DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed on 04/06/2026. Claims 1-8, 11-17, and 21 are pending. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is 08/08/2012.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 1-8, 11-17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to abstract idea.
Step 1 – Claims 1-8, 11-17, 21 relate to system/machine claims. Accordingly, all claims satisfy step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1 – Exemplary claim 1 (and similarly claim 20) recites the abstract idea of:
accessing base product information identifying one or more base products, the one or more base products having corresponding one or more base product identifiers (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) mental processes as human mind can access information and identify data; MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) commercial or legal interactions);
accessing first customization information indicating one or more of an addition, a deletion, or an alteration to the one or more base products (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) mental processes as human mind can access information and identify data; MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) commercial or legal interactions);
customizing based on the first customization information, the one or more base products to produce one or more customized products (see below, Step 2A, Prong 2; Step 2B);
generating a unique product identifier that identifies the one or more customized products (see above MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I); MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. v. General Electric Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367, 129 USPQ2d 1409, 1411-12 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (relying on specification’s description of the claimed analysis and manipulation of data as being performed mentally “‘using pen and paper methodologies, such as flowsheets and patient charts’”); Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1318, 120 USPQ2d at 1360 (although claimed as computer-implemented, steps of screening messages can be “performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper”); see also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A) Examples of mathematical relationships recited in a claim include: iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form.); and
causing, based on at least sending the unique product identifier to a computing device embodied in hardware that is separate and distinct from the system (e.g. the process of sending data to a remote device is abstract idea, as shown in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) commercial or legal interactions), the base product information and the first customization information to be associated by the computing device to a consumer account (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A-C) longstanding commercial practice, See Solutran v. Elavon, App. 2019-1345, 2019-1460 (Fed. Cir. 2019), quoting - Aside from the timing of the account crediting step, the '945 patent claims recite elements similar to those in Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014). There, we held that a method of extracting and then processing information from hard copy documents, including paper checks, was drawn to the abstract idea of collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and storing that recognized data in a memory. Id. at 1347. We explained that "[t]he concept of data collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known"; "[i]ndeed, humans have always performed these functions." Id. We also recognized that "banks have, for some time, reviewed checks, recognized relevant data such as the amount, account number, and identity of account holder, and stored that information in their records." Id. Here, too, the claims recite basic steps of electronic check processing. In its background, the '945 patent explains that "there has been an industry transition to the electronic processing of checks[, including] the recordation of the data ... presented by the check into a digital format [1167] which can then be transferred electronically." Id. at col. 1, ll. 53-57, col. 1, ll. 61-62. It had become standard for the merchant to capture the check's transaction amount and MICR data at the point of purchase. Id. at col. 4, ll. 52-58, FIG. 1. Further, the patent's background explains that verifying the accuracy of the transaction information stored in the digital file against the check was already common.fn2 Id. at col. 2, ll. 13-15.).
When these abstract idea limitations are viewed alone, and in ordered combination, they are found to recite abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 – Claim 1 (and similarly claim 20) does not integrate the identified abstract idea into practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of, a product customization station, one or more processors; one or more non-transitory computer readable media that when executed by the processor(s) cause the system to perform the [abstract idea]; customizing physical product into a customized physical product by adding something to it, such as a different color, via the product customization station; transmitting data to remote computing device.
For the one or more processor(s) and the CRM that is executed on the processor(s), these are used in an “apply it” manner. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
For the customizing step, the examiner finds this to be “apply it” and/or MPEP 2106.05(f). See also Solutran, “Contrary to Solutran's arguments, the physicality of the paper checks being processed and transported is not by itself enough to exempt the claims from being directed to an abstract idea. As we explained in In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018)(emphasis added), "the abstract idea exception does not turn solely on whether the claimed invention comprises physical versus mental steps." In fact, "[t]he claimed methods in Bilski and Alice also recited actions that occurred in the physical world." Id. We have likewise determined that a method for voting that involved steps of printing and handling physical election ballots, Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Sys. & Software LLC, 887 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018), and a method of using a physical bankcard, Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017), were abstract ideas. And the Supreme Court has concluded that diagnostic methods that involve physical administration steps are directed to a natural law. Mayo, 566 U.S. at 92, 132 S.Ct. 1289. The physical nature of processing paper checks in this case does not require a different result, where the claims simply recite conventional actions in a generic way (e.g., capture data for a file, scan check, move check to a second location, such as a back room) and do not purport to improve any underlying technology.” Further, an example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent). Similarly, the physicality of customizing the paint does not render the claim eligible. This is post-solution activity as the whole claim and Specification is about the data of transaction, not exactly any improvement to the underlying customizing technology. For the customizing station, see MPEP 2106.05(e); MPEP 2106.05(h) A more recent example of a limitation that does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment is Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USPQ2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Affinity Labs, the claim recited a broadcast system in which a cellular telephone located outside the range of a regional broadcaster (1) requests and receives network-based content from the broadcaster via a streaming signal, (2) is configured to wirelessly download an application for performing those functions, and (3) contains a display that allows the user to select particular content. 838 F.3d at 1255-56, 120 USPQ2d at 1202. The court identified the claimed concept of providing out-of-region access to regional broadcast content as an abstract idea, and noted that the additional elements limited the wireless delivery of regional broadcast content to cellular telephones (as opposed to any and all electronic devices such as televisions, cable boxes, computers, or the like). 838 F.3d at 1258-59, 120 USPQ2d at 1204. Although the additional elements did limit the use of the abstract idea, the court explained that this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (cellular telephones) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. 838 F.3d at 1259, 120 USPQ2d at 1204.
For transmitting the data to remote device – see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: iv. Recording, transmitting, and archiving digital images by use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any assertion that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combining a camera and a cellular telephone, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 611-12, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. See also abstract idea finding above relating to interacting and storing in remote device. The examiner does not find any improvement in the transmitting to remove device technology to render the claim eligible.
Accordingly, when viewed alone and in ordered combination, these additional elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea with practical application. Claim 1 is found to be directed to abstract idea.
Step 2B - Claim 1 does not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea. The additional element analysis from Step 2A, Prong 2 is equally applied to Step 2B. Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. MPEP 2106.05(d). The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
For the limitations relating to transferring information/data between various entities/devices - i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added));
There are other parts of exemplary claim 1 that relate to storing and associating data, relating to: iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).
Accordingly, when viewed alone and in ordered combination, these additional elements do not recite significantly more. Claim 1 (and 20) are found to be directed to abstract idea.
Dependent Claims – Claim 2-3 recites where the system includes a customization station. See MPEP 2106.05(e); MPEP 2106.05(h) A more recent example of a limitation that does no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment is Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USPQ2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Affinity Labs, the claim recited a broadcast system in which a cellular telephone located outside the range of a regional broadcaster (1) requests and receives network-based content from the broadcaster via a streaming signal, (2) is configured to wirelessly download an application for performing those functions, and (3) contains a display that allows the user to select particular content. 838 F.3d at 1255-56, 120 USPQ2d at 1202. The court identified the claimed concept of providing out-of-region access to regional broadcast content as an abstract idea, and noted that the additional elements limited the wireless delivery of regional broadcast content to cellular telephones (as opposed to any and all electronic devices such as televisions, cable boxes, computers, or the like). 838 F.3d at 1258-59, 120 USPQ2d at 1204. Although the additional elements did limit the use of the abstract idea, the court explained that this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (cellular telephones) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. 838 F.3d at 1259, 120 USPQ2d at 1204. Claim 4 recites more abstract idea of where the device is located and storing various information. See above analysis. Claim 5 recites more abstract idea of receiving data and associated data with other data. See above analysis. Claim 6 recites more abstract of specifying data. See above analysis. Claim 7 recites more abstract idea. Claim 8 recites where the operations further comprise causing the device to dissociate at least a subset of the account information from the user account, where this is abstract idea of manipulating data/sorting data. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) mathematical concepts, Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (identifying the concept of ‘‘managing a stable value protected life insurance policy by performing calculations and manipulating the results’’ as an abstract idea). Claim 11 recites associating data with an account, which is abstract idea of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) mental processes; MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) fundamental economic practice. Claim 12 recites an additional element of a reader device that detects data and inputs data, where this is not found to include an improvement to the technology, but simply is recited at a high level of generality and acts as a tool to “apply it.” Claim 13 recites a product identifier of a barcode, which falls into the abstract idea of mental processes/fundamental economic activity, and is not an improvement to the underlying technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) v. Affixing a barcode to a mail object in order to more reliably identify the sender and speed up mail processing, without any limitations specifying the technical details of the barcode or how it is generated or processed, Secured Mail Solutions, LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d 905, 910-11, 124 USPQ2d 1502, 1505-06 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Claim 14 recites more abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Claim 15 recites the abstract idea of customization parameters. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) a claim to identifying head shape and applying hair designs, which is a process that can be practically performed in the human mind, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-17 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential). Claim 17 recites more preferences. See id. Claim 21 is directed to abstract idea including the “apply it” rationale.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-4, 11-17, and 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2009/0183122 to Webb et al. (“Webb”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2004/0122553 to Phan et al. (“Phan”).
With regard to claim 1, Webb discloses the claimed system adapted to customize one or more base products, the system comprising:
a product customization station (see e.g. Fig. 1, and throughout);
one or more processors (see e.g. [0007]); and
one or more non-transitory computer readable media coupled to the one or more processors and storing instructions (see published claim 31), that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
accessing base product information identifying one or more base products, the one or more base products having corresponding one or more base product identifiers (see abstract, select “starter color” and its associated identifier);
accessing first customization information indicating one or more of an addition, a deletion, or an alteration to the one or more base products (see e.g. [0207] adding custom sheen to base color; Fig. 10 1007);
customizing, via the product customization station and based on the customization information, the one or more base products into one or more customized products (see e.g. [0135] The user is then given the option to either print or save the selected and/or fine-tuned color scheme, where the station has provided the means for the user to customize the “base products”; [0194] A user may be permitted to have the system determine a custom color to substantially identically match his or her sample color. [0195-207]);
generating a unique product identifier that identifies the one or more customized products (see e.g. [0139], second customization is unique project name of the created details of project, which as long as user logged in and connected to internet, the customization details such as colors selected, sheens, rooms, etc. are then stored to user account at remote server/device); and
causing, based on at least sending the unique product identifier to a computing device embodied in hardware that is separate and distinct from the system (see e.g. Fig 19, Remote Computer 1912 and Server A 1910; [0115-119]), the base product information and the first customization information to be associated by the computing device to a consumer account (see e.g. [0118] According to one embodiment of the invention, a personal profile created on a store kiosk may be periodically downloaded to a central server or system so that it may be accessed by the user via a network (e.g., the Internet). Conversely, a profile created over the Internet (e.g., via a home computer) may be sent to the local store, which may be selected by the user, so that it is available when the user visits the store. In another embodiment of the invention, an in-store kiosk may retrieve the user's profile and/or previously entered project information when the user logs-in at the kiosk. The newly Internet-created projects may be sent only to those kiosks which the user indicates are within his/her local area or store; abstract - The in-store kiosk is further capable of retrieving stored personal information and color selections from the server which were previously stored from the remote computer; [0139] If the user is already logged in, then the process proceeds to requesting a project name 2356 (FIG. 23E) for the project. Once the user provides a name for the project 2356, the system then checks if it is connected 2359, to a server or other storage facility for instance. If the system is connected to a server or storage facility, then the project is saved 2358. Otherwise, if the system is not connected, then the system indicates the project will be saved upon the next successful connection 2360, and then proceeds to print the color scheme and information selected 2362. The system then displays a print complete message 2290 (FIG. 22D); [0142] If a username and password are correct 2332, 2334, then the user is requested to enter the project name 2356, and may proceed to save the project as well as print the selected color scheme 2363; [0148-150]; [0162] [0164] [0165]
Webb does not explicitly disclose mixing the paint as directed by the customization parameters. However, this is common in the art. See Phan at e.g. [0027] “In accordance with these aims and objectives, the present invention is directed towards an automatic COD system for custom production and distribution of coloring products instantly either in a commercial place or even at home. The system includes a color scanning devise, multiple containers of different colorants, multiple containers of additives, multiple containers of bases with at least one container of a suitable base, a means for automatic dosing the right colorant's quantity, selected bases and additives into an empty packaging container for mixing and forming the desired end product. The said filled packaging container with the desired end product is now laser engraved with the product code. The same product code can be also stored in the magnetic card or smartcard for serving as input for the system of the present invention for future re-ordering of the same product. The apparatus within the system of the present invention can be networked and linked to a virtual operation centre via wired or wireless network in the intranet, extranet or internet environment where the customer can also access a dedicated website to perform the color matching and selection process in order to obtain the color code and product code which can be use to pull the coloring product from the apparatus of the COD system.” [0032] It is another objective of the present invention to provide a system which not only allows the specific color of coloring products to be blended automatically by mixing the primary colorants and other supporting colors, if necessary, but which also allows various additives being selected by the customer from the group consisting of but not limited to moisturizes, nourishing component, vitamin component, sunscreens, fragrant for cosmetic coloring products or anti-fungal or anti-bacteria for paints and dyes products to be added with selected bases like metallic, matt, pearl, glossy or fluorescent base. [0047] The preferred embodiment is shown in FIGS. 2 and 3 and is generally designated as apparatus 20. As shown therein, apparatus 20 includes color additives 22, bases 26, other additives 28, filling station 32, dosing station 34, mixing station 36, output station 38, empty packaging station 42, packaging cover station 46, computer system 52, touch screen color display 56 and color scanner 57. A membership smart card/magnet card 62, as shown in FIG. 4, could be put into a smart card/magnet card reader 66 or payment slot 68 for credit card. The membership smart card/magnet card 62 may have an embedded IC chip 44 and also may have an antenna 45. [0059] The mixing station 36 will mix the content in the said container 43A together by means of rotation or/and vibration or/and shaking method.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the paint kiosk art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Webb’s kiosk to include the ability to dispense, mix, and finalize the end customized paint product for the user, where this is beneficial so that the kiosk is a one stop shop, cash on delivery, kiosk where the user can perform the various customizations described in Webb (at home or in store), store such inputs in the user account, and then go to the store and have a paint kiosk mix, dispense the custom paint, as directed by the user’s selections, benefit is that the user obtains the correct/accurate mix of custom product at time when ordered and needed. See Phan e.g. [0019].
With regard to claim 2, Webb further discloses where the system comprises a product customization station comprising the one or more processors and the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media (see e.g. Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 3, Webb further discloses where the computing device comprises a web server (see abstract, server; [0124] system utilizes the internet to allow user to access web server), or, a client computing device.
With regard to claim 4, Webb further discloses where the computing device is located at a retail store where the one or more base products and the one or more customized products are physically located and available to a consumer, wherein each base product identifier is stored in a data store and usable to retrieve, from the data store, first information about the corresponding base product, and wherein the customized product identifier is stored in the data store and usable to retrieve, from the data store, first information about the one or more customized products (see e.g. abstract and associated text).
With regard to claim 11, Webb further discloses where operations further comprise associating the base product information and the customization information with an object linked to the consumer account ([0054] [0131]).
With regard to claim 12, Webb further discloses a reader device adapted to detect indicia representing the base product information and to input the base product information into a product customization station included in the system (see Fig. 20).
With regard to claim 13, Webb further discloses where the base product information comprises a product identifier received from a barcode (see [0209], published claim 12), a QR code, a UPC code, a FOB, or an RFID.
With regard to claim 14, Webb further discloses where the customization information comprises one or more customization parameters to be applied to the one or more base products (see e.g. [0207] adding custom sheen to base color; Fig. 10 1007).
With regard to claim 15, Webb further discloses where the one or more customization parameters comprises one or more of a potential color, a size (e.g. [0099]), a length, a width, a depth, a height, a material, a pattern, a shade, or a shape.
With regard to claim 16, Webb further discloses where the one or more base products comprise at least one of a paint ([0048]), door, molding, window, blind, curtain, chain, lumber, or wire.
With regard to claim 17, Webb further discloses where the customization information includes information corresponding to a particular color of paint ([0079] [0080]).
With regard to claim 21, Webb further discloses where the product customization station comprises one or more devices that enables at least one of the one or more customized products to be ordered (see e.g published claim 82, display device(s) enabling the order and selections), the unique product identifier to be created, or the customization of the one or more base products to produce the one or more customized products.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Webb, Phan, in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2006/0129647 to Kaghazian (“Kaghazian”).
With regard to claim 5, Webb further discloses where the consumer account is associated with a first account identifier, wherein the consumer account is a first consumer account, and wherein sending the customization information further causes at least in part the computing device to (e.g. [0102] [0148]):
However, Webb does not explicitly disclose receive a second account identifier associated with a second consumer account that is different from the first consumer account; and associate account information of the first consumer account to the second consumer account.
Kaghazian teaches at e.g. [0005] that it was old and well known to one of ordinary skill in the electronic data transfer art to include the ability to: receive from an electronic device of a user a request to transfer data from one account to another account (see e.g. [0005] where user selects portion of data and make request to transfer data from their account to another account through e.g. email or any other way of transferring the data); determining the portion requested by the user to transfer to the second account, where the portion does not include all of the information associated with the document/order (see [0005] where the user only selects a portion to be transferred, see "portion of information content"); associating the selected portion with the second account (see e.g. [0005] where the portion of data is sent to the second account), where this is all performed in order to transfer data from one user account to another user account, while providing the ability to keep some of the associated information private from the second user account. Further, when combined with the system for creating customized product, these accounts correspond to Webb’s system, and further to the retailer of the e.g. customized paints. In addition, the accounts would be accessible through Webb's system, where the users can access their accounts online, as shown in Webb at [0025]. Further yet, Webb shows the ability to update information in account at e.g. [0096], where in combination with Kaghazian the data would be updated with the second account if desired.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the transaction art at the time of the invention to modify Webb with the ability to receive from an electronic device of a user a request to transfer data from one account to another account; determining the portion requested by the user to transfer to the second account, where the portion does not include all of the information associated with the document/order; associating the selected portion with the second account, where this is all performed in order to transfer data from one user account to another user account, while providing the ability to keep some of the associated information private from the second user account. See Kaghazian.
With regard to claim 6, Webb further discloses where the account information comprises the base product information and the customization information (see e.g. [0103]).
With regard to claim 7, Webb further discloses where the account information further comprises transaction information (see e.g. [0145]).
With regard to claim 8, Webb further discloses where the operations further comprise causing the computing device to disassociate at least a subset of the account information from the first consumer account (see e.g. [0280]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner has withdrawn the previously-made 112 rejections based on the amendments provided.
The examiner has reviewed Applicant’s arguments relating to the 101 rejections. The examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments relating to 101. The examiner maintains that the claims recite abstract idea, and are further directed to abstract idea, for the reasoning in the 101 rejection.
Applicant argues that the causing limitation of claim 1 is not taught by the references. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The combination of Webb and Phan, as described above, reads on the claimed language. There are several instances in in both Webb and Phan where the unique project name is used to either store and/or access the stored information relating to that project, where it is obvious that for a project there would be base color information and first customization info such as sheen, customer color, etc. as described in Webb.
All other arguments are similarly not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Ludwig whose telephone number is (571)270-5599. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/PETER LUDWIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights