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 .
Status of Claims
This first action on the merits is in response to the application filed on January 17, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 13: “determines if the first merchandise category” should read “determine[[s]] if the first merchandise category”
Claim 1, line 16: “private purchase transaction, withholds transmission” should read “private purchase transaction, withhold[[s]] transmission”
Claims 7, 14: “the at least one merchandise category and type” should read “”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 3-5, 10-12, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 recite “identifying data of the first item being substantially similar to the private purchase data.” This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what qualifies as “substantially similar.” The metes and bounds of this limitation are unclear because whether something is “substantial” is subjective. One of ordinary skill cannot determine how to avoid infringement of this claim because they are not apprised of what the inventor means by “substantial.” Furthermore, the Specification does not define what qualifies as “substantially similar.” Without defining what qualifies as data being substantially similar, those skilled in the art cannot be informed about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty. See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 899 (2014). Therefore, the claims are indefinite and rejected.
Claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18-19 inherit the deficiency noted in claims 3, 10, and 17, and therefore are also rejected.
For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret “identifying data of the first item being substantially similar to the private purchase data” as any method that identifies item data as similar to private purchase data.
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.
Signal per se Rejection
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims do not recite a statutory category of invention.
Claims 15-20 recite “a computer program product.” A computer program product does not fall under one of the statutory categories of invention because it includes signals per se. Although the Specification contemplates a non-transitory computer-readable medium at paragraphs [0035] and [00120], the Specification does not limit the interpretation of a computer program product to non-transitory embodiments. Therefore, the claims recite signals per se, and the claims are rejected because they do not recite a statutory category of subject matter.
Subject Matter Ineligibility
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The steps for determining eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 can be found in the MPEP § 2106.03-2106.05.
Under Step 1, the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the electronic device, as claimed in claims 1-7, is directed to a machine. Additionally, the method, as claimed in claims 8-14, is directed to a process. Furthermore, the computer program product, as claimed in claims 15-20, is directed to an article of manufacture.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claimed invention recites the abstract idea of observing a personal purchase. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
tracking personal and collaborative purchasing of at least one item;
detect a trigger indicative of an intended purchase of a first item;
in response to detecting the trigger, identifies a first merchandise category and type associated with the first item;
determines if the first merchandise category and type corresponds to a purchase transaction that is to be maintained as a private purchase transaction; and
in response to determining that the first merchandise category and type is a private purchase transaction, withholds transmission of a notification of the intended purchase of the first item to a collaborative shopping collection.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings. When considering MPEP §2106.04(a), the claims recite an abstract idea. For example, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of observing a personal purchase, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined in the MPEP as including “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” MPEP §2106.04(a)(2) subsection II. Here, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity because tracking personal and collaborative purchasing of at least one item; detect a trigger indicative of an intended purchase of a first item and in response to determining that the first merchandise category and type is a private purchase transaction, withholds transmission of a notification of the intended purchase of the first item to a collaborative shopping collection is a sales activity. Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
The recited limitations of representative claim 1 recite an abstract idea because they are considered to be mental processes. As described in the MPEP, mental processes are “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)”. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2) subsection III. In this case, tracking personal and collaborative purchasing of at least one item; detect a trigger indicative of an intended purchase of a first item; and in response to detecting the trigger, identifies a first merchandise category and type associated with the first item are types of observation. Additionally, determines if the first merchandise category and type corresponds to a purchase transaction that is to be maintained as a private purchase transaction; and in response to determining that the first merchandise category and type is a private purchase transaction, withholds transmission of a notification of the intended purchase of the first item to a collaborative shopping collection are types of judgement. Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. See MPEP §2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements such as an electronic device comprising: a display; a communication system that enables the electronic device to connect to external networks and devices; a memory having stored thereon a purchase tracking and alert (PTA) module; and at least one processor communicatively coupled to the display, the communication system, and the memory, the at least one processor executing program code of the purchase tracking and alert module, which configures the electronic device, a collaborative shopping database.
Although reciting additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., observing a personal purchase) being applied on a general purpose computer. See MPEP §§2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. As such, representative claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). See MPEP §2106.05.
Here, as noted above, the additional elements recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components ... ‘ad[d] nothing ... that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’ and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Also see MPEP §2106.05(f). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-7 do not aid in the eligibility of independent claim 1. For example, claims 2-3 and 5-6 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim 1. Also, claims 4 and 7 merely provide further embellishments of the abstract limitations recited in independent claim 1.
Additionally, it is noted that claims 2-3 and 7 do not include further additional elements. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Furthermore, it is noted that claim 4 includes further additional elements of at least one shopping application; claim 5 includes further additional elements of a first graphical user interface (GUI) on the display, the first GUI including a first user-selectable option; and claim 6 includes further additional elements of a second graphical user interface (GUI) on the display. However, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. These additional elements are merely generic elements and are likewise described in a generic manner in Applicant’s specification. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Thus, dependent claims 2-7 are also ineligible.
Lastly, the analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. Although literally invoking a method and computer program product, respectively, claims 8-14 and 15-20 remain only broadly and generally defined, with the claimed functionality paralleling that of claims 1-7 and 1-6, respectively. It is noted that claim 15 includes further additional elements of 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. However, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. These additional elements are merely generic elements and are likewise described in a generic manner in Applicant’s specification. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. As such, claims 8-14 and 15-20 are rejected for at least similar rationale as discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 7-9, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anerella et. al. (US 11151643 B1, herein referred to as Anerella) in view of Li et. al. (US 20180121984 A1, herein referred to as Li).
Claim 1:
Anerella discloses:
An electronic device comprising {Anerella: fig 1, electronic device 104a}:
a display {Anerella: fig 1, electronic device 104a has display 120};
a communication system that enables the electronic device to connect to external networks and devices {Anerella: fig 1, electronic device 104a has TX/RX 128 which is connected to other electronic devices 104b-n and backend system 102 via network 106};
a memory having stored thereon a purchase tracking and alert (PTA) module for tracking personal and collaborative purchasing of at least one item {Anerella: fig 1, electronic device 104a has memory 126; fig 3, user activity module 314; [Col. 2, ln. 18-20] each user is notified of other users' activities (e.g., viewing a collective shopping bin or browsing web pages in an on-line marketplace)}; and
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the display, the communication system, and the memory, the at least one processor executing program code of the purchase tracking and alert module {Anerella: fig 1, electronic device 104a has processor(s) 124; fig 3, user activity module 314; [Col. 2, ln. 18-20] each user is notified of other users' activities (e.g., viewing a collective shopping bin or browsing web pages in an on-line marketplace)}, which configures the electronic device to:
detect a trigger indicative of an intended purchase of a first item {Anerella: [Col. 2, ln. 54-55] store 108 is an online marketplace including items for purchase; [Col. 7, ln. 64-65] receives item input when a user selects the selectable indicator associated with an item (i.e., trigger)};
in response to detecting the trigger, identifies a first item {Anerella: [Col. 11, ln. 9-10] detailed view of the particular item may be accessed by selecting that item};
determines if the first item corresponds to a purchase transaction that is to be maintained as a private purchase transaction {Anerella: [Col. 7, ln. 19-21] guest may identify one or more items in their cart as private (e.g., when adding to the cart)}; and
in response to determining that the item is a private purchase transaction, withholds transmission of a notification of the intended purchase of the first item to a collaborative shopping database {Anerella: [Col. 7, ln. 19-21] guest may identify one or more items in their cart as private (e.g., when adding to the cart) and those items are omitted from the shopping bin; [Col. 2, ln. 18-20] each user is notified of other users' activities; [Col. 3, ln. 27-30] one or more database(s) may be storage devices that store data (e.g., in a dataset) related to the user groups of the shopping system 100}.
Although disclosing a marketplace for group shopping, Anerella does not disclose:
identifying a first merchandise category and type associated with the first item;
determines if the first merchandise category and type corresponds to a purchase transaction that is to be maintained as a private purchase transaction; and
in response to determining that the first merchandise category and type is a private purchase transaction, withholds transmission.
Anerella does disclose that the items can be associated with certain collections intended to be the focus of the collective shopping party (Anerella: [Col. 5, ln. 55-58]).
However, Li teaches:
identifying a first merchandise category and type associated with the first item {Li: [0053] identification indicia may be particular attribute or detail of the item, and/or a generic category that is applicable to the item.};
determines if the first merchandise category and type corresponds to a purchase transaction that is to be maintained as a private purchase transaction {Li: [0053] determine whether sensitive personal information about the gift recipient is indicated by publishing one or more identification indicia of the item. The identification indicia may be particular attribute or detail of the item, and/or a generic category that is applicable to the item.}; and
in response to determining that the first merchandise category and type is a private purchase transaction, withholds information {Li: [0054] in response to determining that sensitive personal information about the gift recipient is indicated by the item identification indicia, aspects generate a publication to the gift registry for the added item that (i) selectively identifies the item while omitting the item identity attribute found indicative of the sensitive personal information; and/or (ii) publishes the generic category applicable to the item, while omitting any specific identification of the item that would distinguish it from different, other items that also fall within the generic category.}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the merchandise category and type as taught by Li in the purchasing device of Anerella in order to protect individual privacy (Li: [0052]).
Claim 2:
Anerella and Li teach the device of claim 1, including the merchandise category and type. Anerella further discloses:
in response to determining that the first item is not a private purchase transaction {Anerella: [Col. 7, ln. 19-21] guest may identify one or more items in their cart as private (e.g., when adding to the cart) and those items are omitted from the shopping bin (i.e., those not omitted are not identified as private)}:
determines whether the first item matches one or more items to be purchased as a collaborative purchase {Anerella: [Col. 4, ln. 48-52] cart module retrieve select information from the individual shopping carts for including in the shopping bin, e.g., item image and description; [Col. 6, ln. 55-58] One or more collections (e.g., women and beauty and wellness) may be selected by the host from a plurality of collections to focus the attention of the party and guests.}; and
transmits a notification of the intended purchase of the first item to the collaborative shopping database in response to the first item matching at least one item to be purchased as a collaborative purchase {Anerella: [Col. 2, ln. 18-20] each user is notified of other users' activities; [Col. 1, ln. 59-60] Figs. 6B and 6C are example GUIs depicting items in another users shopping cart; [Col. 3, ln. 27-30] one or more database(s) may be storage devices that store data (e.g., in a dataset) related to the user groups of the shopping system 100; [Col. 7, ln. 66-67; Col. 8, ln. 1-9] backend system 102 updates the shopping carts and shopping bin responsive to received sections and input. The backend system 102 continuously updates the carts/bin based on user selections and input and provides the updated carts/bin to the host and guests.}.
Claim 7:
Anerella and Li teach the device of claim 1. Anerella does not disclose:
wherein the at least one merchandise category and type for which associated purchases have been designated as private purchases includes at least one of:
a gift item;
a gift card;
personal hygiene products;
medicines; and
medical supplies.
Anerella does disclose that items can be placed in collections (Anerella: [Col. 6, ln. 55-58]).
However, Li teaches:
wherein the at least one merchandise category and type for which associated purchases have been designated as private purchases includes at least one of:
a gift item {Li: [0054] At 104, in response to determining that sensitive personal information about the gift recipient is indicated by the item identification indicia, aspects generate a publication to the gift registry for the added item that publishes the generic category applicable to the item, while omitting any specific identification of the item};
a gift card;
personal hygiene products {Li: [0061] identification of the requested item itself may be considered sensitive information for items that are categorized within certain sensitive item categories. For example, hair treatments and trimming instruments and dyes, and other personal care items may be considered by a gift recipient to convey personal and sensitive information with regard to their personal needs or desires.};
medicines {Li: [0061] identification of the requested item itself may be considered sensitive information for items that are categorized within certain sensitive item categories. For example, ointments may be considered by a gift recipient to convey personal and sensitive information with regard to their personal needs or desires.}; and
medical supplies {Li: [0061] identification of the requested item itself may be considered sensitive information for items that are categorized within certain sensitive item categories. For example, dietary consultations, hair treatments and trimming instruments and dyes, bandages, moisture absorbing pads may be considered by a gift recipient to convey personal and sensitive information with regard to their personal needs or desires.}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the merchandise category and type as taught by Li in the purchasing device of Anerella in order to protect individual privacy (Li: [0052]).
Regarding claims 8-9 and 14-16, claims 8-9 and 14 are directed to a method, while claims 15-16 are directed to a computer program product. Claims 8-9, 14; and 15-16 recite limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claims 1-2, 7; and 1-2, respectively, which are directed towards an electronic device. Therefore, claims 8-9, 14; and 15-16 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claims 1-2, 7; and 1-2, respectively.
It is noted that claim 8 includes additional elements of:
A method.
Anerella discloses:
A method {Anerella: [Col. 1, ln. 8-10] methods for enabling remotely located users to shop together in an on-line marketplace}.
It is noted that claim 15 includes additional elements of:
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.
Anerella discloses:
A computer program product comprising {Anerella: [Col. 13, ln. 58-62] instructions 908 may also reside, completely or partially, within the main memory 912, within the static memory 914, within machine-readable medium 918 (e.g., a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium) within the storage unit 916}:
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 {Anerella: fig 1, electronic device 104a has display 120, TX/RX 128 (i.e., communication system), and memory 126; [Col. 14, ln. 54-61] memories (e.g., memory 904, main memory 912, static memory 914, memory of the processors 902), storage unit 916 may store one or more sets of instructions and data structures (e.g., software) embodying or used by any one or more of the methodologies or functions described herein. These instructions (e.g., the instructions 908), when executed by processors 902, cause various operations to implement the disclosed examples; [Col. 13, ln. 66-67] machine-readable medium 918 is non-transitory}.
Claims 3-6, 10-13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anerella et. al. (US 11151643 B1, herein referred to as Anerella) in view of Li et. al. (US 20180121984 A1, herein referred to as Li), in further view of Deluca et. al. (US 20180089738 A1, herein referred to as Deluca).
Claim 3:
Anerella and Li teach the device of claim 1. Anerella further discloses:
retrieves private purchase data from the memory, the private purchase data comprising purchases have been designated as private purchases that are not to be shared to the collaborative shopping database {Anerella: fig 1, electronic device 104a has memory 126; [Col. 3, ln. 30-33] one or more database(s) may further store information related to electronic devices 104; [Col. 1, ln. 61-62] Fig. 7 is an example GUI depicting a shopping cart of the user at checkout; [Col. 7, ln. 19-21] guest may identify one or more items in their cart as private (e.g., when adding to the cart) and those items are omitted from the shopping bin}; and
tags a purchase transaction involving the first item as a confidential purchase transaction that is not to be shared with others within a collaborative shopping group {Anerella: [Col. 7, ln. 19-21] guest may identify one or more items in their cart as private (e.g., when adding to the cart) and those items are omitted from the shopping bin}.
Although disclosing that private purchases can be retrieved from memory and tagged as private so they are not shared, Anerella does not disclose:
private purchase data comprising at least one merchandise category and type for which associated purchases have been designated as private purchases that are not to be shared;
compares identifying data of the first item with the private purchase data; and
in response, tags a purchase transaction involving the first item as confidential.
However, Li teaches:
private purchase data comprising at least one merchandise category and type for which associated purchases have been designated as private purchases that are not to be shared {Li: [0054] aspects generate a publication to the gift registry for the added item that publishes the generic category applicable to the item, while omitting any specific identification of the item that would distinguish it from different, other items that also fall within the generic category; [0053] identification indicia may be particular attribute or detail of the item, and/or a generic category that is applicable to the item};
compares identifying data of the first item with the private purchase data {Li: [0053] determine whether sensitive personal information about the gift recipient is indicated by publishing one or more identification indicia of the item. The identification indicia may be particular attribute or detail of the item, and/or a generic category that is applicable to the item; [0058] ecommerce system saves (stores) values of the item identification indicia when the item is published to the gift registry, and uses the stored values to resolve the missing data that is not passed by the browser to execute the purchase at 108.}; and
in response, tags a purchase transaction involving the first item as confidential {Li: [0054] At 104, in response to determining that sensitive personal information about the gift recipient is indicated by the item identification indicia, aspects generate a publication to the gift registry for the added item that (i) selectively identifies the item while omitting the item identity attribute found indicative of the sensitive personal information; and/or (ii) publishes the generic category applicable to the item, while omitting any specific identification of the item that would distinguish it from different, other items that also fall within the generic category.}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the merchandise category and type as taught by Li in the purchasing device of Anerella in order to protect individual privacy (Li: [0052]).
Although teaching that the item data is compared to private purchase data, Anerella and Li do not teach:
in response to the identifying data of the first item being substantially similar to the private purchase data, tags a purchase transaction involving the first item as a confidential purchase transaction that is not to be shared with others within a collaborative shopping group.
Anerella does disclose that private purchase data exists separately from the collaborative shopping group data (Anerella: [Col. 7, ln. 19-21]), and Li teaches that purchase transactions are identified based on category and type (Li: [0054).
However, Deluca teaches:
in response to the identifying data of the first item being substantially similar to the purchase data, tags a purchase {Deluca: [0055] if the product in the cart is present in the historical list and the product associated data extracted does not match the data present in the historical list (step 308), a cognitive search of external resources may be searched to find if the new product is related to an existing order to determine whether the previously purchased product may be equivalent (i.e., substantially similar) to the current product in the cart, for example using IBM Watson; [0056] If the product in the cart is equivalent to the previously purchased product, the historical list is updated to include the equivalent product.}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included tagging in response to a match as taught by Deluca in the private purchasing system of Anerella and Li to enhance online purchases based on a user's previous purchases (Deluca: [0002]).
Claim 4:
Anerella, Li, and Deluca teach the device of claim 3. Anerella further discloses:
wherein to detect the trigger, the at least one processor:
detects at least one of (i) addition of the first item to a shopping cart or (ii) initiation of at least one shopping application having a first merchandise category and type in common with the at least one merchandise category and type of the private purchase data {Anerella: [Col. 7, ln. 55-57] receives item selections from a user. The system 102 places the selected items in a shopping cart of a user.}.
Claim 5:
Anerella, Li, and Deluca teach the device of claim 3, including that the merchandise can have associated category and type. Anerella further discloses:
wherein the at least one processor {Anerella: fig 1, electronic device 104a has processor 124}:
presents a first graphical user interface (GUI) on the display, the first GUI including a first user-selectable option to select at least one merchandise for inclusion with the private purchase data {Anerella: [Col. 1, ln. 54-56] figs 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, and 5E of example graphical user interfaces (GUIs) presented on a display of a client-side electronic device; [Col. 10, ln. 21-25] navigation icons including a flip/shopping icon (for navigating to an initial shopping screen); [Col. 11, ln. 12-14] present the use with an option to add the items to their own bag, e.g., by selecting an add to bag icon 612 with a finger tap; [Col. 7, ln. 19-21] guest may identify one or more items in their cart as private};
in response to detecting selection of the first user-selectable option, initiates processes to select the at least one merchandise for inclusion with the private purchase data {Anerella: [Col. 7, ln. 19-21] guest may identify one or more items in their cart as private (e.g., when adding to the cart) and those items are omitted from the shopping bin}.
Although disclosing, Anerella does not disclose:
accessing the private purchase data with the at least one merchandise category and type during a subsequent purchase transaction to determine whether an item being purchased via the subsequent purchase transaction is a private purchase.
However, Li teaches:
accessing the private purchase data with the at least one merchandise category and type during a subsequent purchase transaction to determine whether an item being purchased via the subsequent purchase transaction is a private purchase {Li: [0053] determine whether sensitive personal information (i.e., private purchase data) about the gift recipient is indicated by publishing one or more identification indicia of the item. The identification indicia may be particular attribute or detail of the item, and/or a generic category that is applicable to the item; [0055] in response to a purchase of the added item as a gift for the gift recipient by a viewer of the generated gift registry publication, the viewer is given item purchase information that confirms the purchase transaction and indicates that an item of the generic category of the added item has been purchased while omitting identification of the item}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included using the data of merchandise category and type to determine whether an item in a purchase is associated with sensitive information as taught by Li in the purchasing device of Anerella, Li, and Deluca in order to protect individual privacy (Li: [0052]).
Claim 6:
Anerella and Li teach the device of claim 1. Anerella does not disclose:
wherein the at least one processor {Anerella: fig 1, electronic device 104a has processor 124}:
presents a second graphical user interface (GUI) on the display, the second GUI including the purchase transaction involving the first item has been tagged as a confidential purchase transaction {Anerella: fig 7; [Col. 7, ln. 19-21] guest may identify one or more items in their cart as private (e.g., when adding to the cart) and those items are omitted from the shopping bin.}.
Although disclosing that the item can be tagged as private, Anerella does not disclose:
the second GUI including a private purchase alert that the purchase transaction involving the first item has been tagged as a confidential purchase transaction.
Anerella does disclose that items can be tagged as private and omitted from sharing in a collaborative shopping environment (Anerella: [Col. 7, ln. 19-21]).
However, Deluca teaches:
the GUI including a purchase alert that the purchase transaction involving the first item has been tagged {Deluca: [0045] notification may highlight any information on the order that does not match the personal information of the user or past purchases and may require a confirmation from the user or may provide the user an opportunity to provide additional information to aid the technology platform is determining what product would be appropriate for the user. For example, the notification may be “We noticed that you purchased engine oil 20W50, which does not match the recommended engine oil of your vehicle. If this purchase is correct, please confirm through the following link.” The link displayed within the notification can provide a confirmation that this product is correct}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included tagging in response to a match as taught by Deluca in the private purchasing system of Anerella and Li to enhance online purchases based on a user's previous purchases (Deluca: [0002]).
Regarding claims 10-13 and 17-20, claims 10-13 are directed to a method, while claims 17-20 are directed to a computer program product. Claims 10-13; and 17-20 recite limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claims 3-6, which are directed towards an electronic device. Therefore, claims 10-13; and 17-20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claims 3-6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rodaitis et. al. (US 10445815 B1) was used to understand other methods for making private purchases.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A BARLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-5820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm 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.
/KATHERINE A BARLOW/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/MARISSA THEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689