DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications received on 10/16/2025. Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, 13-16, 19-25 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 19 have been amended. Claims 21-25 have been added. Claims 3, 8, 12, 17 and 18 have been cancelled.
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.
Step 1: The claims 1-2, 3-7, 9 and 21-25 are a system, claims 10, 11, 13-16 are a method, and claims 19-20 are a computer readable medium. Thus, each independent claim, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. §101. However, the claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, 13-16, 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims (1, 10 and 19, taking claim 1 as a representative claim) recite:
An electronic device comprising: a display; a location sensor; a communication system by which the electronic device connects to external networks and devices, devices, including an application computer system and a collaborative shopping database that stores collaborative shopping data of a collaborative shopping group; a memory having stored thereon a duplicate purchase alert (DPA) module for tracking personal and collaborative purchasing to identify and generate notification about a potential duplicate purchase of at least one item; and
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the display, the location sensor, the communication system, and the memory, the at least one processor executing program code of the duplicate purchase alert module, which configures the electronic device to:
detect a trigger indicative of an intended purchase of a first item wherein to detect the trigger, the at least one processor configures the electronic device to, at least one of:
detect, via the location sensor, that the electronic device is at or is approaching a merchant location where an intended purchase will likely occur of an item that is to be shared as a collaborative purchase with other members of a collaborative shopping group; or determine that at least one shopping application has been initiated on the electronic device, the shopping application having a first merchandise category that is a same merchandise category corresponding to a category of items included in a collaborative purchasing group of which a user of the electronic device is a member;
in response to detecting the trigger, transmit, to a purchase tracking repository of the collaborative shopping database, a request for collaborative shopping data with at least one previously purchased second item;
in response to receiving the collaborative shopping data with the at least one previously purchased second item, determine whether the first item is substantially similar to the at least one previously purchased second item; and
in response to the first item being substantially similar to the at least one previously purchased second item:
identify the intended purchase of the first item as a potential duplicate purchase; and
present a duplicate purchase alert on the display, the duplicate purchase alert indicating that completion of the intended purchase of the first item will potentially result in a duplicate purchase.
These limitations, except for the italicized portions, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, recite certain methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as well as commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). The claimed invention recites steps for detecting a purchase of an item, analyzing previous purchase data, determine if there is similarity between the current item for purchase and a previously purchase item and if a match exists, display an alert regarding the duplicate purchase. The steps under its broadest reasonable interpretation specifically fall under sales activities. The Examiner notes that although the claim limitations are summarized, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim and all of the claim elements individually, as a whole, and in ordered combination.
Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
An electronic device comprising: a display; a location sensor; a communication system by which the electronic device connects to external networks and devices, devices, including an application computer system and a collaborative shopping database that stores collaborative shopping data of a collaborative shopping group; a memory having stored thereon a duplicate purchase alert (DPA) module at least one processor communicatively coupled to the display, the location sensor, the communication system, and the memory, the at least one processor executing program code of the duplicate purchase alert module, which configures the electronic device to: [claim 1]
A method comprising […] via at least one processor of an electronic device [claim 10]
A computer program product comprising: a computer readable storage device having stored thereon program code which, when executed by at least one processor of an electronic device having a display, a communication system, and a memory, enables the electronic device to complete the functionality of: [claim 19]
detect a trigger indicative of an intended purchase of a first item wherein to detect the trigger, the at least one processor configures the electronic device to, at least one of:
detect, via the location sensor, that the electronic device is at or is approaching a merchant location where an intended purchase will likely occur of an item that is to be shared as a collaborative purchase with other members of a collaborative shopping group; or determine that at least one shopping application has been initiated on the electronic device, the shopping application having a first merchandise category that is a same merchandise category corresponding to a category of items included in a collaborative purchasing group of which a user of the electronic device is a member;
in response to detecting the trigger, transmit, to a purchase tracking repository of the collaborative shopping database, a request for collaborative shopping data with at least one previously purchased second item;
present a duplicate purchase alert on the display,
The additional elements of emphasized above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The limitations not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application – MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, these additional elements when considered individually or as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1, 10, and 19 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 10, and 19 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05).
As such, independent claims 1, 10, and 19 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11, 13-16, 19, 20-25 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to the same abstract idea of Independent Claims 1, 10 and 19 without significantly more.
Claim 2 recites the at least one previously purchased second item was purchased via a purchase transaction via a second electronic device at a corresponding second time within a pre-established tracking period for preventing potential duplicative purchases; and the at least one processor: determines if the second time is within the pre-established tracking period for preventing potential duplicative purchases; in response to determining the second time is within the pre-established tracking period for preventing potential duplicative purchases, enables presenting the duplicate purchase alert on the display; and in response to determining the second time is not within the pre-established tracking period for preventing potential duplicative purchases, withholds presenting the duplicate purchase alert on the display. The limitation merely further limits that abstract idea. The recitation of the second device is recited at a high level of generality and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 4 recites wherein the at least one processor: in response to determining that at least one shopping application has been initiated on the electronic device, identifies a first merchandise category associated with the at least one shopping application; retrieves, from the collaborative shopping data, a second merchandise category associated with the at least one previously purchased second item; determines if the second merchandise category is substantially similar to the first merchandise category; and identifies the potential duplicate purchase in response to determining that the second merchandise category is substantially similar to the first merchandise category; and present the duplicate purchase alert to include a message that another group member has purchased the previously purchased second item and requesting user to check a collaborative shopping cart or the collaborative shopping data to avoid a duplicate purchase. The limitation merely further limits that abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 5 recites wherein to detect the trigger, the at least one processor is configured to cause the electronic device to: detect initiation of the at least one shopping application having a common merchandise category with the first item; and present the duplicate purchase alert in response to detecting initiation of the at least one shopping application having a common merchandise category with the first item. The limitation merely further limits that abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 6 recites wherein the at least one processor: monitors for receipt of incoming communications; identifies that an incoming communication contains at least one information corresponding to purchasing of a third item; and
in response to identifying that the incoming communication contains at least one information corresponding to purchasing of the third item: identifies a corresponding merchandise category associated with the third item based on the at least one information; updates the collaborative shopping data with the purchase of the third item, the corresponding merchandise category associated with the third item, and a date and time that the third item was purchased; and stores the updated collaborative shopping data. The limitation merely further limits that abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 7 recites wherein the at least one processor: presents a first graphical user interface (GUI ) on the display, the first GUI including the duplicate purchase alert a first user-selectable option to cancel the intended purchase of the first item the first item, and a second user-selectable option to continue the intended purchase of the first item; in response to detecting selection of the first user-selectable option, cancels the intended purchase of the first item; and in response to detecting selection of the second user-selectable option: triggers completion of the intended purchase of the first item; updates the collaborative shopping data with completed purchase data of the first item; and stores the updated collaborative shopping data. The limitation merely further limits that abstract idea. The recitation of the GUI is recited at a high level of generality and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 9 recites wherein the at least one processor: presents a third graphical user interface (GUI ) on the display, the third GUI including a third user-selectable option to establish a collaborative shopping group, the collaborative shopping group including one or more individual members whose purchases are tracked within the collaborative shopping data; and in response to detecting selection of the third user-selectable option, initiates processes to establish the collaborate shopping group. The limitation merely further limits that abstract idea. The recitation of the GUI is recited at a high level of generality and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 11, 13-16 and 20 recite parallel claim language and are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Claim 21 recites wherein the processor is configured to cause the electronic device to perform a validation and authentication routine with the application computer system prior to exchange of data and information to provide account verification and security for access by electronic device to a specific one or more collaborative shopping data of an affiliated one or more collaborative shopping group. The limitation merely further limits that abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 22 recites wherein the trigger is the electronic device being at or approaching the merchant location, and the processor is configured to cause the electronic device to: monitor, via the location sensor, for changes in a current location of the electronic device; and determine, in part via location data received from the location sensor, if the electronic device has moved to/into the pre-identified merchant location. The limitation merely further limits that abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 23 recites wherein the processor is configured to cause the electronic device to, in response to determining that electronic device has moved to the pre- identified merchant location, present collaborative shopping data on the display showing items that have already been purchased by other members of the collaborative shopping group. The limitation merely further limits that abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 24 recites wherein the processor is configured to cause the electronic device to: determining particular types of merchants that are associated with items contained in the collaborative list of items; monitor the location of the electronic device and periodically compare a current device location to a mapped location of the merchants in proximity to the electronic device; and present a notification to the user to stop at a particular merchant in proximity to the electronic device in order to purchase a specific item from the collaborative list of items that has not yet been purchased. The limitation merely further limits that abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 25 recites wherein the processor is configured to cause the electronic device to: identify if the intended purchase of the first item would cause an item maximum quantity to be exceeded, wherein more than one of the first item is required to be purchased by the group; present the duplicate purchase alert on the display in response to determining that the item maximum quantity has been exceeded; and present a notification providing a number of the first items that have been already purchased and/or that remain to be purchased, in response to determining that the item maximum quantity has not been exceeded. The limitation merely further limits that abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
For these reasons claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, 13-16, 19-25 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 11,15,16,19, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver (US 7318043) in view of Walters (US 20200226605).
Regarding claim 1, 10, and 19 Silver discloses:
An electronic device comprising: a display; (The example I/O devices include a display 211); a communication system by which the electronic device connects to external networks and devices, (client computer system 250/network 280 connecting to server computing system 200 in Figure 2) including an application computer system and a collaborative shopping database that stores collaborative shopping data of a collaborative shopping group; [Claim 1] [Col. 2 lines 30-30] A software facility is described below that assists in automatically identifying and handling erroneous orders, such as orders placed by users that were unintended or otherwise mistakes. For example, in some embodiments the facility tracks orders placed by users, and then automatically identifies when a received order from a user is a duplicate of one or more other orders recently placed by the user, such as based on the two orders including the same items, and [Col. 6 lines 13-37] the techniques for automatically identifying potentially erroneous orders and/or obtaining manual confirmation for such orders are further used in conjunction with groups of related users. For example, if a current order for a first user in a group is sufficiently similar to a prior order for a second user in the group (e.g., by including the same items and the same recipient or destination, such as for a third user or for one of the first or second users), the current order may be identified as potentially erroneous, with the first user warned and/or queried for manual confirmation regarding the current order. Such groups of related users can be identified in a variety of ways in various embodiments, such as a group of users that one or more of the users have manually selected (e.g., as being friends or buddies), a group of users given access to and/or having ordered from a user's wish list or gift registry, a purchase circle of users that are related by one or more of various aspects (e.g., geographical location, organizational affiliation, education level or training, etc.), a group of users having a shared organizational affiliation, a group of users dynamically determined based on actions related to the users (e.g., other users for whom a user has recently or ever purchased items one or more times, other users that have recently or ever purchased items for the user one or more times, etc.), etc.
The examiner notes the limitation "that stores collaborative shopping data of a collaborative shopping group; is interpreted as intended use of the database and is therefore given little patentable weight. However, the language has been addressed by the prior art citation.
a memory (memory 257) [Claim 1]
[for tracking] personal and collaborative purchasing to identify and generate notification about a potential duplicate purchase of at least one item; and [Col. 2 lines 30-30] A software facility is described below that assists in automatically identifying and handling erroneous orders, such as orders placed by users that were unintended or otherwise mistakes. For example, in some embodiments the facility tracks orders placed by users, and then automatically identifies when a received order from a user is a duplicate of one or more other orders recently placed by the user, such as based on the two orders including the same items,
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the display (CPU 252), […] the communication system, and the memory, the at least one processor executing program code of the duplicate purchase alert module, which configures the electronic device to: [Claim 1] [Col. 2 lines 30-30]
A method comprising: (claim 10)
A computer program product comprising: a non-transitory computer readable storage device having stored thereon program code which, when executed by at least one processor of an electronic device having a display, […], a communication system, and a memory, enables the electronic device to complete the functionality of: (client computer system 250/network 280 connecting to server computing system 200 in Figure 2; memory 257); (Claim 19)
detect a trigger indicative of an intended purchase of a first item (Receive an indication of a current order for a user 305)
in response to detecting the trigger, transmit, to a purchase tracking repository of the collaborative shopping database [Col. 2 lines 30-30] A software facility and [Col. 6 lines 13-37] the techniques for automatically identifying potentially erroneous orders and/or obtaining manual confirmation for such orders are further used in conjunction with groups of related users., a request for collaborative shopping data with at least one previously purchased second item; ([Col. 10 lines 48-55] The Erroneous Order Manager system then provides information about the current order to the Erroneous Order Identifier component, which proceeds to determine whether the current order is potentially erroneous, such as by comparing information about the current order to information about prior orders by the user from a prior order database 221 on storage 220.)
in response to receiving the collaborative shopping data with the at least one previously purchased second item, determine whether the first item is substantially similar to the at least one previously purchased second item; and ([Col. 13 lines 55-65) The subroutine continues to step 410 to retrieve information about prior orders for the user. In some embodiments, the orders retrieved will be limited to a subset of prior orders for the user, such as on a user-specific basis (e.g., all prior orders of the user within a specified prior period of time, prior orders that satisfy certain specified criteria such as a type of ordering method, etc.). After step 410, the subroutine continues to step 415 to determine whether the current order is sufficiently similar to any of the prior orders based on the processing and preference information from step 405.
in response to the first item being substantially similar to the at least one previously purchased second item: identify the intended purchase of the first item as a potential duplicate purchase; and ([Col. 14 lines 7-14] After step 415, the subroutine continues to step 485 to determine whether the current order was found to be sufficiently similar to be potentially erroneous. If so, the subroutine continues to step 490 to return an indication that the current order is potentially erroneous, and if not the subroutine continues to step 495 to return an indication that the current order is not potentially erroneous.
present a duplicate purchase alert on the display, the duplicate purchase alert indicating that completion of the intended purchase of the first item will potentially result in a duplicate purchase. (alert message shown in Figure 1C).
While Silver discloses software that assists in automatically identifying and handling erroneous orders, such as orders placed by users that were unintended or otherwise mistakes, however does not explicitly disclose:
a location sensor;
[…] having stored thereon a duplicate purchase alert (DPA) module for tracking
wherein to detect the trigger, the at least one processor configures the electronic device to, at least one of: detect, via the location sensor, that the electronic device is at or is approaching a merchant location where an intended purchase will likely occur of an item that is to be shared as a collaborative purchase with other members of a collaborative shopping group; or determine that at least one shopping application has been initiated on the electronic device, the shopping application having a first merchandise category that is a same merchandise category corresponding to a category of items included in a collaborative purchasing group of which a user of the electronic device is a member;
However Walters teaches:
a location sensor; [0044] In the embodiments illustrated in FIG. 3, the accuracy of the location determination can be improved through the collection and analysis of movement data measured by a gyroscope, such as the angular velocity and orientation of the client device. In addition to the use of a gyroscope, data from one or more other device components, e.g., an accelerometer, a pedometer, a magnetometer, a linear acceleration sensor, and an attitude sensor, can be used to further improve the location data.
[…] having stored thereon a duplicate purchase alert (DPA) module for tracking [0047] In an embodiment, the device information can be assembled and analyzed by a tracking application. The tracking application can be installed locally on the client device and see [0068] the tracking application can compare the device information collected from the client device to the device information in the account information for the similar or duplicative transaction(s)
wherein to detect the trigger, the at least one processor configures the electronic device to, at least one of: detect, via the location sensor [See Figure 3 movement data measured by a gyroscope], that the electronic device is at or is approaching a merchant location where an intended purchase will likely occur of an item that is to be shared as a collaborative purchase with other members of a collaborative shopping group; [0070] In an embodiment, this analysis can be informed by transactions made by other users. For example, the tracking application can have access to the device information collected in the account information relating to similar or duplicative transactions made by other users. This data can be reported by a tracking application on the devices of other users or collected by the third party point-of-sale devices that participated in the transaction. For example, a third party point-of-sale device can provide data regarding, e.g., the payment method, payment device, transaction time, and transaction location, and any device information collected through the device components of the third party point-of-sale device. The data collected by the third-party point-of-sale device can be stored in the user account database, in a separate database, or in a combination of one or more databases. The third-party point-of-sale device data can be stored locally or at a remote location in data communication with the client device. Regardless of the location and nature of storage, the third-party point-of-sale data can be stored such that it is readily accessible by the tracking application.
The examiner notes the limitation "that the electronic device is at or is approaching a merchant location where an intended purchase will likely occur of an item that is to be shared as a collaborative purchase with other members of a collaborative shopping group;" is interpreted as intended use of the location sensor and corresponding location data and is therefore given little patentable weight.
or determine that at least one shopping application has been initiated on the electronic device, the shopping application having a first merchandise category that is a same merchandise category corresponding to a category of items included in a collaborative purchasing group of which a user of the electronic device is a member;
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the software tracking in Silver to include the limitations above, as taught in Walters, in order to determine consistency and identify any indications that the transaction can be potentially unauthorized, potentially fraudulent, or otherwise potentially illegitimate (abstract).
Regarding claim 2, 11, and 20, Silver in view of Walters teaches the limitations set forth above. Silver further discloses:
wherein the at least one previously purchased second item was purchased via a purchase transaction via a second electronic device at a corresponding second time ([Col. 6 lines 13-30 example of group of users making purchases) within a pre-established tracking period for preventing potential duplicative purchases. ([Col. 13 lines 55-65) The subroutine continues to step 410 to retrieve information about prior orders for the user. In some embodiments, the orders retrieved will be limited to a subset of prior orders for the user, such as on a user-specific basis (e.g., all prior orders of the user within a specified prior period of time; In addition, in some embodiments the similarity analysis will be performed in a manner specific to the current user, while in other embodiments may be performed in a consistent manner for all users or for groups of users. )
the at least one processor: determines if the second time is within the pre-established tracking period for preventing potential duplicative purchases; ([Col. 13 lines 55-65) The subroutine continues to step 410 to retrieve information about prior orders for the user. In some embodiments, the orders retrieved will be limited to a subset of prior orders for the user, such as on a user-specific basis (e.g., all prior orders of the user within a specified prior period of time) in response to determining the second time is within the pre-established tracking period for preventing potential duplicative purchases, enables presenting the duplicate purchase alert on the display (alert message shown in Figure 1C); and in response to determining the second time is not within the pre-established tracking period for preventing potential duplicative purchases, withholds presenting the duplicate purchase alert on the display. ([Col. 14 lines 7-14] After step 415, the subroutine continues to step 485 to determine whether the current order was found to be sufficiently similar to be potentially erroneous. If so, the subroutine continues to step 490 to return an indication that the current order is potentially erroneous, and if not the subroutine continues to step 495 to return an indication that the current order is not potentially erroneous. And see message in Figure 1A)
Regarding claim 6, Silver in view of Walters teaches the limitations set forth above. Silver further discloses:
wherein the at least one processor: monitors for receipt of incoming communications ([Col. 2 lines 20-25] A software facility is described below that assists in automatically identifying and handling erroneous orders, such as orders placed by users that were unintended or otherwise mistakes. For example, in some embodiments the facility tracks orders placed by users, and then automatically identifies when a received order from a user is a duplicate)
identifies that an incoming communication contains at least one information corresponding to purchasing of a third item; and (Receive an indication of a current order for a user 305);
in response to identifying that the incoming communication contains at least one information corresponding to purchasing of the third item: (Receive an indication of a current order for a user 305);
identifies a corresponding merchandise category associated with the third item based on the at least one information; ([Col. 5 lines 28-38] As with determining similarity of orders, such order patterns can be based on various aspects of orders in various embodiments, including specific items, numbers of copies of items, types of items, recipients, destination addresses, ordering methods, payment source information, shipping instructions, delivery instructions, item processing instructions, item supplier information and/or various characteristics of the items (e.g., media type for a movie, such as via DVD or VHS, or target platform for software, such as for Macintosh or Microsoft Windows).
updates the collaborative shopping data with the purchase of the third item, the corresponding merchandise category associated with the third item, and a date and time that the third item was purchased; and stores the updated collaborative shopping data. ([Col. 3 lines 20-35] In order to facilitate the comparison of an order or a potential order (referred to herein generally as a "current order") to one or more prior orders, the facility in some embodiments maintains a cache or other store of information about prior orders that have been placed for some or all users, such as all orders that have been placed during a prior period of time (e.g., the prior twenty minutes, the prior two weeks, etc.) and/or all orders that match a specified criteria (e.g., that have been ordered using a particular type of ordering method). In some embodiments, this prior order information is updated as appropriate when the status of prior orders changes, such as for orders that are canceled or suspended, or for which some or all ordered items are returned. And see Col. 11 lines 19-25 and order confirmation database in Col. 11 lines 54-65)
The examiner notes the steps are interpreted as a repeated process of reviewing incoming purchase data for each item the user intends to buy
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Silver in view of Walters teaches the limitations set forth above. Silver further discloses:
wherein the at least one processor: presents a first graphical user interface (GUI ) on the display, the first GUI including the duplicate purchase alert a first user-selectable option to cancel the intended purchase of the first item, and a second user-selectable option to continue the intended purchase of the first item; and in response to detecting selection of the first user-selectable option, cancels the intended purchase of the first item; and in response to detecting selection of the second user-selectable option: triggers completion of the intended purchase of the first item; updates the collaborative shopping data with completed purchase data of the first item; and stores the updated collaborative shopping data. (alert message shown Figure 1C- "Cancel this duplicate order"; (alert message shown Figure 1C- "Place this duplicate order" and see Figure 1D- [Col. 3 lines 20-35] In order to facilitate the comparison of an order or a potential order (referred to herein generally as a "current order") to one or more prior orders, the facility in some embodiments maintains a cache or other store of information about prior orders that have been placed for some or all users, such as all orders that have been placed during a prior period of time (e.g., the prior twenty minutes, the prior two weeks, etc.) and/or all orders that match a specified criteria (e.g., that have been ordered using a particular type of ordering method). In some embodiments, this prior order information is updated as appropriate when the status of prior orders changes, such as for orders that are canceled or suspended, or for which some or all ordered items are returned. And see Col. 11 lines 19-25 and order confirmation database in Col. 11 lines 54-65)
Regarding claim 15, Silver discloses the limitations set forth above. Silver further discloses:
wherein the at least one processor: monitors for receipt of incoming communications ([Col. 2 lines 20-25] A software facility is described below that assists in automatically identifying and handling erroneous orders, such as orders placed by users that were unintended or otherwise mistakes. For example, in some embodiments the facility tracks orders placed by users, and then automatically identifies when a received order from a user is a duplicate)
identifies that an incoming communication contains at least one information corresponding to purchasing of a third item; and (Receive an indication of a current order for a user 305);
in response to identifying that the incoming communication contains at least one information corresponding to purchasing of the third item: (Receive an indication of a current order for a user 305);
identifies a corresponding merchandise category associated with the third item based on the at least one information; ([Col. 5 lines 28-38] As with determining similarity of orders, such order patterns can be based on various aspects of orders in various embodiments, including specific items, numbers of copies of items, types of items, recipients, destination addresses, ordering methods, payment source information, shipping instructions, delivery instructions, item processing instructions, item supplier information and/or various characteristics of the items (e.g., media type for a movie, such as via DVD or VHS, or target platform for software, such as for Macintosh or Microsoft Windows).
updates the collaborative shopping data with the purchase of the third item, the corresponding merchandise category associated with the third item, and a date and time that the third item was purchased; and stores the updated collaborative shopping data. ([Col. 3 lines 20-35] In order to facilitate the comparison of an order or a potential order (referred to herein generally as a "current order") to one or more prior orders, the facility in some embodiments maintains a cache or other store of information about prior orders that have been placed for some or all users, such as all orders that have been placed during a prior period of time (e.g., the prior twenty minutes, the prior two weeks, etc.) and/or all orders that match a specified criteria (e.g., that have been ordered using a particular type of ordering method). In some embodiments, this prior order information is updated as appropriate when the status of prior orders changes, such as for orders that are canceled or suspended, or for which some or all ordered items are returned. And see Col. 11 lines 19-25 and order confirmation database in Col. 11 lines 54-65)
The examiner notes the steps are interpreted as a repeated process of reviewing incoming purchase data for each item the user intends to buy
Regarding claim 22, Silver in view of Walters teaches the limitations set forth above. While Silver discloses software that assists in automatically identifying and handling erroneous orders, such as orders placed by users that were unintended or otherwise mistakes, however does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the trigger is the electronic device being at or approaching the merchant location, and the processor is configured to cause the electronic device to: monitor, via the location sensor, for changes in a current location of the electronic device; and determine, in part via location data received from the location sensor, if the electronic device has moved to/into the pre-identified merchant location.
However Walters teaches:
wherein the trigger is the electronic device being at or approaching the merchant location, and the processor is configured to cause the electronic device to: monitor, via the location sensor, for changes in a current location of the electronic device; and determine, in part via location data received from the location sensor, if the electronic device has moved to/into the pre-identified merchant location. [0040] In an example of data collection, data collected by the gyroscope 223, the accelerometer 224, and the magnetometer 226 can be used to determine movement and orientation of the client device 200. In some embodiments, the location of the client device 200 can be determined from this information. As another example, the pedometer 225, accelerometer 224, and magnetometer 226 can be used to determine the location of the client device 200. As a further example, the gyroscope 223 can measure angular velocity and orientation data of the client device 200 that, in combination with the signal strength data measured by the transmitter 229, can be used to determine the location of the client device 200. [0041] FIG. 3 illustrates of a location determination method 300 according to an example embodiment. And see [0044 and 0053]
The examiner notes the limitation "if the electronic device has moved to/into the pre-identified merchant location." is conditional language and is therefore given little patentable weight. However, the limitation has been addressed above with prior art.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the software tracking in Silver to include the limitations above, as taught in Walters, in order to determine consistency and identify any indications that the transaction can be potentially unauthorized, potentially fraudulent, or otherwise potentially illegitimate (abstract).
Claims 4-5 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver (US 7318043) in view of Walters (US 20200226605) in further view of Chen (US 20120191536).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Silver in view of Walters teaches the limitations set forth above.
Silver further discloses:
wherein to detect the trigger, the at least one processor: retrieves, from the collaborative shopping data, a second merchandise category associated with the at least one previously purchased second item; ([Col. 5 lines 28-38] As with determining similarity of orders, such order patterns can be based on various aspects of orders in various embodiments, including specific items, numbers of copies of items, types of items, recipients, destination addresses, ordering methods, payment source information, shipping instructions, delivery instructions, item processing instructions, item supplier information and/or various characteristics of the items (e.g., media type for a movie, such as via DVD or VHS, or target platform for software, such as for Macintosh or Microsoft Windows).
determines if the second merchandise category is substantially similar to the first merchandise category; identifies the potential duplicate purchase in response to determining that the second merchandise category is substantially similar to the first merchandise category. ([Col. 14 lines 7-14] After step 415, the subroutine continues to step 485 to determine whether the current order was found to be sufficiently similar to be potentially erroneous. If so, the subroutine continues to step 490 to return an indication that the current order is potentially erroneous, and if not the subroutine continues to step 495 to return an indication that the current order is not potentially erroneous. And see Fig. 4 step 415); and present the duplicate purchase alert to include a message that another group member has purchased the previously purchased second item and requesting user to check a collaborative shopping cart or the collaborative shopping data to avoid a duplicate purchase. [Col. 15 lines 28-60] (50) In the illustrated embodiment, the subroutine begins in step 605, where an indication is received of user feedback related to an order or more generally to user preferences related to the handling of potentially erroneous orders. In step 610, the subroutine optionally determines one or more groups of users to which the user's feedback will apply, such as in embodiments in which group-specific order processing is used. After step 610, the subroutine continues to step 615 to analyze the user feedback to determine whether to alter processing of potentially erroneous orders for the user and/or other users (e.g., the determined groups of users) based on the feedback. In some embodiments, the feedback is analyzed in conjunction with feedback related to prior orders, such as to compare user confirmation and rejection responses or other feedback for various orders to enable detection of patterns. Thus, if this user and/or groups of users consistently confirm or reject orders that have been identified as potentially erroneous in certain situations or when the orders share certain attributes, the potentially erroneous order processing parameters may be adjusted to eliminate the need for user responses in such situations (e.g., by causing such orders to not be identified as potentially erroneous if users consistently confirm them), by changing thresholds used to determine whether orders are sufficiently similar, by changing types of order information used to determine whether orders are sufficiently similar, by changing the type of notification in certain situations (e.g., to warn users rather than affirmatively query them for responses in situations in which the users consistently confirm orders that were identified as potentially erroneous), etc. After step 615, the subroutine continues to step 620 to modify stored processing information and/or user preferences for the user and/or the determined groups of users as appropriate based on the analysis in step 615. After step 620, the subroutine continues to step 699 and returns. And see Figure 5 detailing User Notification and Response Handler subroutine 330
While Silver discloses software that assists in automatically identifying and handling erroneous orders, such as orders placed by users that were unintended or otherwise mistakes and Walter teaches a locally store tracking application for analyzing transactions, the combination however does not expressly disclose:
in response to determining that at least one shopping application has been initiated on the electronic device, identifies a first merchandise category associated with the at least one shopping application;
However Chen teaches:
in response to determining that at least one shopping application has been initiated on the electronic device, identifies a first merchandise category associated with the at least one shopping application; [0078] Referring to FIG. 3B and with reference to exemplary embodiments of PCRF 230, application server 240, and RUCS 245, when the customer makes a request for applications and/or services, application server 240 may inform PCRF 230. […] For example, the request may include an identifier of the customer, the type of application and/or service requested, and/or other appropriate information. [0087] The type of service or the type of application may be determined (block 410). For example, as previously described, the network may determine the type of service or the type of application based on the request.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the software tracking in Silver in view of the tracking application in Walters to include in response to determining that at least one shopping application has been initiated on the electronic device, identifies a first merchandise category associated with the at least one shopping application, as taught in Chen, in order to make a recommendation based on the identified type of application (abstract).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Silver in view of Walters teaches the limitations set forth above.
Silver further discloses:
present the duplicate purchase alert in response to detectingthe at least one shopping application having a common merchandise category with the first item. (alert message shown Figure 1C- "Cancel this duplicate order")
The examiner notes the limitation " in response to detecting
While Silver discloses the presentation of a message alerting the user of a duplicate purchase based on the similarity of the two items of merchandise, the reference does not expressly disclose the functionality of:
wherein to detect the trigger, the at least one processor is configured to cause the electronic device to: detect initiation of the at least one shopping application having a common merchandise category with the first item; and
However Chen teaches:
wherein to detect the trigger, the at least one processor is configured to cause the electronic device to: detect initiation of the at least one shopping application having a common merchandise category with the first item; and [0078] Referring to FIG. 3B and with reference to exemplary embodiments of PCRF 230, application server 240, and RUCS 245, when the customer makes a request for applications and/or services, application server 240 may inform PCRF 230. […] For example, the request may include an identifier of the customer, the type of application and/or service requested, and/or other appropriate information. [0087] The type of service or the type of application may be determined (block 410). For example, as previously described, the network may determine the type of service or the type of application based on the request.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the software tracking in Silver in view of the tracking application in Walters to include wherein to detect the trigger, the at least one processor is configured to cause the electronic device to: detect initiation of the at least one shopping application having a common merchandise category with the first item; and, as taught in Chen, in order to make a recommendation based on the identified type of application (abstract).
Claims 9, 21, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver (US 7318043) in view of Walters (US 20200226605) in further view of DeVet (US 20220335503 ).
Regarding claim 9, Silver in view of Walters teaches the limitations set forth above. While Silver discloses software that assists in automatically identifying and handling erroneous orders, such as orders placed by users that were unintended or otherwise mistakes and Walter teaches a locally store tracking application for analyzing transactions, the combination however does not expressly disclose:
wherein the at least one processor: presents a third graphical user interface (GUI ) on the display, the third GUI including a third user-selectable option to establish a collaborative shopping group, the collaborative shopping group including one or more individual members whose purchases are tracked within the collaborative shopping data; and in response to detecting selection of the third user-selectable option, initiates processes to establish the collaborate shopping group.
However DeVet teaches:
wherein the at least one processor: presents a third graphical user interface (GUI ) on the display, the third GUI including a third user-selectable option to establish a collaborative shopping group, the collaborative shopping group including one or more individual members whose purchases are tracked within the collaborative shopping data; and in response to detecting selection of the third user-selectable option, initiates processes to establish the collaborate shopping group. Figure 1A/2B and see [0077] In this example, the updated user interface 404 further includes icons 412 displayed next to each item in the virtual shopping cart 406 to indicate which member of the shopping group added each item. In the example depicted, the diamond icon indicates items added by the order originator while the star icon indicates items added by a second member of the shopping group and the asterisk icon indicates items added by a third member of the group. Indications of which member of a shopping group added which items can take other forms, such as display of avatars, differences in font, differences in text color, etc. In some implementations, the user interface 404 can further identify when two members of the shopping group have added identical or similar items. For example, the server system 118 can identify that the shopping cart includes two different loafs of bread added by two different group members. The server system 118 can communicate with the mobile device 402 to cause the user interface 404 to indicate that two members of the shopping group have added bread to the shared shopping cart by displaying those items in red and/or including a pop-up notification to indicate a possible duplicate item in the shopping cart. The order owner (or one of the other shopping cart members) can then resolve potential duplicate orders by removing duplicate items from the shopping cart or choosing to leave the flagged items in the cart.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the software tracking in Silver in view of the tracking application in Walters to include wherein the at least one processor: presents a third graphical user interface (GUI ) on the display, the third GUI including a third user-selectable option to establish a collaborative shopping group, the collaborative shopping group including one or more individual members whose purchases are tracked within the collaborative shopping data; and in response to detecting selection of the third user-selectable option, initiates processes to establish the collaborate shopping group, as taught in DeVet, in order to allow for coordinating the generation and fulfillment of an order (abstract).
Regarding claim 21, Silver in view of Walters teaches the limitations set forth above. While Silver discloses software that assists in automatically identifying and handling erroneous orders, such as orders placed by users that were unintended or otherwise mistakes, Silver does not disclose:
wherein the processor is configured to cause the electronic device to perform a validation and authentication routine with the application computer system prior to exchange of data and information to provide account verification and security for access by electronic device to a specific one or more collaborative shopping data of an affiliated one or more collaborative shopping group.
However Walter discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to cause the electronic device to perform a validation and authentication routine with the application computer system prior to exchange of data and information [0053] For example, if the account activity shows a new transaction taking place at a merchant location, the tracking application can determine whether the client device was at the merchant's location, or at least in the vicinity of the merchant's location, at the time the transaction took place. If so, the transaction can likely be considered legitimate. If not, the transaction could be potentially fraudulent, and further actions can be taken to verify the transaction. The authentication procedure can include the submission of additional identifying information relating to the user or the performance of a specific task, where the information or task is different from the submitted login credentials. The further actions can include sending a notification, e.g., a text message or telephone call to a telephone number associated with the account, an email to an address associated with an account, a notification to the client device or to a different client device associated with the account. Upon receipt of the notification, the user can approve or deny the transaction. In addition, the notification can be accompanied by a requirement that the user authenticate himself or herself prior to approving or denying the transaction.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the software tracking in Silver to include the limitations above, as taught in Walters, in order to determine consistency and identify any indications that the transaction can be potentially unauthorized, potentially fraudulent, or otherwise potentially illegitimate (abstract).
While Silver discloses software that assists in automatically identifying and handling erroneous orders, such as orders placed by users that were unintended or otherwise mistakes and Walter teaches a locally store tracking application for analyzing transactions, the combination however does not expressly disclose:
to provide account verification and security for access by electronic device to a specific one or more collaborative shopping data of an affiliated one or more collaborative shopping group.
However Devet teaches:
to provide account verification and security for access by electronic device to a specific one or more collaborative shopping data of an affiliated one or more collaborative shopping group. [0011] In one aspect, the computing device of the shopping group member that is picking up the order can provide a user interface that includes a unique optically recognizable code (e.g., a barcode or a matrix barcode) that can be used to verify that the person picking up the order is authorized to pick up the order (e.g., the order owner has granted the group member order pickup permissions). The optically recognizable code can also be used to verify information associated with the order such as order number, information associated with the order owner, information associated with a payment option for the order, or information associated with the group member that is picking up the order. The store employee's computing device can provide instructions to the employee for scanning, or otherwise verifying, the optically recognizable code. The employee can then use her device to scan the optically recognizable code displayed by the shopping group member's device to verify that the shopping group member is authorized to pick up the order, such as by verifying the shopping group member's identity or an aspect of the order. In some implementations, the employees computing device can display identifying information for the group member upon scanning of the optically readable code (such as the group member's first and last name) that can be compared to identification carried by the shopping group member (e.g., a driver's license) to verify the shopping group member's identity at the time of pickup. And see [0073] and [0092]
The examiner notes the limitation "to provide account verification and security for access by electronic device to a specific one or more collaborative shopping data of an affiliated one or more collaborative shopping group." is interpreted as intended use of the validation and authentication and is therefore given little patentable weight. However, the limitation has been addressed above with prior art.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the software tracking in Silver in view of the tracking application in Walters to include to provide account verification and security for access by electronic device to a specific one or more collaborative shopping data of an affiliated one or more collaborative shopping group, as taught in DeVet, in order to allow for coordinating the generation and fulfillment of an order (abstract).
Regarding claim 25, Silver in view of Walters teaches the limitations set forth above. While Silver discloses software that assists in automatically identifying and handling erroneous orders, such as orders placed by users that were unintended or otherwise mistakes and Walter teaches a locally store tracking application for analyzing transactions, the combination however does not expressly disclose:
identify if the intended purchase of the first item would cause an item maximum quantity to be exceeded, wherein more than one of the first item is required to be purchased by the group; present the duplicate purchase alert on the display in response to determining that the item maximum quantity has been exceeded; and present a notification providing a number of the first items that have been already purchased and/or that remain to be purchased, in response to determining that the item maximum quantity has not been exceeded.
However Devet teaches:
identify if the intended purchase of the first item would cause an item maximum quantity to be exceeded, wherein more than one of the first item is required to be purchased by the group; present the duplicate purchase alert on the display in response to determining that the item maximum quantity has been exceeded; and present a notification providing a number of the first items that have been already purchased and/or that remain to be purchased, in response to determining that the item maximum quantity has not been exceeded. Figure 1A/2B and see [0077] In this example, the updated user interface 404 further includes icons 412 displayed next to each item in the virtual shopping cart 406 to indicate which member of the shopping group added each item. In the example depicted, the diamond icon indicates items added by the order originator while the star icon indicates items added by a second member of the shopping group and the asterisk icon indicates items added by a third member of the group. Indications of which member of a shopping group added which items can take other forms, such as display of avatars, differences in font, differences in text color, etc. In some implementations, the user interface 404 can further identify when two members of the shopping group have added identical or similar items. For example, the server system 118 can identify that the shopping cart includes two different loafs of bread added by two different group members. The server system 118 can communicate with the mobile device 402 to cause the user interface 404 to indicate that two members of the shopping group have added bread to the shared shopping cart by displaying those items in red and/or including a pop-up notification to indicate a possible duplicate item in the shopping cart. The order owner (or one of the other shopping cart members) can then resolve potential duplicate orders by removing duplicate items from the shopping cart or choosing to leave the flagged items in the cart.
The examiner notes the limitation "identify if the intended purchase of the first item would cause an item maximum quantity to be exceeded, wherein more than one of the first item is required to be purchased by the group; present the duplicate purchase alert on the display in response to determining that the item maximum quantity has been exceeded; and present a notification providing a number of the first items that have been already purchased and/or that remain to be purchased, in response to determining that the item maximum quantity has not been exceeded." is interpreted as conditional language and is therefore given little patentable weight. However, the limitation has been addressed above with prior art.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the software tracking in Silver in view of the tracking application in Walters to include to the limitations above, as taught in DeVet, in order to allow for coordinating the generation and fulfillment of an order (abstract).
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver (US 7318043) in view of Walters (US 20200226605) in further view of Borunda (US 11341553).
Regarding claim 23, Silver in view of Walters teaches the limitations set forth above. While Silver discloses software that assists in automatically identifying and handling erroneous orders, such as orders placed by users that were unintended or otherwise mistakes and Walter teaches a locally store tracking application for analyzing transactions, the combination however does not expressly disclose:
wherein the processor is configured to cause the electronic device to, in response to determining that electronic device has moved to the pre- identified merchant location, present collaborative shopping data on the display showing items that have already been purchased by other members of the collaborative shopping group.
However Borunda teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to cause the electronic device to, in response to determining that electronic device has moved to the pre- identified merchant location, present collaborative shopping data on the display showing items that have already been purchased by other members of the collaborative shopping group. Figure 11- is the consumer entering a particular stores in step 1102 and access items on a shared product list from the particular stores in 1104 and see updated list in 226 of Figure 2 showing items purchased and Figure 7 "item purchased from list", update product list indicating purchase, and push updates product list to consumers"
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the collaborative shopping in Silver in view of Walters to include wherein the processor is configured to cause the electronic device to, in response to determining that electronic device has moved to the pre- identified merchant location, present collaborative shopping data on the display showing items that have already been purchased by other members of the collaborative shopping group, as taught in Borunda, in order to personalize the shopping list based on life events and actions (Col. 3 lines 60-Col. 4 lines 1-17).
Regarding claim 24, Silver in view of Walters teaches the limitations set forth above. While Silver discloses software that assists in automatically identifying and handling erroneous orders, such as orders placed by users that were unintended or otherwise mistakes and Walter teaches a locally store tracking application for analyzing transactions, the combination however does not expressly disclose:
wherein the processor is configured to cause the electronic device to: determining particular types of merchants that are associated with items contained in the collaborative list of items; monitor the location of the electronic device and periodically compare a current device location to a mapped location of the merchants in proximity to the electronic device; and present a notification to the user to stop at a particular merchant in proximity to the electronic device in order to purchase a specific item from the collaborative list of items that has not yet been purchased.
However Borunda teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to cause the electronic device to: determining particular types of merchants that are associated with items contained in the collaborative list of items; monitor the location of the electronic device and periodically compare a current device location to a mapped location of the merchants in proximity to the electronic device; and present a notification to the user to stop at a particular merchant in proximity to the electronic device in order to purchase a specific item from the collaborative list of items that has not yet been purchased. Shown in Figures 10 and 11 FIG. 10 illustrates a flow diagram 1000 for pushing a notification to a consumer of proximity to a particular store. As discussed above, there may be instances where a consumer is notified of proximity to a particular store. The notification may be based on one or more factors, such as: an specific product that the particular store is selling; a specific promotion that the store is offering for the specific product; or a specific price at which the particular store is selling the specific product.
The examiner notes the limitation "to stop at a particular merchant in proximity to the electronic device in order to purchase a specific item from the collaborative list of items that has not yet been purchased." is interpreted as intended use of the location information and is therefore given little patentable weight. However, the limitation has been addressed above with prior art.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the collaborative shopping in Silver in view of Walters to include wherein the processor is configured to cause the electronic device to: determining particular types of merchants that are associated with items contained in the collaborative list of items; monitor the location of the electronic device and periodically compare a current device location to a mapped location of the merchants in proximity to the electronic device; and present a notification to the user to stop at a particular merchant in proximity to the electronic device in order to purchase a specific item from the collaborative list of items that has not yet been purchased, as taught in Borunda, in order to personalize the shopping list based on life events and actions (Col. 3 lines 60-Col. 4 lines 1-17).
Relevant Art Not Cited
Mori US 20110022495 discloses determining if a current item a user wishes to purchase is a duplicate item based on previous purchase data.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the remarks directed to 35 USC 101, the rejection has been updated above to address the claims as amended. The additional elements of the location sensor and the database/repository to facilitate device supported collaborative shopping using electronic applications is recited at a high level of generality and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The technology itself is not being improved, but at most improving the user experience itself which is rooted in the abstract idea. For at least these reasons the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
With respect to the remarks directed to 35 USC 102 and 103, the examiner first asserts that the rejection under 35 USC 102 has been withdrawn in light of the claim amendments. The rejection under 35 USC 103 remains. The examiner has maintained that the combination of Silver in view of Walter teaches the amended independent claims as Walter does discloses the location tracking/monitoring of the electronic device in the context of transactions and transaction processing. This is shown in the updated rejection (see at least [0044,0047, Figure 3, and 0070] of Walter). The newly added claims have been addressed with Silver, Walter, DeVet and newly presented Borunda. Newly cited Borunda discloses a dynamic collaborative shopping list that is updated based on user action and providing the user information regarding their proximity to stores that sell a particular item. No specific argument is provided as to the manner in which the previously cited art fails to teach the claims as amended; the examiner asserts the claims remain rejected as shown in the updated rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA E. FRUNZI whose telephone number is (571)270-1031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7-4 (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, 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.
VICTORIA E. FRUNZI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit TC 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 1/6/2026