DETAILED ACTION
This rejection is in response to Amendments filed 12/22/2025.
Claims 1-22, 27, 34, 41 are cancelled.
Claims 23-26, 28-33, 35-40, and 42 are currently pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged as a continuation of Application No. 17/142,851 filed on January 6, 2021, which is a continuation of Application No. 16/127,341 filed on September 11, 2018, which is a continuation of Application No. 13/783,503, filed March 4, 2013.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 12/22/2025, with respect to Non-Statutory Double Patenting to claims 23-42 and 35 U.S.C. 112 (second paragraph) rejection to claims 38-42 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Non-Statutory Double Patenting rejection to claims 23-42 in light of the terminal disclaimer and 35 U.S.C. 112 (second paragraph) rejection to claims 38-42 in light of claim amendments has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s argument on pages 9-11 of remarks filed 12/22/2025 that the claims are not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity because the claims recite verification of the digital unwrapping trigger and display of information about the product and delivery to a recipient, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
One of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas is defined as certain methods of organizing human activity that includes 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). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
The claimed invention is directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity such as sales activities and commercial interactions because the claims recite steps of the cycle of an order to fulfillment such as ordering a product, providing and receiving notifications, accessing criteria to verify a trigger has been met, indicate the product identity information, and causing physical delivery in response to trigger being met.
With respect to applicant’s argument on pages 11-13 of remarks filed 12/22/2025 that the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claims improve physical delivery of a product to a recipient, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. See MPEP § 2106.05(a).
To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(a) and 2106.05(f).
Improving physical delivery of a product to a recipient may improve a commercial problem with order fulfillment, however, this alleged improvement does not improve upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. The specification does not provide a technical explanation regarding an improvement to technology. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the computer is merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
With respect to applicant’s argument on page 13 of remarks filed 12/22/2025 that the combination of the additional elements are unconventional because the claim recites an inventive concept of causing physical delivery of a product to recipient upon the digital unwrapping trigger criteria being met, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Although the conclusion of whether a claim is eligible at Step 2B requires that all relevant considerations be evaluated, most of these considerations were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two. Thus, in Step 2B, examiners should: Carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two; Carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h). See MPEP § 2106.05 (II).
The additional elements (e.g. processor, network, and graphical user interfaces) individually and in combination do not contribute an inventive concept because the computer is merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The claims are not being evaluated as well-understood, routine, or conventional. The claims improve a commercial problem (e.g. physical deliveries) rather than a problem rooted in technology.
With respect to applicants argument on page 14 of remarks filed 12/22/2025 that Isaacson does not teach “provide a digital notification to the digital recipient address, the digital notification comprising a hyperlink that is configured to cause display, upon selection of the hyperlink, of a first graphical user interface to a recipient display by modifying web content associated with the digital notification, wherein the first graphical user interface is indicative that at least one digital unwrapping trigger has not been met, the first graphical user interface comprising no information indicative of a product identity” because this reference does not teach that the digital notification comprises a hyperlink to cause display of a graphical user interface that does not comprise information indicative of a product identity, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive because applicant attacks Isaacson individually for a claim limitation that was taught by a combination of references.
With respect to applicants argument on page 14-15 of remarks filed 12/22/2025 that Polt does not teach “provide a digital notification to the digital recipient address, the digital notification comprising a hyperlink that is configured to cause display, upon selection of the hyperlink, of a first graphical user interface to a recipient display by modifying web content associated with the digital notification, wherein the first graphical user interface is indicative that at least one digital unwrapping trigger has not been met, the first graphical user interface comprising no information indicative of a product identity” because this reference does not teach that the hyperlink to causes display of a graphical user interface indicative of the digital unwrapping trigger not being met, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive because applicant attacks Polt individually for a claim limitation that was taught by a combination of references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 23-26, 28-33, 35-40, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claims 23, 30, and 37 recite: …to cause display, upon selection, of a first graphical user interface…; cause rendering of the first graphical user interface to a recipient display; …cause display of a second graphical user interface to the recipient display, rendering said claims indefinite because it is unclear what is being performed. It is clear that the display of the user interface is not required by a potential infringer, but merely the causing of the display. But what does that entail? When is the display “caused”? How is it “caused”? What is the scope? Examiner recommends amending the word “cause” to positively recite the function that is actively happening (e.g. sending, communicating, or transmitting). Appropriate correction of clarification is required.
Independent claims 23, 30, and 37 recite: … a hyperlink that is configured to cause display, upon selection of the hyperlink, of a first graphical user interface to a recipient display by modifying web content…;… receiving an indication of selection of the hyperlink by modifying web content associated with the digital notification; …cause display of a second graphical user interface to the recipient display by modifying web content…, rendering said claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the first recitation of web content is the same or different from the subsequent recitations of web content. Appropriate correction of clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 23-26, 28-33, 35-40, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. See MPEP § 2106. In the instant case, claims 23-26, and 28-29 are directed to an apparatus, 30-33 and 35-36 are directed to a method, and claims 37-40 and 42 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium which falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention(process/apparatus). Accordingly, the claims will be further analyzed under revised step 2:
Under step 2A (prong 1) of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it must be considered whether the claims recite a judicial exception if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. One of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas is defined as certain methods of organizing human activity that includes 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). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Regarding representative independent claim 23, recites the abstract idea of:
receive, …, an order for a product, the order comprising a digital recipient address, at least one digital unwrapping trigger associated with particular criteria that will satisfy the at least one digital unwrapping trigger, and a digital trigger source address;
provide a digital notification to the digital recipient address,…;
receive a digital unwrapping trigger notification;
in response to receiving the digital unwrapping trigger notification, accessing the particular criteria at the digital trigger source address to verify if the at least one digital unwrapping trigger has been met;
in a circumstance that the accessed particular criteria indicates that the at least one digital unwrapping trigger has been met, … comprising information indicative of the product identity;
and in response to determining that the accessed particular criteria indicates that the at least one digital unwrapping trigger has been met, cause physical delivery of the product to a recipient associated with the digital recipient address via an order fulfillment system.
The above-recited limitations amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity associated with sales activities and commercial interactions because the claims recite ordering a product, providing and receiving notifications, accessing criteria to verify a trigger has been met, indicate the product identity information, and causing physical delivery in response to trigger being met. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts. See MPEP § 2106.
The Step 2A (prong 2) of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP § 2106.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements such as:
An apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to at least: (Claim 23);
…, via a network, …, the digital notification comprising a hyperlink that is configured to cause display, upon selection of the hyperlink, of a first graphical user interface to a recipient display by modifying web content associated with the digital notification, wherein the first graphical user interface is indicative that at least one digital unwrapping trigger has not been met, the first graphical user interface comprising no information indicative of a product identity; cause rendering of the first graphical user interface to the recipient display in response to receiving an indication of selection of the hyperlink by modifying web content associated with the digital notification; and…, cause display of a second graphical user interface to the recipient display by modifying web content associated with the digital notification, the second graphical user interface … (Claims 23, 30, and 37);
wherein the first graphical user interface comprises a wrapped package depiction and the second graphical user interface comprises and unwrapped package depiction, and wherein transitioning from the first graphical user interface to the second graphical user interface illustrate virtual unwrapping of the product (Claims 24, 31, and 38);
wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: (Claims 25-26 & 28);
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium, the non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: (Claim 37);
wherein the non- transitory computer readable storage medium further comprises instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to (Claims 39-40).
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Independent claims and dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, independent claims and dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. See MPEP § 2106.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
An apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to at least: (Claim 23);
…, via a network, …, the digital notification comprising a hyperlink that is configured to cause display, upon selection of the hyperlink, of a first graphical user interface to a recipient display by modifying web content associated with the digital notification, wherein the first graphical user interface is indicative that at least one digital unwrapping trigger has not been met, the first graphical user interface comprising no information indicative of a product identity; cause rendering of the first graphical user interface to the recipient display in response to receiving an indication of selection of the hyperlink by modifying web content associated with the digital notification; and…, cause display of a second graphical user interface to the recipient display by modifying web content associated with the digital notification, the second graphical user interface … (Claims 23, 30, and 37);
wherein the first graphical user interface comprises a wrapped package depiction and the second graphical user interface comprises and unwrapped package depiction, and wherein transitioning from the first graphical user interface to the second graphical user interface illustrate virtual unwrapping of the product (Claims 24, 31, and 38);
wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: (Claims 25-26 & 28);
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium, the non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: (Claim 37);
wherein the non- transitory computer readable storage medium further comprises instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to (Claims 39-40).
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the independent claims and dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because the recitations above do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. In addition, they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 23, 25-30, 32-37, and 39-42 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Isaacson et al. (US Pub. No. 20130166445 A1, hereinafter “Isaacson”) in view of Polt (US Pub. No. 20130030945 A1, hereinafter “Polt”).
Regarding claims 23, 30, and 37
Isaacson discloses an apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to at least (Isaacson, FIG. 1, [0084]: processor, memory; [0085]: computer):
receive, via a network, an order for a product, the order comprising a digital recipient address, at least one digital unwrapping trigger associated with particular criteria that will satisfy the at least one digital unwrapping trigger, and a digital trigger source address (Isaacson, [0019]: receive information from giver to order gift card for recipient including a policy associated with the gift card which is triggered when the condition is met and submit order for gift card; [0030]: The gift card policy can unlock or otherwise provide access to the gift card funds; [0133]: network with giver interface to receive information to identify the recipient, the amount associated with the virtual gift card, and so forth; [0137] The packet structure can allow for the information about the giver 476 and the information about the recipient 478 to identify more than one individual( e.g. an email address, name, account number, or other unique identifier); [0139]: receives this packet at a control engine 404. This can represent a computing device, acquiring bank, debit card bank, issuing bank, and/or server within the network 416 that can manage the policy of distribution, use, and/or notifications associated with the virtual gift card);
provide a digital notification to the digital recipient address, the digital notification … wherein the first graphical user interface is indicative that at least one digital unwrapping trigger has not been met, the first graphical user interface comprising no information indicative of a product identity (Isaacson, [0012]: transmitting a first notification of the gift to the recipient and/or to a recipient device in which a parameter associated with the policy is not included in the notification; [0099]: the notification to the recipient can include an email with a button link and based on selection, policy is established; [0129]: recipients can interact with presented notification);
receive a digital unwrapping trigger notification; in response to receiving the digital unwrapping trigger notification, accessing the particular criteria at the digital trigger source address to verify if the at least one digital unwrapping trigger has been met (Isaacson, [0276]: transmitting a second notification to the recipient identifying the parameter that was previously not included or hidden in the notification and that is monitored and determined to yield a match; [0277]: if the notification tells the user that the parameter matches, then the system needs to monitor purchases using the recipient payment account so that when the user then makes a purchase, then the gift is applied to that purchase);
in a circumstance that the accessed particular criteria indicates that the at least one digital unwrapping trigger has been met, cause display of a second graphical user interface to the recipient display by modifying web content associated with the digital notification, the second graphical user interface comprising information indicative of the product identity (Isaacson, [0013]: Next, the method includes monitoring, according to the policy, data that is associated with a recipient and the hidden parameter at a second time, which is later than the first time, to yield a match. When there is a match with the hidden parameter of the policy, the method would then include transmitting a second notification to the recipient identifying the parameter; [0146]: determine if purchase matches terms to purchase product; [0191]: virtual gift card may be limited to a particular product; FIG. 32. [0276]: the user would receive on their mobile device a notification that identifies the parameter that was previously not included or hidden in the notification);
in response to determining that the accessed particular criteria indicates that the at least one digital unwrapping trigger has been met, cause …delivery of the product to a recipient associated with the digital recipient address via an order fulfillment system (Isaacson, [0013]: Next, the method includes monitoring, according to the policy, data that is associated with a recipient and the hidden parameter at a second time, which is later than the first time, to yield a match. When there is a match with the hidden parameter of the policy, the method would then include transmitting a second notification to the recipient; [0146]: determine if purchase matches terms to purchase product; [0019]: A policy associated with the gift card exists which is triggered when the condition is met; [0127]: receive a condition from the giver, and apply the amount of money to the purchase if the purchase satisfies the condition or according to a policy; [0231]: send a notification to the recipient of the transactions that satisfied the policies)
Isaacson does not teach:
… notification comprising a hyperlink that is configured to cause display, upon selection of the hyperlink, of a first graphical user interface to a recipient display by modifying web content associated with the digital notification,…; cause rendering of the first graphical user interface to the recipient display in response to receiving an indication of selection of the hyperlink by modifying web content associated with the digital notification;
…, cause physical delivery …via an order fulfillment system.
However, Polt teaches:
… notification comprising a hyperlink that is configured to cause display, upon selection of the hyperlink, of a first graphical user interface to a recipient display by modifying web content associated with the digital notification,…; cause rendering of the first graphical user interface to the recipient display in response to receiving an indication of selection of the hyperlink by modifying web content associated with the digital notification (Polt, [0086]: a hyperlink containing the web address were the gift is to be redeemed can be included with the email message; [0100]: select hyperlink from email message to redirect user’s browser to redeeming site; [0101]: upon navigating to redeeming site, a redeeming web page is presented; FIG. 11, [0103]: user interface to redeem gifts with hyperlinks that open new windows to other webpages);
…, cause physical delivery …via an order fulfillment system (Polt, [0024]: enter delivery information for physical gifts including shipping information; FIG.3, [0123]: fulfill order; [0124]: confirm items ready to be shipped).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the digital notification and delivery of Isaacson with a notification comprising a hyperlink that is configured to cause display, upon selection, of a first graphical user interface and physical delivery via an order fulfillment system as taught by Polt because the results of such a modification would be predictable. Specifically, Isaacson would continue to teach the digital notification and delivery except that now a notification comprises a hyperlink causing display upon selection is taught according to the teachings of Polt in order to easily redeem and physically deliver gifts. This is a predictable result of the combination. (Polt, [0086] and [0024]).
Regarding claims 25, 32, and 39
The combination of Isaacson and Polt teaches the apparatus according to Claim 23, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: provide the digital unwrapping trigger notification to the digital recipient address in response to determining that the accessed particular criteria indicates that the at least one digital unwrapping trigger has been met (Isaacson, [0276]: transmitting a second notification to the recipient identifying the parameter that was previously not included or hidden in the notification and that is monitored and determined to yield a match; [0277]: if the notification tells the user that the parameter matches, then the system needs to monitor purchases using the recipient payment account so that when the user then makes a purchase, then the gift is applied to that purchase).
Regarding claims 26, 33 and 40
The combination of Isaacson and Polt teaches the apparatus according to Claim 23, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: provide the digital unwrapping trigger notification to the digital recipient address prior to satisfaction of the at least one digital unwrapping trigger (Isaacson, [0012]: transmitting a first notification of the gift to the recipient and/or to a recipient device in which a parameter associated with the policy is not included in the notification; [0099]: the notification to the recipient can include an email with a button link and based on selection, policy is established; [0129]: recipients can interact with presented notification; [0276]: when the user makes the purchase or is in the right geographical location or is in the right store, and so forth, then the user would receive on their mobile device a notification that identifies the parameter that was previously not included or hidden in the notification).
Regarding claims 28 and 35
The combination of Isaacson and Polt teaches the apparatus according to Claim 23, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: coordinate the physical delivery of the product such that the physical delivery occurs after delivery of the digital unwrapping trigger notification (Polt, FIG. 3, [0100]: redeem gift from gift certificate email; [0101]: validate gift redemption; [0024]: enter delivery information for physical gifts including shipping information; FIG.3, [0123]: fulfill order; [0124]: confirm items ready to be shipped).
The motivation to combine Isaacson and Polt is the same as set forth above in claim 27.
Regarding claims 29, 36, and 42
The combination of Isaacson and Polt teaches the apparatus according to Claim 23, wherein the information indicative of the product identity comprises a product name, a product model number, or an image of the product (Isaacson, [0108]: information regarding product such as product name; [0147]: product page with product information).
Claims 24, 31, and 38 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Isaacson and Polt as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brechner et al. (US Pub. No. 20130232221 A1, hereinafter “Brechner”).
Regarding claims 24, 31, and 38
The combination of Isaacson and Polt teaches the apparatus according to Claim 23,
Isaacson and Polt do not teach:
wherein the first graphical user interface comprises a wrapped package depiction and the second graphical user interface comprises and unwrapped package depiction, and wherein transitioning from the first graphical user interface to the second graphical user interface illustrate virtual unwrapping of the product.
However, Brechner teaches:
wherein the first graphical user interface comprises a wrapped package depiction and the second graphical user interface comprises and unwrapped package depiction, and wherein transitioning from the first graphical user interface to the second graphical user interface illustrate virtual unwrapping of the product (Brechner, [0077]: wherein the gift-wrapped item is displayed, clicked on the unwrap, and revealed in association with a brief animation; [0038]: interfaces include pop-ups or links to third-party websites; [0068]: extracting them at such time as an icon representing the gift is selected by the consumer from a display. An animated removal of the gift-wrapping may for example be performed, after which time the contained digital image may be revealed or otherwise provided; [0072]: animation could play to indicate that a gift is being opened for the first time to enhance the overall impression of opening a physical gift).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the graphical user interface of Isaacson and Polt with a wrapped and unwrapped package depiction on graphical user interfaces as taught by Brechner because the results of such a modification would be predictable. Specifically, Isaacson and Polt would continue to teach the graphical user interface except that now a wrapped and unwrapped package depiction on graphical user interfaces is taught according to the teachings of Brechner in order to display unwrapping a gift. This is a predictable result of the combination. (Brechner, [0072]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Mashinsky (US Pub. No. 20130290172 A1) related to buying and giving gifts via a computer, Bohanan et al. (US Pub. No. 20130018778 A1) related to providing virtual gift credit that automatically attaches to a gift recipient's payment account, and non-patent literature, Method and System for Automatically Sending Gifts based on User Defined Policies, related to automatically sending gifts based on user defined policies for an occasion, relationship with a recipient, price, etc.
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 LATASHA DEVI RAMPHAL whose telephone number is (571)272-2644. The examiner can normally be reached 11 AM - 7:30 PM (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, Jeffrey A. Smith can be reached at 5712726763. 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.
/LATASHA D RAMPHAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3688 /Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights