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 .
Preliminary Amendment
All pending claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17-19, 21, 22, 26, 28, 30, 32, 33, 35 and 36 filed October 9, 2023 are examined in this non-final office action.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Regarding claims 14 and 32, the phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Although “or the like” is not claimed, the term “etc” includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by “etc”) thereby rendering the scope of the claims unascertainable. Correction is requested.
Claims 19, 21, 22, 26, 28, 30, 32, 33, 35 and 36 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 19, “defining a marketplace” on its face does not render the marketplace operational to the point of executing processes as claimed in claim 19.
Examination was based on an operational marketplace managed by one or more servers that administer marketplace services.
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.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The instant specification reads:
[0076] It is to be appreciated that any reference herein to “means” specifically includes any one or more of a computer programme product for use in a local or dispersed computing system, a computer readable modulated carrier signal for interpretation by a local or dispersed computing system, or a computer readable medium of instructions for enabling a local or dispersed computing system to provide such “means” within the context of the description. In addition, such “means” may further expressly comprise any of the hardware and/or software components, independently or in combination, provided for in the description below, as will be understood by the skilled addressee.
Claim 36 reads:
(Currently Amended) A computer programme product which, when executed by a suitable processing system, facilitates the performance of the method according claim 19.
The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because:
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346,1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter).
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17-19, 21, 22, 26, 28, 30, 32, 33, 35 and 36 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without adding significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to either a practical application of the abstract idea or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Groupings of abstract ideas include: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include:
Fundamental economic principles or practices,
Commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), and
Managing personal behavior or relationships or interaction between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions).
Mathematical Concepts
Mathematical relationships
Mathematical formulas
Mathematical calculations
Mental Processes
Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)
Step 1
In the instant case, claim 19 is directed to a process. Claim 19 is a business method. Analysis of claim 19 applies to analysis of claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 26, 28, 30, 32, 33, 35 and 36.
Step 2A Revised (First Prong)
Determine whether claim 19 is directed to a judicial exception. Elements of an abstract idea are underlined. See Analysis.
Step 2A Revised (Second Prong)
Determine whether claim 19 has additional elements (in italics) integrated into a practical application:
a) requires an additional element or a combination of elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manger that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception; and
b) uses the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit to evaluate whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
See Analysis.
Step 2B (Revised)
In Step 2B, evaluate whether claim 19 recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept that adds significantly more than the recited judicial exception. See Analysis.
Analysis
In Claim 19:
(Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method for relational-based online commerce, said method comprising the steps of:
defining, by means of an administration server, a virtual ecommerce marketplace accessible via the Internet by means of a marketplace GUI;
maintaining, via a buyer database, a plurality of buyer profiles;
maintaining, in a seller database, a plurality of seller profiles each assigned to a pre- registered seller, each seller profile customisable to provide a user-definable virtual seller shop within said ecommerce marketplace, with each virtual seller shop for listing goods and/or services provided by, and available from, a particular seller;
maintaining, in a goods and/or services database, a record of goods and/or services provided by a particular seller across the marketplace;
selectively listing, via each seller profile, goods and/or services provided by other sellers as part of goods and/or services available from that particular seller’s shop;
monitoring, via the goods and/or services database, inventory of goods and/or services provided by and available from respective sellers across the marketplace;
accepting online payment, via a payment facility, from a buyer for goods and/or services purchased from a particular seller shop; and
allocating, via the payment facility, received payment to sellers according to provision and availability of such purchased goods and/or services, so that goods and/or services provided by one seller is available from other sellers, and selective listing of goods and/or services facilitates relational exchanges between respective sellers and buyers, wherein the marketplace is used to promote and sell goods and/or services of a particular society.
Claim 19 as a whole executes processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are directed to abstract ideas related to commercial interactions and therefore fall under the grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Claim 19 executes methods that are directed to abstract ideas comprising processes that can be executed by a human while following a procedure that organizes human activity related to commercial interactions using conventional computing elements.
No evidence of an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field.
No evidence exists in the instant specification or claims of a particular machine.
No evidence exists of a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
The claim does not go beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, e.g. processor, device.
Claim 19 does not recite additional elements that amount to inventive concepts that are “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. Courts have routinely found conventional computer processing functions (e.g. sending/receiving data, formatting data, storing data, retrieving data, manipulating data, calculating, searching data, displaying data, organizing data) insignificant to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360. As such, the claims amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to implement the abstract idea across a generic computer network which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
The elements of the instant process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the steps when each is taken alone. That is, the steps involved in the recited process undertake their roles in performance of their activities according to their generic functionalities which are well-understood, routine and conventional. The elements together execute in routinely and conventionally accepted coordinated manners and interact with their partner elements to achieve an overall outcome which, similarly, is merely the combined and coordinated execution of generic computer functionalities which are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the examiner concludes there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17-19, 21, 22, 26, 28, 30, 32, 33, 35 and 36 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
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, 8, 12, 14, 15, 19, 26, 30, 32, 33 and 36 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Basavaiah (eBay), US 2014/0180861, in view of Lenehan (eBay) et al., US 2014/0100991 “Lenahan.”
In Basavaiah see at least (underlined text is for emphasis):
Regarding claim 19: (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method for relational-based online commerce, said method comprising the steps of:
defining, by means of an administration server, a virtual ecommerce marketplace accessible via the Internet by means of a marketplace GUI;
[Basavaiah: 0015] The subject matter described herein may allow two or more users (e.g., sellers) to negotiate within an online marketplace a bundling agreement to sell items provided by each of the users as part of a bundle. As used herein, the term "item" may refer to a good or a service. The good or service may be described in a product or service catalogue (e.g., using an identification, name, number, definition, or other identifier). In some example embodiments, a user may be a human being. In certain example embodiments, a user may be a business entity that provides items for sale.
[Basavaiah: 0017] The system receives an indication of availability to bundle from a first user along with a listing describing an item for sale. In some example embodiments, the first user identifies a first item that is listed for sale within an online marketplace and indicates that the first item is available for bundling with other users' items for sale. In various example embodiments, the first user may indicate that all of the first user's items for sale on the online marketplace are available for bundling with other users' items. The identification of the first item or the indication of availability to bundle, or both, may be received, in certain example embodiments, from a bot (e.g., a software application that may run an automated task on behalf of the first user) based on a predefined rule provided or selected by the first user. Based on the indication of availability to bundle, the present system may present (e.g., in a user interface) additional items suitable for bundling with the identified first item. The additional items are listed for sale by other users in the online marketplace. In some example embodiments, the system may provide the additional items according to a predefined rule provided or selected by the first user. For example, the first user may specify in a rule that he or she prefers to create a bundle with a social network friend who has listed an item for sale. In some example embodiments, the first user may select a second item from the additional items. The second item is listed in the online marketplace by a second user. In other example embodiments, a bot may select the second item based on a predefined rule. Please note: First user and second user are sellers who have listed items for sale in the marketplace.
[Basavaiah: 0020] FIG. 1 is a network diagram depicting a client-server system 100, within which various example embodiments may be deployed. A networked system 102, in the example form of a network-based marketplace or publication system, provides server-side functionality, via a network 104 (e.g., the Internet or Wide Area Network (WAN)) to one or more clients. FIG. 1 illustrates, for example, a web client 106 (e.g., a browser) and a programmatic client 108 executing on respective client machines 110 and 112.
[Basavaiah: 0021] An Application Program Interface (API) server 114 and a web server 116 are coupled to, and provide programmatic and web interfaces respectively to, one or more application servers 118. The application servers 118 host one or more marketplace applications 120 and payment applications 122. The application servers 118 are, in turn, shown to be coupled to one or more databases servers 124 that facilitate access to one or more databases 126. Please note: Application Servers 118 qualifies as an administration server pertaining to marketplace operations.
[Basavaiah: 0059] FIG. 8 is an example portion of a user interface for providing a collaborative bundle, according to various example embodiments. The interface 800 may include, for example, the image and name of the "Camera XYZ" first item, an indication that the "Camera XYZ" first item is sold by the first user, and an option 802 to purchase the "Camera XYZ" first item without purchasing additional (e.g., bundled) items.
maintaining, via a buyer database, a plurality of buyer profiles;
Rejection is based in part upon the teachings applied to claim 19 by Basavaiah and further upon the combination of Basavaiah-Lenahan. Although Basavaiah performs analysis based on historical sales data (e.g. items purchased together with instances of a first item), Basavaiah does not expressly mention maintaining buyer profiles. Lenahan on the other hand would have taught Basavaiah such techniques.
In Lenahan see at least:
[Lenahan: 0108] … Another example application is a mobile marketplace application 134 that is used to conduct marketplace activities such as shopping, buying, and selling products with an online marketplace that may be provided by application server 124. The client devices 106 and 108 may also include social applications (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Pinterest, Svpply, or the like) in communication with third party server 116.
[Lenahan: 0121] As illustrated in FIG. 2, the marketplace applications 126 may also include one or more user profile modules 212, which are used to generate and maintain a user profile for each user of the networked system 100. Each user profile may be stored and maintained in database 132. Each user profile comprises a user data that describes aspects of a particular user. The user data may include to demographic data, user preferences, user activity and user account information. Accordingly, the user profile modules 212 may be configured to monitor, track, and record the activities and interactions of a user, using one or more devices (e.g., client device 106), within the context of the network system 100. The user profile modules 212 may store each user session as an activity set and maintain each activity set as part of the user data. Accordingly, in some embodiment, the user data may include past item searches that users have performed, items added to a user wish list or watch list, items added to an electronic shopping cart, items that the uses own, and any themes that a user has indicated they would like to find more items related to. In some embodiments, the user preferences may be inferred by the user profile modules 212 from the user activity.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that applying the known techniques of Lenahan, which maintain buyer profiles within a marketplace system, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the techniques of Lenahan to the teachings of Basavaiah would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such data processing features into similar systems. Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in view of the Supreme Court decision KSR International Co. vs. Teleflex Inc.
Rejections of the following are based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 19 by Basavaiah-Lenahan and further upon the combination of Basavaiah-Lenahan:
maintaining, in a seller database, a plurality of seller profiles each assigned to a pre-registered seller, each seller profile customisable to provide a user-definable virtual seller shop within said ecommerce marketplace, with each virtual seller shop for listing goods and/or services provided by, and available from, a particular seller;
[Lenahan: 0147] FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating another view of a storefront providing an interactive shopping experience, consistent with some embodiments. As shown in FIG. 7, one of the advantages that may be provided to a merchant by using storefront modules 216 to create a dynamic storefront having an interactive shopping experience is that the merchant is able to maintain control of the look and feel of their storefront, develop their brand, and tailor it to their buyer base. As also shown in FIG. 7, the user using mobile marketplace application 134 on client device 106 may shop buy [sic] storefronts instead of products, allowing the user to virtually "stroll" through the storefronts, similar to the experience of strolling through a market.
maintaining, in a goods and/or services database, a record of goods and/or services provided by a particular seller across the marketplace;
[Basavaiah: 0029] In some example embodiments, the first identification of a the first item is an identifier of a product or service, such as a name, a trade name, a number, a stock-keeping unit (SKU) number, a universal product code (UPC) bar code, an international standard book number (ISBN), or other item identifier. The receiver module 202 may access a database (e.g., database 126) to compare the received first identification of the first item to a stored first identification of the first item. Based on receiving the indication of availability to bundle (e.g., the first item with other items provided by other users), in some example embodiments, the receiver module 202 may modify a record (e.g., in the database 126) that may store the first identification of the first item to indicate that the first item is available for bundling.
[Lenahan: Fig. 1 (132); 0127] … In one embodiment, a user may interact with storefront module 216 through the web client 110 or mobile marketplace application 134 over communication network 104 in order to view various products, food items, or services identified in one or more databases 132.
selectively listing, via each seller profile, goods and/or services provided by other sellers as part of goods and/or services available from that particular seller’s shop;
[Basavaiah: 0055] FIG. 4B depicts, for example, a portion of an identification interface 410 that presents items suitable for bundling with the first item. In some example embodiments, the identification interface 410 may display the image and name of the "Camera XYZ" first item, an "Item with which to bundle" drop-down list, and an "Available for bundling" drop-down list. The first user may activate the "Item with which to bundle" drop-down list by clicking on the black triangle situated at the right end of the "item with which to bundle" drop-down list. Activating the "Item with which to bundle" drop-down list may allow the first user to see a list of identifications of one or more items suitable for bundling with the first item "Camera XYZ". The first user may select a second identification of a second item from the identifications of the one or more items displayed in the activated "Item with which to bundle" drop-down list. In some example embodiments, the first user may request that the identifications of the one or more items suitable for bundling be filtered (e.g., by the selection module 204) according to a criterion displayed in the activated "Available for bundling" drop-down list. For example, by choosing the "Yes" option in the activated "Available for bundling" drop-down list, the first user may request that the one or more items whose identifications are displayed in the identification interface (e.g., in the "Item with which to bundle" drop-down list) be available for bundling. In another example, by selecting the "Unknown. Send invite to bundle" option, the first user may request that the present system filters the one or more items based on an unknown availability for bundling and transmits an invitation to negotiate a bundle to the users who provided the identifications for the items with unknown availability for bundling.
monitoring, via the goods and/or services database, inventory of goods and/or services provided by and available from respective sellers across the marketplace;
[Lenahan: 0119] Navigation of the network-based marketplace 102 may be facilitated by one or more navigation modules 208. For example, a search module may, inter alia, enable key word searches of listings published via the marketplace 102. A browser module may allow users via an associated UI to browse various category, catalogue, inventory, social network, and review data structures within the marketplace 102.
[Lenahan: 0129] In some embodiments, the tracking modules 218 may access an inventory of the user (e.g., maintained as part of a user profile) to determine a compatibility between one or more items being shipped to the user and the items in the user's inventory. In this manner, the tracking modules 218 in conjunction with the communication modules 232 may transmit messages to the user notifying the user of the compatibility between one or more items being shipped to the user and the items in the user's inventory. In cases in which one or more items being shipped to the user are not compatible with one or more products in the user's inventory, the tracking modules 218 may work in conjunction with the recommendation modules 214 to generate one or more recommendations for new items that are compatible with the one or more items being shipped. The one or more recommendations may then be communicated to the user by the communication modules 232.
accepting online payment, via a payment facility, from a buyer for goods and/or services purchased from a particular seller shop; and
[Basavaiah: 0022] The marketplace applications 120 may provide a number of marketplace functions and services to users that access the networked system 102. In various example embodiments, the marketplace applications 120 may include a bundling component 132. The bundling component 132, in some example embodiments, may allow users to negotiate item bundles and offer the item bundles for sale using an online marketplace. The payment applications 122 may likewise provide a number of payment services and functions to users. The payment applications 122 may allow users to accumulate value (e.g., in a commercial currency, such as the U.S. dollar, or a proprietary currency, such as "points") in accounts, and then later to redeem the accumulated value for products (e.g., goods or services) that are made available via the marketplace applications 120. While the marketplace and payment applications 120 and 122 are shown in FIG. 1 to both form part of the networked system 102, it will be appreciated that, in alternative embodiments, the payment applications 122 may form part of a payment service that is separate and distinct from the networked system 102.
allocating, via the payment facility, received payment to sellers according to provision and availability of such purchased goods and/or services, so that goods and/or services provided by one seller is available from other sellers, and selective listing of goods and/or services facilitates relational exchanges between respective sellers and buyers,
[Basavaiah: 0045] A post-sale module 212 is configured to access a sales proceeds sharing term negotiated as part of the negotiation and determine a division of sales proceeds from the sale of a bundle of the first and second items based on the sales proceeds sharing term. For example, a sales proceeds sharing term may provide for a pro rata division of the sales proceeds based on the percentage that each of the items in the bundle contributes to the bundle price. In certain example embodiments, the sales proceeds sharing term may allocate a first amount of the proceeds to the first user, a second amount of the proceeds to the second user, and a third amount of the proceeds to the first user based on buyer behavior. For example, if, before clicking on an identification of the bundle of the first and second item, the buyer clicked on the identification of the first item (e.g., the buyer "arrived" at the bundle via the first item) rather than the identification of the second item, and if the buyer purchased the bundle, then the first user may be remunerated with the payment of a third amount.
wherein the marketplace is used to promote and sell goods and/or services of a particular society.
Please note: No restrictions are disclosed by either Basavaih or Lenahan that prevent a particular society for selling goods and/or services in the marketplace.
Regarding claims 1 and 36: Rejections are based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claim 19 by Basavaiah-Lenahan and further upon the combination of Basavaiah-Lenahan regarding system computing elements, see Basavaiah: Fig. 1 (118, 124, 126); Fig. 9 (902, 904, 906, 920)- processor, memory and network.
Regarding claims 8 and 26: Rejections are based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claims 1 and 19 by Basavaiah-Lenahan and further upon the combination of Basavaiah-Lenahan regarding online chat:
[Basavaiah: 0057] FIG. 6 is an example portion of a user interface for negotiation of terms during a collaborative bundling process, according to various example embodiments. As illustrated, for example, in FIG. 6, a negotiation interface 600 may be presented to the first and second users to facilitate a negotiation within the online marketplace, which negotiation may pertain to a bundling of the first and second items. In some example embodiments, the negotiation interface 600 may be displayed to the first and second users based on the first user selecting the second identification of the second item, which second item is listed as available for bundling (e.g., in the "Available for bundling" drop-down list, as described with respect to FIG. 4B). In certain example embodiments, the negotiation interface 600 may be displayed to the first and second users based on the second user replying to an invitation to negotiate a bundle of the first and second items. The invitation may be sent to the second user when the availability for bundling status of the selected second item is unknown, as described with respect to FIG. 4B. In some example embodiments, the negotiation interface may include the image and name of the "Camera XYZ" first item, an indication that the "Camera XYZ" first item is sold by the first user, the name of the "16 GB SD Card" second item, an indication that the "16 GB SD Card" second item is sold by the second user, a first user window 604 and a second user window 606 to allow the first and second users to see their communication (e.g., an exchange of messages between the first and second users). As depicted, for example, in FIG. 6, the first and second users may negotiate bundling terms such as a discount of the price of the bundle, the splitting of the shipping cost (e.g., the shipping fee), and the division of the sales proceeds of the bundle. The negotiated terms may be stored and accessed in a record in the term database 214. Further, the negotiated bundle of the first and second items may be stored and accessed in a record in the bundle database 216. Please note: First user and second user finalize specific requirements prior to payment.
[Basavaiah: 0059] FIG. 8 is an example portion of a user interface for providing a collaborative bundle, according to various example embodiments. The interface 800 may include, for example, the image and name of the "Camera XYZ" first item, an indication that the "Camera XYZ" first item is sold by the first user, and an option 802 to purchase the "Camera XYZ" first item without purchasing additional (e.g., bundled) items. A bundle interface 804 includes an indication that a buyer receives a 15% discount if the buyer purchases the "Camera XYZ" first item and the "16 GB SD Card" second item as a bundle. A buying interface 806 displays a list of the items that make up the bundle (e.g., the "Camera XYZ" first item and the "16 GB SD Card" second item). Also shown in the buying interface are the names of the sellers of the respective bundle items (e.g., the first and second users). The data displayed in the buying interface 806 may be updated in response to the buyer adding items to or removing items from the bundle. The buying interface 806 may also display the discount applied to the bundle price. If the buyer adds a third item to the bundle, a further discount may be applicable and applied to the bundle price. The data displayed in the buying interface 806 may be updated based on the application of the further discount. A buyer may purchase the bundle of the first and second items by selecting the option 808 to purchase the bundle. Please note: Buyer and seller(s) finalize specific requirements prior to payment.
Regarding claims 12 and 30: Rejections are based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claims 1 and 19 by Basavaiah-Lenahan and further upon the combination of Basavaiah-Lenahan regarding promotions/discounts:
See [Basavaiah: Fig. 8 (804, 806); 0059]
Regarding claims 14 and 32: Rejections are based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claims 1 and 19 by Basavaiah-Lenahan and further upon the combination of Basavaiah-Lenahan regarding online funds transfer portal:
See [Lenahan: 0113, 0220] funds transfer, PayPal & credit cards.
Regarding claims 15 and 33: Rejections are based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claims 1 and 19 by Basavaiah-Lenahan and further upon the combination of Basavaiah-Lenahan regarding majority and minority shares are predetermined:
[Basavaiah: 0045 previously recited] A post-sale module 212 is configured to access a sales proceeds sharing term negotiated as part of the negotiation and determine a division of sales proceeds from the sale of a bundle of the first and second items based on the sales proceeds sharing term. For example, a sales proceeds sharing term may provide for a pro rata division of the sales proceeds based on the percentage that each of the items in the bundle contributes to the bundle price. In certain example embodiments, the sales proceeds sharing term may allocate a first amount of the proceeds to the first user, a second amount of the proceeds to the second user, and a third amount of the proceeds to the first user based on buyer behavior. For example, if, before clicking on an identification of the bundle of the first and second item, the buyer clicked on the identification of the first item (e.g., the buyer "arrived" at the bundle via the first item) rather than the identification of the second item, and if the buyer purchased the bundle, then the first user may be remunerated with the payment of a third amount. Please note: Either the first user (i.e. first seller) or second user (i.e. second seller) may receive share of proceeds as majority OR minority share of the proceeds.
Regarding claim 18: Rejection is based upon the teachings and rationale applied to claims 1 and 19 by Basavaiah-Lenahan and further upon the combination of Basavaiah-Lenahan regarding seller database(s), goods database(s) and payment facility, see Lenahan previously recited.
Claims 3 and 21 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Basavaiah (eBay), US 2014/0180861, and Lenehan (eBay), US 2014/0100991 as applied to claims 1 and 19 further in view of Gura (eBay), US 2015/0287084, and Kim, US 2015/0120417 (eBay).
Rejections are based in part upon the teachings and rationale applied to claims 1 and 19 by Basavaiah-Lenahan and further upon the combination of Basavaiah-Lenahan-Gura. Although Basavaiah-Lenahan collect buyer profile information, Basavaiah-Lenahan do not expressly mention complete details on profile information. Gura on the other hand would have taught Basavaiah-Lenahan such techniques.
In Gura see at least:
[Gura: 0027] In an embodiment, merchant database 165 may allow a local merchant to store customer information of customers. For example, the local merchant may create a customer profile for a local customer who frequently visits and makes purchases at the local merchant or at other merchants (both online and offline) that offer the same or similar items available at the local merchant. The customer profile may include various information of the customer that may help the local merchant to better serve the customer. For example, the customer profile may include the name of the customer, a picture of the customer, address, purchases made, delivery preferences, pickup preferences, product/service preferences, brand preferences, subscriptions, use of coupons or purchases of sale items, when the customer prefers to shop, and the like. For example, a customer may prefer green bananas for Sunday purchases, but riper bananas for mid-week to end of week purchases. Based on the customer profile, the local merchant may provide personalized product/service to a customer. Customers also may subscribe to certain product/service at the local merchant. For example, a customer may subscribe to have a bag of rice delivered to the customer every month.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that applying the known techniques of Gura, which provide user profile details, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the techniques of Gura to the teachings of Basavaiah-Lenahan would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such data processing features into similar systems. Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in view of the Supreme Court decision KSR International Co. vs. Teleflex Inc.
Although Basavaiah-Lenahan-Gura collect user profile information, Basavaiah-Lenahan-Gura do not expressly mention preferred seller shops. Kim on the other hand would have taught Basavaiah-Lenahan-Gura such techniques.
In Kim see at least:
[Kim: 0013] Preferably, the shopping mall server may display a registration notice window of the impressive shop in the form of a pop-up window on the screen of the purchaser terminal for the purchaser to register the shop as the impressive shop if there exists a favorite shop which satisfies a criterion of the impressive shop when the purchaser confirms product receipt after logging in as the member through the purchaser terminal.
[Kim: 0042] In addition, the online shopping mall server 300 performs a function of transmitting related information to the favorite shop DB 350 so that favorite shops registered through the purchaser terminals 100-1 to 100-n are grouped, stored, and managed as the interest shop, the purchased shop, and the impressive shop specific to each purchase registered as the member. Please note: A favorite shop qualifies as a preferred shop.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that applying the known techniques of Kim, which register a user’s favorite shop with a mall server, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the techniques of Kim to the teachings of Basavaiah-Lenahan-Gura would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such data processing features into similar systems. Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in view of the Supreme Court decision KSR International Co. vs. Teleflex Inc.
Claims 4 and 22 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Basavaiah (eBay), US 2014/0180861, and Lenehan (eBay), US 2014/0100991 as applied to claims 1 and 19 further in view of Tuli et al. (eBay), US 2019/0012441 “Tuli.”
Rejections are based in part upon the teachings and rationale applied to claims 1 and 19 by Basavaiah-Lenahan and further upon the combination of Basavaiah-Lenahan-Tuli. Although Basavaiah-Lenahan implement basic authentication (Lenahan: user names/passwords/device identifiers [0126]), Basavaiah-Lenahan do not expressly mention multi-factor and device code authentication. Tuli on the other hand would have taught Basavaiah-Lenahan such techniques.
In Tuli see at least:
[Tuli: 0019] The asset access control system 120, in example embodiments, may be configured to grant access and related privilege levels to one or more users for access via user devices 150 to one or more computing assets 102 of the computing system 100 by way of an asset privilege control system 122. In addition, the asset access control system 120 may authenticate (e.g., verify the identity of) users requesting or engaging in access with the various computing assets 102 via an asset access authentication system 124. The asset privilege control system 122 and the asset access authentication system 124 may include one or more computing systems that communicate with users via the user devices 150, as well as with the computing system 100, the identity system 110, the user support system 130, and an asset access learning system 140 described in greater detail below. Authentication of a user may involve, for example, verification of one or more authentication factors, such as a user name, a password, and/or other information (e.g., answers to security questions) entered by a user via the user device 150 before allowing access to a computing asset 102, changes to access and privilege levels of a computing asset 102, and so forth. Please note: User name and password is basic authentication.
[Tuli: 0037] As shown in FIG. 6, the user interface 600, in response to an anomalous attempt to access a computing asset 102, may present multiple authentication factors 602, 604, 606, 608, at least one of which is not ordinarily required of the user when accessing this particular computing asset 102. More specifically, in addition to the usual password required (authentication factor 602), the user interface 600 may also request the entry of a particular code sent to a known user device 150 or account (e.g., email account) of the user (authentication factor 604), an answer to a security questions (authentication factor 606), and others (authentication factor 608). Please note: Tuli combines basic authentication with multi-factor authentication. User’s email account is information typically stored in the user’s profile along with user device identifiers.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that applying the known techniques of Tuli, which implement basic and multi-factor authentication to gain access to system assets, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the techniques of Tuli to the teachings of Basavaiah-Lenahan would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such data processing features into similar systems. Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in view of the Supreme Court decision KSR International Co. vs. Teleflex Inc.
Claims 10 and 28 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Basavaiah (eBay), US 2014/0180861, and Lenehan (eBay), US 2014/0100991 as applied to claims 1 and 19 further in view of Zamer (eBay), US 2015/0242922.
Rejections are based in part upon the teachings and rationale applied to claims 1 and 19 by Basavaiah-Lenahan and further upon the combination of Basavaiah-Lenahan-Zamer. Although Basavaiah-Lenahan monitor marketplace inventory, Basavaiah-Lenahan do not expressly mention automatically updating the marketplace on goods and/or services sold. Zamer on the other hand would have taught Basavaiah-Lenahan such techniques.
In Zamer see at least:
[Zamer: 0012] As purchases or purchase requests for a number of the product are made by the user, or inventory checks for a specific amount are made to the merchant, the available inventory level with the merchant may be decreased. Thus, the merchant's inventory level information may be automatically updated for future users. If the merchant receives a new supply of the product, the inventory level may be increased. Information about a new supply of the product may come from merchant and/or distributor invoices or order requests by another user. Additionally, if the merchant does not have sufficient stock to meet a user's requirements for a product, a similar item to the product with sufficient inventory may be offered to the user. Similar items may be determined through other user's purchases after querying inventory levels for the same product. Thus, the user may still make a purchase even if a first viewed item does not have sufficient inventory with the merchant.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that applying the known techniques of Zamer, which automatically update the marketplace of the merchant’s inventory level after a purchase is made, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the techniques of Zamer to the teachings of Basavaiah-Lenahan would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such data processing features into similar systems. Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in view of the Supreme Court decision KSR International Co. vs. Teleflex Inc.
Claims 17 and 35 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Basavaiah (eBay), US 2014/0180861, and Lenehan (eBay), US 2014/0100991 as applied to claims 1 and 19 further in view of Raman et al. (eBay), US 2014/0040071 “Raman.”
Rejections are based in part upon the teachings and rationale applied to claims 1 and 19 by Basavaiah-Lenahan and further upon the combination of Basavaiah-Lenahan-Raman. Although Basavaiah-Lenahan predetermine a share of sales proceeds to each seller (i.e. first user and second user) involved in a sale, Basavaiah-Lenahan do not expressly mention providing the marketplace a commission on sales transactions. Raman on the other hand would have taught Basavaiah-Lenahan such techniques.
In Raman see at least:
[Raman: 0058] By allowing a seller to network with other sellers/agents that the seller trusts, the seller can request a trusted seller/agent closer to the buyer to ship the item and compensate the trusted seller/agent for the item being shipped and shipping cost. For example, the request of the seller can be based on the following factors: price at which the item sold, the Final Value fees (FVF fees) charged by the online marketplace and other transaction merchants, insertion fees charged by the online marketplace, and the desired profit margin.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that applying the known techniques of Raman, which charge by the online marketplace fees based upon the final value vale of a sale, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the techniques of B to the teachings of A would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such data processing features into similar systems. Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in view of the Supreme Court decision KSR International Co. vs. Teleflex Inc.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2015/0262262 (Carvajal) “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR RAISING FUNDS WHILE ENCOURAGING WELLBEING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY,” discloses:
[Abstract] A computerized system and method for the creation and management of fundraising events. The system and method support creation of fundraising groups comprising team members that participate in physical activity to raise donations for a certain entity or organization. Individual team members utilize a device (e.g., pedometer) that measures activity during a specified time period. Pledges for donations are made by sponsors that log into a website and pledge to donate a certain amount of money based on the physical activity performed by a fundraising team