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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
1. Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-17 are directed to facilitating pre-orders, which is considered a commercial interaction. Commercial interactions fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claim 1-15 recite a method and at least one step. Claim 16 recites a system with a processor and a memory. Claim 17 recites a computer storage medium explicitly defined by the specification as non-transitory. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, apparatus, manufacture).
Under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding independent claim 16, the claim sets forth a process in which pre-orders for products are facilitated, including through the facilitation of consumer-to-business interaction, in the following limitations:
receive, from a seller, a request to list a product for pre-order in an marketplace managed by a retailer;
create, by the retailer, a pre-order listing for the product in the marketplace in response to receiving the request from the seller;
receive, via the pre-order listing, a bid from a first registered buyer and a bid from a second registered buyer; and
send, to the seller, a prioritized list of bids for the pre-order listing, wherein the bid from the second registered buyer offers a higher bidding price than the bid from the first registered buyer, and wherein the bid from the first registered buyer is prioritized over the bid from the second registered buyer at least partially based on a user score assigned to the first registered buyer being higher than a user score assigned to the second registered buyer.
The above-recited limitations establish a commercial interaction with a consumer to prioritize received pre-order bids in order to facilitate a transaction for a pre-order listing. This arrangement amounts to both a sales activity or behavior; and business relations. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claim 16 does recite additional elements:
a processor; and
a memory comprising computer program code, the memory and the computer program code configured to cause the processor to
online
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment. The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs [0030]-[0033] make clear that while exemplary general purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). As indicated above, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea
Further, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Independent Claims 1 and 17 are parallel in scope to claim 16 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Regarding Claims 2-15
Claims 2-15 set forth further recitations that merely embellish the abstract idea of facilitating pre-orders, including facilitating interaction between consumers and businesses. The claims set forth no further additional limitations beyond those set forth in claims 1 and 16. As such, they not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
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.
2. Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 14, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asher et al. (US 20040193529 A1, hereinafter Asher) in view of O’Connor et al. (US 20220383426 A1).
Regarding Claim 1
Asher discloses a method for facilitating pre-orders, the method comprising:
receiving, from a seller, a request to list a product for pre-order in an online marketplace managed by a retailer (Asher: see at least ¶33-35: seller requests to sell a product on platform)
creating, by the retailer, a pre-order listing for the product in the online marketplace in response to receiving the request from the seller (Asher: see at least ¶33-35: auction listing for product created on online platform)
receiving, via the pre-order listing, a bid from a first registered buyer and a bid from a second registered buyer; (Asher: see at least ¶42, 53-56: auction participants enter advanced bids to purchase item via auction listing; participants must be registered.
wherein the bid from the first registered buyer is prioritized over the bid from the second registered buyer at least partially based on a user score assigned to the first registered buyer being higher than a user score assigned to the second registered buyer (Asher: see at least ¶56: “the bid entered by the more established bidder--i.e., the user who has placed more bids, placed bids on more items, participated in more auctions, etc.--may be given higher priority”)
Asher does not explicitly disclose:
sending, to the seller, a prioritized list of bids for the pre-order listing, wherein the bid from the second registered buyer offers a higher bidding price than the bid from the first registered buyer
O’Connor teaches that it is known to include providing a prioritization of bids to a seller, such that bids can be prioritized based on factors where a lower value bid can be prioritized over a higher value bid (O’Connor: see at least ¶86, 100, 115: received bids can be prioritized based on credibility of users, etc.) in a similar environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Asher with the prioritization scheme, as taught by O’Connor, since such a modification would have alleviated the need for users interested in selling via social media platforms to perform any action that they usually wouldn't perform prior to posting content to social media platforms. (O’Connor: see at least ¶22)
Regarding Claim 3
Asher does not explicitly disclose, but O’Connor teaches, in a similar environment:
wherein the user score assigned to the first registered buyer is at least partially based on a purchase history of the first registered buyer (O’Connor: see at least ¶86, 100, 115)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Asher with the prioritization scheme, as taught by O’Connor, since such a modification would have alleviated the need for users interested in selling via social media platforms to perform any action that they usually wouldn't perform prior to posting content to social media platforms. (O’Connor: see at least ¶22)
Regarding Claim 7
Asher does not explicitly disclose, but O’Connor teaches, in a similar environment:
wherein the user score assigned to the first registered buyer is at least partially based on a number of times the first registered buyer has confirmed a successful bid following seller finalization of a previous pre-order listing on the online marketplace (O’Connor: see at least ¶86, 100, 115: times a user has failed to complete transaction)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Asher with the prioritization scheme, as taught by O’Connor, since such a modification would have alleviated the need for users interested in selling via social media platforms to perform any action that they usually wouldn't perform prior to posting content to social media platforms. (O’Connor: see at least ¶22)
Regarding Claim 8
Asher does not explicitly disclose, but O’Connor teaches, in a similar environment:
wherein the user score assigned to the second registered buyer is at least partially on a number of times the second registered buyer has withdrawn a successful bid following seller finalization of a previous pre-order listing on the online marketplace (O’Connor: see at least ¶86, 100, 115: times a user has failed to complete transaction)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Asher with the prioritization scheme, as taught by O’Connor, since such a modification would have alleviated the need for users interested in selling via social media platforms to perform any action that they usually wouldn't perform prior to posting content to social media platforms. (O’Connor: see at least ¶22)
Regarding Claim 14
Asher further discloses:
wherein the pre-order listing indicates how many items of the product are available for pre-order from the seller (Asher: see at least claim 6)
3. Claims 2, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asher in view of O’Connor, as applied above, and further in view of Wang (US 20230368283 A1).
Regarding Claim 2
Asher in view of O’Connor does not explicitly disclose, but Wang teaches in a similar environment:
wherein a bidding price of the bid from the first registered buyer is hidden from the second registered buyer (Wang: see at least abstract: sealed bid auction)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Asher in view of O’Connor, with the features of Wang, since such a modification would have provided improved systems and methods for preventing a variety of indecent or illegal bidding activities in such auctions, and balancing the needs of sellers, buyers, and service providers using various winning bid amount recalculation methods and price-protection fees associated therewith. (Wang: see at least ¶3)
Regarding Claim 11
Asher in view of O’Connor does not explicitly disclose, but Wang teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the pre-order listing sets a maximum number of bids that can be submitted by the same registered buyer. (Wang: see at least ¶270-271: maximum number of bid re-submissions)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Asher in view of O’Connor, with the features of Wang, since such a modification would have provided improved systems and methods for preventing a variety of indecent or illegal bidding activities in such auctions, and balancing the needs of sellers, buyers, and service providers using various winning bid amount recalculation methods and price-protection fees associated therewith. (Wang: see at least ¶3)
Regarding Claim 12
Asher in view of O’Connor discloses:
wherein the pre-order listing sets a minimum bidding price required for bids submitted by registered buyers (Asher: see at least ¶30, 36: minimum acceptable bid)
Asher in view of O’Connor does not explicitly disclose, but Wang teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the minimum bidding price is hidden from the registered buyers (Wang: see at least ¶32, 233: hidden reserve price)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Asher in view of O’Connor, with the features of Wang, since such a modification would have provided improved systems and methods for preventing a variety of indecent or illegal bidding activities in such auctions, and balancing the needs of sellers, buyers, and service providers using various winning bid amount recalculation methods and price-protection fees associated therewith. (Wang: see at least ¶3)
Regarding Claim 13
Asher in view of O’Connor does not explicitly disclose, but Wang teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the pre-order listing sets a maximum bidding price permitted by bids submitted by registered buyers, and wherein the maximum bidding price is hidden from the registered buyers. (Wang: see at least ¶100, 259: hidden maximum reserve price)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Asher in view of O’Connor, with the features of Wang, since such a modification would have provided improved systems and methods for preventing a variety of indecent or illegal bidding activities in such auctions, and balancing the needs of sellers, buyers, and service providers using various winning bid amount recalculation methods and price-protection fees associated therewith. (Wang: see at least ¶3)
4. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asher in view of O’Connor, as applied above, and further in view of Gillum et al. (US 20100095374 A1, hereinafter Gillum)
Asher in view of O’Connor discloses the claimed invention except for:
wherein the user score assigned to the second registered buyer is at least partially based on a number of times the product has been purchased by the second registered buyer or other registered buyers associated with the same IP address as the second registered buyer
Gillum teaches that it is known to include evaluating transaction participants based on suspicious activity, including multiple users using the same IP address (Gillum: see at least ¶79, 128) in a similar environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Asher in view of O’Connor, with the features of Gillum, since such a modification would have mitigated ongoing attacks by providing a means for detecting bot activities (see at least ¶5-9 of Gillum)
5. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asher in view of O’Connor, as applied above, and further in view of Muhart et al. (US 20140278730 A1, hereinafter Muhart).
Regarding Claim 6
Asher in view of O’Connor does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the user score assigned to the second registered buyer is at least partially based on suspicious bidding activity associated with the second registered buyer or an IP address of the second registered buyer.
Muhart teaches that it is known to include evaluating transaction participants based on suspicious bidding activity (Muhart: see at least ¶102, 111: suspicious bidding activity flagged and integrated into a risk profile) in a similar environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Asher in view of O’Connor, with the features of Muhart, since such a modification would have provided increased security in transactions by calculating risks of entering into transactions with particular transaction partners (see at least ¶4-6 of Muhart)
6. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asher in view of O’Connor, as applied above, and further in view of Starks et al. (US 20200279023 A1, hereinafter Starks).
Regarding Claim 9
Asher in view of O’Connor does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the user score assigned to the second registered buyer is at least partially based on a number of times the second registered buyer has returned a purchased item to the retailer.
Starks teaches that it is known to rate transaction participants based on a number of times the second registered buyer has returned a purchased item to a retailer (Starks: see at least ¶26) in a similar environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Asher in view of O’Connor, with the features of Starks, since such a modification would have avoided opportunity loss by assisting users in understanding terms and conditions of loyalty programs (see at least ¶3 of Starks)
7. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asher in view of O’Connor, as applied above, and further in view of Dhandapani et al. (US 20170178063 A1, hereinafter Dhandapani).
Regarding Claim 10
Asher in view of O’Connor does not explicitly disclose, but Dhandapani teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the bid from the first registered buyer is prioritized over the bid from the second registered buyer in the prioritized list of bids at least partially due to a downpayment being included with the bid from the first registered buyer (Dhandapani: see at least ¶60)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Asher in view of O’Connor, with the features of Dhandapani, since such a modification would have provided increases decisioning speed in order to predict optimal transaction decisions in real-time. (Dhandapani: see at least ¶3-4)
8. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asher in view of O’Connor, as applied above, and further in view of Gustafson (US 20130346253 A1, hereinafter Gustafson).
Regarding Claim 15
Asher in view of O’Connor does not explicitly disclose, but Gustafson teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the pre-order listing indicates a maximum number of items of the product that are permitted to be pre-ordered from the same registered buyer. (Gustafson: see at least ¶17)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the invention of Asher in view of O’Connor, with the features of Gustafson, since such a modification would have guaranteed “in-trend” items for a month’s clothing collection would be in stock and ready for shipment. (see at least ¶18-19)
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and amended to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection set forth above, without broadening its scope.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Multi-dimensional fairness for auction-based resource allocation (PTO-892 Reference U) discusses methodologies for ensuring fairness in auctions, including pre-prioritization of bids.
Bezos et al. (US 7493274 B2) discloses a marketplace system in which users generate and browse user-to-user preorder listings via a definitive products catalog, including providing an option for shoppers to pre-order certain products from unspecified sellers.
Giannetti (US 20050125333 A1) discloses a pre-order wholesale system and method, including allowing potential buyers to add a pre-order option to an offer.
Yamada (US 20170178171 A1) discloses a sales management device and sales management method of preordered product or service, including applying certain purchase limits on preorder-eligible items.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A MISIASZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-6961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday. 8:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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 Smith can be reached at 571272-6763. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights