by a user on a first auction, wherein bid information includes an auction end time, and after the end time has elapsed, determine auction information that indicates a winning bid amount for the first auction. However, in the field of online auctions (abstract), Roberts teaches auction bidding activity that includes a first bid placed by a user of an auction and an auction end time, and after the end time has elapsed, determining information that indicates a winning bid (Figs. 5A-5B; ¶¶0052-0056). The steps of Roberts are applicable to the method of Benkreira as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to tracking activity related to orders that are placed over the Internet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the tracked purchases as taught by Benkreira with the auction activity as taught by Roberts. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the method of Benkreira in order to track purchases for goods and services in auction marketplaces and internet-based auctions (¶0006, ¶0052).
Regarding claims 11-16, the claims disclose substantially the same limitations, as claims 2 and 4-8, except claims 11-16 are directed to a process depending from claim 10 while claims 2 and 4-8 are machines depending from claim 1. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claims 2 and 4-8, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claims 11-16 are rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claims 2 and 4-8.
Regarding claims 21-24, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claims 1-4, except claims 21-24 are directed to articles of manufacture while claims 1-4 are directed to a machine. The added element of “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions” is also taught by Benkreira (¶0097). Therefore, claims 21-24 are rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claims 1-4.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benkreira in view of Roberts and Tarditi, JR et al. (US 2007/0169030 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Benkreira in view of Roberts teaches the computing device of claim 1. While Benkreira further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to:
determine, based on comparing a second estimated payment amount associated with a second bid to each transaction amount of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions, that the second bid is associated with any of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions (¶¶0041-0050); and
delete, from storage, bid information (¶0039),
Benkreira in view of Roberts does not explicty teach that the second bid is not associated with any of the plurality of different candidate financial transactions and deleting second bid information associated with the second bid. However, in the field of transactional memory systems (abstract), Tarditi, JR et al., hereinafter Tarditi, teaches matching the numbers of each entry and object, and if the numbers do not match, the transaction is invalid and deletes the log entry for that transaction (Fig. 23; ¶0222). The system of Tarditi is applicable to the system of Benkreira in view of Roberts as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to tracking activity related to transactions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the matching and removing information as taught by Benkreira in view of Roberts with the deleting of unmatched information as taught by Tarditi. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the system of Benkreira in view of Roberts in order to delete invalid log entries (¶0222).
Examiner’s Comment
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Reference U of the Notice of References Cited “Web Scraping for Data Analytics: A BeautifulSoup Implementation” discloses web scraping is an essential tool for automating the data-gathering process and HTML DOM requires the least amount of time and the smallest data consumption.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY B SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6 EST.
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, 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.
LINDSEY B. SMITH
Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/LINDSEY B SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688