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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 15 April 2026, which was supplemental to the RCE filed 13 February 2026, has been entered.
Claims amended: 21, 41, 46
Claims cancelled: 1-20, 26, 27, 29-40
Claims added: none
Claims currently pending: 21-25, 28, 41-52
Response to Arguments
Applicant, in sections I, II, and III, presents opening remarks regarding the disposition of the claims, the Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment, and the previously conducted interview. As no specific argument is raised in this/these section(s) with respect to the instant application, no rebuttal is required.
Applicant, in section IV, argues that, “a specific system architecture and event-driven workflow that uses browser session monitoring, cart cloning into a shadow session, automated modification of that cloned cart via interaction with a remote website, and machine-executed testing of coupon codes outside the user's live checkout path”. Examiner acknowledges that the amendments made to claim 21 introduce features of a user device and a server in communication with the server performing the code checking process using an automated site navigation program. However, these elements are found to be well-understood, routine and conventional elements in the computing arts, as detailed in the grounds of rejection presented herein. Applicant then refers to “Alice Step One” and flushes out this argument with further citations to newly amended claim limitations. However, this does not fundamentally alter the analysis. The claims are found to be directed towards automating discount code checking on websites based on anticipated shopping cart items. Applicant asserts that the claims “recite how coupon testing is performed in a technically constrained environment”. In response, Examiner notes that all of the technical elements are specified at a high level of generality and are well within the scope of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. The bulk of the elements are routine optimization techniques known before the invention was filed. The techniques of monitoring program operations, background processing of tasks, remote processing of tasks, speculative execution of tasks, extracting and parsing data, and automating a previously manual task are all well-understood, routine, and conventional. Applicant then refers to “Alice Step Two” and argues that the claims, “specify how the system achieves those results through particular technical steps and interactions between a browser extension, cart data structures, cloned sessions, and server responses”. Examiner disagrees that this “level of technical detail” is sufficient to render the claims eligible as the claims do not improve the functionality of the computer itself. The combination of elements provides little more than the elements themselves as together they do not provide any unique computer functionality or interactions. In short, one of ordinary skill in the art seeking to automate (i.e., “apply it”) the process of checking discount shopping codes would utilize the elements found within the claims. As such, the grounds of rejection is herein maintained, albeit updated to reflect Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Applicant, in Section V, refers to newly amended claim language now found within claim 21 and argues that Corrieri, Wilkinson and Johnson do not read on the newly amended claim language. These arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented herein which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Examiner notes that the newly amended claim language is similar to language that was and is still found within claims 41 and 46; though the new claim language is not identical. This language was previously rejected with grounds of rejection involving primarily Duke. Applicant only addresses Duke with the statement: “Additionally, Duke fails to cure the deficiencies of Corrieri as Duke is silent regarding a clone shopping cart”. This argument is unpersuasive as Duke was not relied upon to teach “a clone shopping cart”. Therefore, the grounds of rejection presented herein is largely similar to the grounds of rejection previously presented vice claims 41 and 46, albeit updated to reflect Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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 21-25, 28, 41-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 21-25, 28, 41-52 are directed towards methods. Thus, these claims, on their face, are directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A - Prong One: As per MPEP 2106.04, Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim(s) recites a judicial exception; that is, whether the claim(s) set forth or describe a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea.
Claim 1 is presented here as a representative claim for specific analysis (The underlined claim terms here are interpreted as additional elements beyond the abstract idea.):
A method for testing coupon codes for electronic shopping carts performed by one or more processors executing a software application for accessing websites, the method comprising:
monitoring a user session of a browser operating on a user device to detect one or more predetermined user actions on a website or one or more predetermined network requests between the browser and the website by executing a plurality of event monitoring programs on the user device, each event monitoring program configured to listen for a different one of the one or more predetermined user actions or the one or more predetermined network requests;
determining, via the monitoring of the user session of the browser and based on detecting the one or more of the predetermined user actions or the one or more predetermined network requests via one or more of the plurality of event monitoring programs, that a user is likely to add an item to an electronic shopping cart;
initiating, on a server system remote from the user device, a shadow session of the browser that is not visible to the user;
in the shadow session on the server system, executing an automated site navigation program to interact with the website to institute a likely future state of the electronic shopping cart from the user session in an electronic shopping cart of the shadow session, wherein:
the likely future state of the electronic shopping cart is based on the determining that the user is likely to add the item to the electronic shopping cart in the user session;
and the automated site navigation program is configured to interact with the website by taking actions based on previously recorded user inputs on graphical user elements and based on previously recorded network requests between browsers and the website;
in the shadow session and via the automated site navigation program:
extracting and parsing data regarding any items contained in the electronic shopping cart of the shadow session;
based on the extracted and parsed data, obtaining one or more coupon codes associated with one or more items in the electronic shopping cart from a database remote from the user device; and
testing the one or more coupon codes on a clone of the electronic shopping cart that has been modified to include the item likely to be added to the electronic shopping cart;
and in response to the testing, causing the user session of the browser to display an indication that at least one coupon code is available for the item likely to be added.
The claims here are based on the recitation of an abstract idea (i.e. recitation other than the additional elements delineated here with underlining and further addressed per Step 2A - Prong Two and Step 2B). The claims recite the abstract idea of automating discount code checking on websites based on anticipated shopping cart items which falls within certain methods of organizing human activity.
The phrase "certain methods of organizing human activity" applies to 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. Refer to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. A-C.
The Remaining Claims: The additional independent claims recite the additional elements as the claim analyzed above and further recite “initiating a shadow session of the browser in a background context that is not visible to the user” (Claims 26, 27, 41), “initiating, on a server system remote from the user device, a shadow session of the browser that is not visible to the user” (Claim 46). The dependent claims recite the same additional elements as the parent claim(s) and "receiving, via the user session of the browser, a user instruction..." (claims 22, 23, 42, 43, 47, 48), “automatically adding the item to the electronic shopping cart” (claims 23, 43, 48).
The dependent claims further reiterate the same abstract idea with further embellishments: identifying a code as valid (claims 24, 44, 49); further details of the user actions (claims 28, 45, 50); and basing user likelihood to add an item to the shopping cart on history user data (claims 51, 52).
Step 2A - Prong Two: As per MPEP 2106.04.II.A.2, Prong Two determines if the claim(s) recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claims offer the additional elements of: a user device, electronic shopping cart, event monitoring programs, one or more processors, a server system, a software application for accessing websites, a database. To be patent-eligible, the elements additional to the identified abstract idea must amount to more than "an instruction to apply the abstract idea . . . using some unspecified, generic computer" to render the claim patent-eligible. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 226 (2014). Here, Applicant's Specification broadly describes support for well-known generic computer elements: "...the systems may be implemented by appropriate programming of one computer hardware platform" (0092). It would have been readily apparent to one having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time the invention was filed that the additional elements represent generic computing devices. Therefore, the claims amount to no more than a mere method, system, and/or computer program product to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer system. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The claims offer the extra-solution activity of “determining, via the monitoring of the user session of a browser and based on detecting the one or more of the predetermined user actions or the one or more predetermined network requests via one or more of the plurality of event monitoring programs, that a user is likely to add an item to an electronic shopping cart;” and “extracting and parsing data regarding any items contained in the electronic shopping cart of the shadow session;” which corresponds to mere data gathering. The gathering of data represents insignificant extra-solution activity that comprises mere data gathering. The gathering of data represents insignificant extra-solution activity that comprises mere data gathering. The additional element(s) represent insignificant extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claims offer the extra-solution activity of "receiving, via the user session of the browser, a user instruction..." which represents using an "interface" to display information as in Affinity v DirecTV in which "The court rejected the argument that the computer components recited in the claims constituted an 'inventive concept'. It held that the claims added 'only generic computer components such as an 'interface', 'network', and 'database' and that 'recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible". Id. at 1324-25 (citations omitted). The court noted that nothing in the asserted claims purported to improve the functioning of the computer itself or "effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field". Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1325 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359)". The additional element(s) represent insignificant extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claims offer the extra-solution activity of: “automated site navigation program” and “automatically adding the item to the electronic shopping cart” (claim 23). This step represents only instantiating the abstract idea and automating previously manual steps, which is one of the well-understood, routine, and conventional applications of computing technologies. This is akin to automating mental tasks, Benson, 409 U.S. at 65‐67; Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1275; CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375.
The claims offer the extra-solution activity of: “initiating a shadow session of the browser in a background context that is not visible to the user”, “initiating, on a server system remote from the user device, a shadow session of the browser that is not visible to the user”. These additional element(s) represent insignificant extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: As per MPEP 2106.05, the additional elements are analyzed, both individually and in combination, to determine whether an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The additional element of “determining, via the monitoring of the user session of a browser and based on detecting the one or more of the predetermined user actions or the one or more predetermined network requests via one or more of the plurality of event monitoring programs, that a user is likely to add an item to an electronic shopping cart;” represents mere data gathering akin to receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
The additional element of "receiving, via the user session of the browser, a user instruction..." represents using an "interface" to display information as in Affinity v DirecTV in which "The court rejected the argument that the computer components recited in the claims constituted an 'inventive concept'. It held that the claims added 'only generic computer components such as an 'interface', 'network', and 'database' and that 'recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible". Id. at 1324-25 (citations omitted). The court noted that nothing in the asserted claims purported to improve the functioning of the computer itself or "effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field". Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1325 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359)".
The claims offer the extra-solution activity of: “automated site navigation program”, “automatically adding the item to the electronic shopping cart” (claim 23), and “automatically applying the at least one code to the electronic shopping cart” (Claims 30, 37). These steps represent only instantiating the abstract idea and automating previously manual steps, which is one of the well-understood, routine, and conventional applications of computing technologies. This is akin to automating mental tasks, Benson, 409 U.S. at 65‐67; Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1275; CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375.
The additional elements of “initiating a shadow session of the browser in a background context that is not visible to the user” and “initiating, on a server system remote from the user device, a shadow session of the browser that is not visible to the user” represent concepts similar to electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log) and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). Utilizing a “shadow session” is similar to performing processes in the “background”, a well-understood, routine, and conventional element described in the Wikipedia article, “Background process”. Performing calculations on a remote server represents a well-understood, routine, and convention element similar to that described in the Wikipedia article, “Distributed computing”; Examiner notes the “Examples” section that calls out the “World Wide Web” as an example.
References of Record but not Applied in the Current Grounds of Rejection
The prior art listed below is made of record as considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is not relied upon in the grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Those starred with '*' were added to this list in this Office action. Those without "*" were added in a previous Office action and are not repeated on a PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form, but are maintained herein for informational purposes only.
King (Pub. #: AU 2009217429 A1) discloses a system that presents a user the option to automatically apply a discount code in a separate browser window.
The article, “Cently Coupons at Checkout – The Automatic Coupon Savings Tool”, from Coupon Follow discloses a browser add-on that offers coupons automatically on checkout from an e-commerce website.
Examiner's Note on the Format of the Prior Art Rejections
The prior art rejections below contain underlined markings of the limitations (e.g. sample limitation). The underlined portions of a claim are addressed at the end of the grounds of rejection for that claim. Examiner notes that the underlining of the claim language is not a statement that the primary reference does not teach that language, but simply that said claim language is addressed at the end of the grounds of rejection for that claim.
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.
Claim(s) 21-25, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Corrieri et al. (Pub. #: US 2020/0082425 A1) in view of
Johnson et al. (Pub. #: US 2014/0122203 A1) in view of
Chen et al. (Pub. #: US 2019/0102784 A1) in view of
Duke et al. (Pub. #: US 2017/0104841 A1).
Claim(s) 21:
A method for testing coupon codes for electronic shopping carts performed by one or more processors executing a software application for accessing websites, the method comprising:
(Corrieri discloses a "browser 'plug-in'" in at least 0006 and 0068 for testing discount codes on an e-commerce website in at least 0019-0030 and 0076-0077.)
monitoring a user session of a browser operating on a user device to detect one or more predetermined user actions on a website or one or more predetermined network requests between the browser and the website by executing a plurality of event monitoring programs on the user device, each event monitoring program configured to listen for a different one of the one or more predetermined user actions or the one or more predetermined network requests;
(Corrieri discloses monitoring a user's browsing activity on a website to determine product interest in at least 0035 and 0118. Corrieri discloses monitoring a URI/URL which is a request for a specific webpage (i.e., a “network request”) in at least 0101-0105. Corrieri, in at least 0084, discloses a “ruleset” for each website that corresponds to a plurality of event monitoring programs.)
determining, via the monitoring of the user session of the browser and based on detecting the one or more of the predetermined user actions or the one or more predetermined network requests via one or more of the plurality of event monitoring programs, that a user is likely to add an item to an electronic shopping cart;
initiating, on a server system remote from the user device, a shadow session of the browser that is not visible to the user;
(Corrieri discloses performing the code check process "within a background process, hidden to the user" in at least 0078. Corrieri discloses that this may be "initiated by the browser extension 103 and may be carried out as a background process" in at least 0070 while the user may be "reviewing the contents of the cart" in at least 0026 and explicitly through browser disparate requests in at least 0108.)
in the shadow session on the server system, executing an automated site navigation program to interact with the website to institute a likely future state of the electronic shopping cart from the user session in an electronic shopping cart of the shadow session, wherein:
the likely future state of the electronic shopping cart is based on the determining that the user is likely to add the item to the electronic shopping cart in the user session;
and the automated site navigation program is configured to interact with the website by taking actions based on previously recorded user inputs on graphical user elements and based on previously recorded network requests between browsers and the website;
in the shadow session and via the automated site navigation program:
extracting and parsing data regarding any items contained in the electronic shopping cart of the shadow session;
based on the extracted and parsed data, obtaining one or more coupon codes associated with one or more items in the electronic shopping cart from a database remote from the user device;
and testing the one or more coupon codes on a clone of the electronic shopping cart that has been modified to include the item likely to be added to the electronic shopping cart;
(Corrieri discloses testing discount codes on an e-commerce website in at least 0019-0030 and 0076-0080.)
and in response to the testing, causing the user session of the browser to display an indication that at least one coupon code is available for the item likely to be added.
(Corrieri discloses displaying the results of a discount code process to users in at least 0078-0080.)
As for, "a clone of", “on a server system remote from the user device”, and “extracting and parsing data regarding any items contained in the electronic shopping cart of the shadow session; based on the extracted and parsed data, obtaining one or more coupon codes associated with one or more items in the electronic shopping cart from a database remote from the user device;”: Corrieri discloses testing discount codes on an e-commerce website in at least 0019-0030 and 0076-0080. Corrieri does not appear to make explicit testing the codes in a "clone" of the shopping cart which is described in 0045 of the specification as "distinct and separate from the session associated with the user". However, Johnson teaches a technique of testing discount codes by initiating a purchase transaction "for each potentially-applicable coupon" in at least 0023, that the multi-merchant shopping cart system acts "on behalf of the user" in at least 0029 and 0030, that the multi-merchant shopping cart system contains a copy of the product information as parsed from a database for products in the shopping cart including options in at least 0019, 0020, and 0039-0040. Johnson teaches that the server extracts (i.e., parses) information from product web pages in at least 0034. Johnson further teaches that the server performs operations such as finding coupons in at least 0023, 0029, and 0030 (i.e., on a server system remote from the user device).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the discount code checking system of Corrieri with the technique of checking discount codes in the background on behalf of the user and based on items predicted to be of interest to a user as taught by Johnson in order not to disrupt the user while the code checking process takes place. Motivation to combine Corrieri with Johnson comes from both references pertaining to discount code checking processes on e-commerce websites and to provide users with the most discounted purchase available (Johnson: 0023).
As for, "determining, via the monitoring of the user session of a browser and based on detecting the one or more of the predetermined user actions or the one or more predetermined network requests via one or more of the plurality of event monitoring programs, that a user is likely to add an item to an electronic shopping cart;", “likely future state”, “the likely future state of the electronic shopping cart is based on the determining that the user is likely to add the item to the electronic shopping cart in the user session”: Corrieri, in view of Johnson, does not appear to specify determining a likelihood of a user placing an item in a shopping cart. However, Chen teaches a technique of using a user’s past behavior to determine a user’s likelihood of adding an item to a cart in at least Figure 7, 0007, and 0077-0086.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the discount code checking system of Corrieri, in view of Johnson, with the technique of determining a likelihood of a user adding an item to a shopping cart as taught by Chen. Motivation to combine Corrieri, in view of Johnson, with Chen derives from the desire to present users with the content with the most value to the user (Chen: 0003, 0093).
As for, “on a server system remote from the user device”, “in the shadow session on the server system, executing an automated site navigation program to interact with the website to institute a … electronic shopping cart from the user session in an electronic shopping cart of the shadow session, wherein:
…
and the automated site navigation program is configured to interact with the website by taking actions based on previously recorded user inputs on graphical user elements and based on previously recorded network requests between browsers and the website;
in the shadow session and via the automated site navigation program:
Corrieri discloses testing discount codes on an e-commerce website in at least 0019-0030 and 0076-0080. Corrieri, in view of Johnson and Chen, does not appear to specify that the interaction with the website is based upon previously record user inputs on graphical user elements. However, Duke discloses a technique for a “site navigation module” that utilizes recorded interactions with web pages in order to later interact with the web pages using the recorded interactions, including for the purposes of checking coupons at ecommerce sites in at least 0036-0039, 0049, 0055-0058.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the discount code checking system of Corrieri, in view of Johnson and Chen, with the specific technique of recording user interactions with websites and utilizing the recorded interactions in an automated site navigation program as taught by Duke. Motivation to combine Corrieri, in view of Johnson and Chen, with Duke derives from the references pertaining to ecommerce coupon checking and to utilize techniques that does not “require the cooperation of the website” (Duke: 0010).
Claim(s) 22:
receiving, via the user session of the browser, a user instruction to add the item to the electronic shopping cart;
(Corrieri discloses finding competing merchant offers for a product and allowing a user to select "Add to Cart" in at least 0130. Also see 0123-0129.)
and in response to receiving the user instruction, automatically applying the at least one coupon code to the electronic shopping cart.
(Corrieri discloses automatically applying shopping codes to shopping cart in at least 0013, 0076, 0094.)
Claim(s) 23:
receiving, via the user session of the browser, a user instruction to apply the at least one coupon code to the electronic shopping cart; and in response to receiving the user instruction, automatically adding the item to the electronic shopping cart.
(Corrieri discloses prompting a user to apply the electronic code(s) to the shopping cart in at least 0094-0095. Corrieri discloses finding competing merchant offers for a product and allowing a user to select "Add to Cart" in at least 0130. Also see 0123-0129. Corrieri discloses automatically applying shopping codes to shopping cart in at least 0013, 0076, 0094.)
Claim(s) 24:
wherein the testing includes identifying the at least one coupon code as valid.
(Corrieri discloses testing codes and determining if they are "successful" or if the test result is "negative or failure" in at least 0078.)
Claim(s) 25:
Corrieri, in view of Johnson, in view of Chen teaches the parent claim language and Chen further teaches:
modifying the clone of the electronic shopping cart to include the item likely to be added to the electronic shopping cart.
(Chen teaches a technique of using a user’s past behavior to determine a user’s likelihood of adding an item to a cart in at least Figure 7, 0007, and 0077-0086.)
Claim(s) 28:
wherein the one or more predetermined user actions include one or more of:
navigation of the user session of the browser to a display of an item type of the item;
navigation of the user session of the browser to a display of the item;
or interaction of the user via the user session of the browser with an interface element associated with the item or the item type of the item.
(Corrieri discloses monitoring a user's browsing activity on a website to determine product interest in at least 0035 and 0118. Corrieri discloses monitoring a URI/URL which is a request for a specific webpage (i.e., a “network request”) in at least 0101-0105.)
Claim(s) 41-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Corrieri et al. (Pub. #: US 2020/0082425 A1) in view of
Wilkinson et al. (Pub. #: US 2018/0174188 A1) in view of
Johnson et al. (Pub. #: US 2014/0122203 A1) in view of
Duke et al. (Pub. #: US 2017/0104841 A1).
Claim(s) 41:
A method for testing coupon codes for electronic shopping carts performed by one or more processors executing a software application for accessing websites, the method comprising:
(Corrieri discloses a "browser 'plug-in'" in at least 0006 and 0068 for testing discount codes on an e-commerce website in at least 0019-0030 and 0076-0077.)
determining, via monitoring of a user session of a browser, that a user is likely to add an item to an electronic shopping cart associated with a website;
initiating a shadow session of the browser in a background context that is not visible to the user;
in the shadow session, executing an automated site navigation program to interact with the website to institute a likely future state of the electronic shopping cart from the user session in an electronic shopping cart of the shadow session, wherein:
(Corrieri discloses performing the code check process "within a background process, hidden to the user" in at least 0078. Corrieri discloses that this may be "initiated by the browser extension 103 and may be carried out as a background process" in at least 0070 while the user may be "reviewing the contents of the cart" in at least 0026 and explicitly through browser disparate requests in at least 0108.)
the likely future state of the electronic shopping cart is based on the determining that the user is likely to add the item to the electronic shopping cart in the user session;
the electronic shopping cart of the shadow session is a clone of the electronic shopping cart in the user session modified to be in the likely future state;
and the automated site navigation program is configured to interact with the website by taking actions based on previously recorded user inputs on graphical user elements and based on previously recorded network requests between browsers and the website;
in the shadow session and via the automated site navigation program, testing one or more coupon codes on the electronic shopping cart of the shadow session;
(Corrieri discloses testing discount codes on an e-commerce website in at least 0019-0030 and 0076-0080.)
and in response to the testing, causing the user session of the browser to display an indication that at least one coupon code is available for the item likely to be added.
(Corrieri discloses displaying the results of a discount code process to users in at least 0078-0080.)
As for, “determining, via monitoring of a user session of a browser, that a user is likely to add an item to an electronic shopping cart associated with a website;”, “a likely future”, and “the likely future state of the electronic shopping cart is based on the determining that the user is likely to add the item to the electronic shopping cart in the user session;”: Corrieri discloses monitoring a user's browsing activity on a website to determine product interest in at least 0035 and 0118. Corrieri, does not appear to specify determining a user is likely to add an item to a shopping cart. However, Wilkinson teaches a technique of determining items that are likely to be of interest to a user for purchase in at least 0272, and 0345-0347 and presenting a list of predicted items to the user in at least 0273 and 0274.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the discount code checking system of Corrieri, with the technique of determining items likely of interest to a user as taught by Wilkinson or order to present users with items of high interest that “allows a shopper to easily and quickly shop for items of interest” (Wikinson: 0238).
As for, “the electronic shopping cart of the shadow session is a clone of the electronic shopping cart in the user session modified to be in the likely future state;”: Corrieri discloses testing discount codes on an e-commerce website in at least 0019-0030 and 0076-0080. Corrieri does not appear to make explicit testing the codes in a "clone" of the shopping cart which is described in 0045 of the specification as "distinct and separate from the session associated with the user". However, Johnson teaches a technique of testing discount codes by initiating a purchase transaction "for each potentially-applicable coupon" in at least 0023, that the multi-merchant shopping cart system acts "on behalf of the user" in at least 0029 and 0030, that the multi-merchant shopping cart system contains a copy of the product information as parsed from a database for products in the shopping cart including options in at least 0019, 0020, and 0039-0040.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the discount code checking system of Corrieri, in view of Wilkinson, with the technique of checking discount codes in the background on behalf of the user and based on items predicted to be of interest to a user as taught by Johnson in order not to disrupt the user while the code checking process takes place. Motivation to combine Corrieri, in view of Wilkinson, with Johnson comes from both references pertaining to discount code checking processes on e-commerce websites and to provide users with the most discounted purchase available (Johnson: 0023).
As for, “and the automated site navigation program is configured to interact with the website by taking actions based on previously recorded user inputs on graphical user elements and based on previously recorded network requests between browsers and the website;”: Corrieri discloses testing discount codes on an e-commerce website in at least 0019-0030 and 0076-0080. Corrieri, in view of Wilkinson and Johnson, does not appear to specify that the interaction with the website is based upon previously record user inputs on graphical user elements. However, Duke discloses a technique for a “site navigation module” that utilizes recorded interactions with web pages in order to later interact with the web pages using the recorded interactions, including for the purposes of checking coupons at ecommerce sites in at least 0036-0039, 0049, 0055-0058.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the discount code checking system of Corrieri, in view of Wilkinson and Johnson, with the specific technique of recording user interactions with websites and utilizing the recorded interactions in an automated site navigation program as taught by Duke. Motivation to combine Corrieri, in view of Wilkinson and Johnson, with Duke derives from the references pertaining to ecommerce coupon checking and to utilize techniques that does not “require the cooperation of the website” (Duke: 0010).
Claim(s) 42:
receiving, via the user session of the browser, a user instruction to add the item to the electronic shopping cart;
(Corrieri discloses finding competing merchant offers for a product and allowing a user to select "Add to Cart" in at least 0130. Also see 0123-0129.)
and in response to receiving the user instruction, automatically applying the at least one coupon code to the electronic shopping cart.
(Corrieri discloses automatically applying shopping codes to shopping cart in at least 0013, 0076, 0094.)
Claim(s) 43:
receiving, via the user session of the browser, a user instruction to apply the at least one coupon code to the electronic shopping cart; and in response to receiving the user instruction, automatically adding the item to the electronic shopping cart.
(Corrieri discloses prompting a user to apply the electronic code(s) to the shopping cart in at least 0094-0095. Corrieri discloses finding competing merchant offers for a product and allowing a user to select "Add to Cart" in at least 0130. Also see 0123-0129. Corrieri discloses automatically applying shopping codes to shopping cart in at least 0013, 0076, 0094.)
Claim(s) 44:
wherein the testing includes identifying the at least one coupon code as valid.
(Corrieri discloses testing codes and determining if they are "successful" or if the test result is "negative or failure" in at least 0078.)
Claim(s) 45:
wherein determining that the user is likely to add the item to the electronic shopping cart is based on detection, via the monitoring, of one or more of: navigation of the user session of the browser to a display of an item type of the item; navigation of the user session of the browser to a display of the item; or interaction of the user via the user session of the browser with an interface element associated with the item or the item type of the item.
(Corrieri discloses monitoring a user's browsing activity on a website to determine product interest in at least 0035 and 0118. Corrieri discloses monitoring a URI/URL which is a request for a specific webpage (i.e., a “network request”) in at least 0101-0105.)
As for the above limitations: Corrieri, in view of Johnson, does not appear to specify determining a user is likely to add an item to a shopping cart. However, Wilkinson teaches a technique of determining items that are likely to be of interest to a user for purchase in at least 0272, and 0345-0347 and presenting a list of predicted items to the user in at least 0273 and 0274.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the discount code checking system of Corrieri, in view of Johnson, with the technique of determining items likely of interest to a user as taught by Wilkinson or order to present users with items of high interest that “allows a shopper to easily and quickly shop for items of interest” (Wikinson: 0238).
Claim(s) 46:
A method for testing coupon codes for electronic shopping carts performed by one or more processors executing a software application for accessing websites, the method comprising:
(Corrieri discloses a "browser 'plug-in'" in at least 0006 and 0068 for testing discount codes on an e-commerce website in at least 0019-0030 and 0076-0077.)
monitoring a user session of a browser on a user device to detect one or more predetermined user actions on a website or one or more predetermined network requests between the browser and the website by executing a plurality of event monitoring programs, each event monitoring program configured to listen for a different one of the one or more predetermined user actions or one or more predetermined network requests;
(Corrieri discloses monitoring a user's browsing activity on a website to determine product interest in at least 0035 and 0118. Corrieri discloses monitoring a URI/URL which is a request for a specific webpage (i.e., a “network request”) in at least 0101-0105. Corrieri, in at least 0084, discloses a “ruleset” for each website that corresponds to a plurality of event monitoring programs.)
determining, via the monitoring of the user session of a browser and based on detecting the one or more of the predetermined user actions or the one or more predetermined network requests via one or more of the plurality of event monitoring programs, that a user is likely to add an item to an electronic shopping cart;
initiating, on a server system remote from the user device, a shadow session of the browser that is not visible to the user;
in the shadow session on the server system, executing an automated site navigation program to interact with the website to institute a likely future state of the electronic shopping cart from the user session in an electronic shopping cart of the shadow session, wherein:
(Corrieri discloses performing the code check process "within a background process, hidden to the user" in at least 0078. Corrieri discloses that this may be "initiated by the browser extension 103 and may be carried out as a background process" in at least 0070 while the user may be "reviewing the contents of the cart" in at least 0026 and explicitly through browser disparate requests in at least 0108.)
the likely future state of the electronic shopping cart is based on the determining that the user is likely to add the item to the electronic shopping cart in the user session;
and the automated site navigation program is configured to interact with the website by taking actions based on previously recorded user inputs on graphical user elements and based on previously recorded network requests between browsers and the website;
in the shadow session and via the automated site navigation program:
extracting and parsing data regarding any items contained in the electronic shopping cart of the shadow session;
(Corrieri discloses parsing the user’s shopping cart and capturing product information in at least 0088. Corrieri discloses testing discount codes on an e-commerce website in at least 0019-0030 and 0076-0080.)
based on the extracted and parsed data, obtaining one or more coupon codes associated with one or more items in the electronic shopping cart of the shadow session from a database remote from the user device;
and testing one or more coupon codes on the electronic shopping cart of the shadow session,
(Corrieri discloses performing the code check process "within a background process, hidden to the user" in at least 0078. Corrieri discloses that this may be "initiated by the browser extension 103 and may be carried out as a background process" in at least 0070 while the user may be "reviewing the contents of the cart" in at least 0026 and explicitly through browser disparate requests in at least 0108.)
wherein the electronic shopping cart of the shadow session is a clone of the electronic shopping cart of the user session modified to institute the likely future state;
and in response to the testing, causing the user session of the browser to display an indication that at least one coupon code is available for the item likely to be added.
(Corrieri discloses displaying the results of a discount code process to users in at least 0078-0080.)
As for, “wherein the electronic shopping cart of the shadow session is a clone of the electronic shopping cart of the user session modified to institute the likely future state;”: Corrieri discloses testing discount codes on an e-commerce website in at least 0019-0030 and 0076-0080. Corrieri does not appear to make explicit testing the codes in a "clone" of the shopping cart which is described in 0045 of the specification as "distinct and separate from the session associated with the user". However, Johnson teaches a technique of testing discount codes by initiating a purchase transaction "for each potentially-applicable coupon" in at least 0023, that the multi-merchant shopping cart system acts "on behalf of the user" in at least 0029 and 0030, that the multi-merchant shopping cart system contains a copy of the product information as parsed from a database for products in the shopping cart including options in at least 0019, 0020, and 0039-0040.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the discount code checking system of Corrieri, in view of Wilkinson, with the technique of checking discount codes in the background on behalf of the user and based on items predicted to be of interest to a user as taught by Johnson in order not to disrupt the user while the code checking process takes place. Motivation to combine Corrieri, in view of Wilkinson, with Johnson comes from both references pertaining to discount code checking processes on e-commerce websites and to provide users with the most discounted purchase available (Johnson: 0023).
As for, "determining, via the monitoring of the user session of a browser and based on detecting the one or more of the predetermined user actions or the one or more predetermined network requests via one or more of the plurality of event monitoring programs, that a user is likely to add an item to an electronic shopping cart;", “a likely future state of”, and “the likely future state of the electronic shopping cart is based on the determining that the user is likely to add the item to the electronic shopping cart in the user session;”: Corrieri discloses monitoring a user's browsing activity on a website to determine product interest in at least 0035 and 0118. Corrieri, in view of Johnson, does not appear to specify determining a user is likely to add an item to a shopping cart. However, Wilkinson teaches a technique of determining items that are likely to be of interest to a user for purchase in at least 0272, and 0345-0347 and presenting a list of predicted items to the user in at least 0273 and 0274.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the discount code checking system of Corrieri, in view of Johnson, with the technique of determining items likely of interest to a user as taught by Wilkinson or order to present users with items of high interest that “allows a shopper to easily and quickly shop for items of interest” (Wikinson: 0238).
As for, “and the automated site navigation program is configured to interact with the website by taking actions based on previously recorded user inputs on graphical user elements and based on previously recorded network requests between browsers and the website;”: Corrieri discloses testing discount codes on an e-commerce website in at least 0019-0030 and 0076-0080. Corrieri, in view of Johnson and Wilkinson, does not appear to specify that the interaction with the website is based upon previously record user inputs on graphical user elements. However, Duke discloses a technique for a “site navigation module” that utilizes recorded interactions with web pages in order to later interact with the web pages using the recorded interactions, including for the purposes of checking coupons at ecommerce sites in at least 0036-0039, 0049, 0055-0058.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the discount code checking system of Corrieri, in view of Johnson and Wilkinson, with the specific technique of recording user interactions with websites and utilizing the recorded interactions in an automated site navigation program as taught by Duke. Motivation to combine Corrieri, in view of Johnson and Wilkinson, with Duke derives from the references pertaining to ecommerce coupon checking and to utilize techniques that does not “require the cooperation of the website” (Duke: 0010).
Claim(s) 47:
receiving, via the user session of the browser, a user instruction to add the item to the electronic shopping cart;
(Corrieri discloses finding competing merchant offers for a product and allowing a user to select "Add to Cart" in at least 0130. Also see 0123-0129.)
and in response to receiving the user instruction, automatically applying the at least one coupon code to the electronic shopping cart.
(Corrieri discloses automatically applying shopping codes to shopping cart in at least 0013, 0076, 0094.)
Claim(s) 48:
receiving, via the user session of the browser, a user instruction to apply the at least one coupon code to the electronic shopping cart; and in response to receiving the user instruction, automatically adding the item to the electronic shopping cart.
(Corrieri discloses prompting a user to apply the electronic code(s) to the shopping cart in at least 0094-0095. Corrieri discloses finding competing merchant offers for a product and allowing a user to select "Add to Cart" in at least 0130. Also see 0123-0129. Corrieri discloses automatically applying shopping codes to shopping cart in at least 0013, 0076, 0094.)
Claim(s) 49:
wherein the testing includes identifying the at least one coupon code as valid.
(Corrieri discloses testing codes and determining if they are "successful" or if the test result is "negative or failure" in at least 0078.)
Claim(s) 50:
wherein the one or more predetermined user actions include one or more of:
navigation of the user session of the browser to a display of an item type of the item;
navigation of the user session of the browser to a display of the item;
or interaction of the user via the user session of the browser with an interface element associated with the item or the item type of the item.
(Corrieri discloses monitoring a user's browsing activity on a website to determine product interest in at least 0035 and 0118. Corrieri discloses monitoring a URI/URL which is a request for a specific webpage (i.e., a “network request”) in at least 0101-0105.)
Claim(s) 51:
wherein the determining that the user is likely to add the item to the electronic shopping cart in the user session is further based on historical user browsing data.
Corrieri discloses monitoring a user's browsing activity on a website to determine product interest in at least 0035 and 0118. Corrieri, in view of Johnson, does not appear to specify determining a user is likely to add an item to a shopping cart. However, Wilkinson teaches a technique of determining items that are likely to be of interest to a user for purchase in at least 0272, and 0345-0347 and presenting a list of predicted items to the user in at least 0273 and 0274.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the discount code checking system of Corrieri, in view of Johnson, with the technique of determining items likely of interest to a user as taught by Wilkinson or order to present users with items of high interest that “allows a shopper to easily and quickly shop for items of interest” (Wikinson: 0238).
Claim(s) 52:
wherein the determining that the user is likely to add the item to the electronic shopping cart in the user session is further based on historical user purchasing data.
Corrieri discloses monitoring a user's browsing activity on a website to determine product interest in at least 0035 and 0118. Corrieri, in view of Johnson, does not appear to specify determining a user is likely to add an item to a shopping cart. However, Wilkinson teaches a technique of determining items that are likely to be of interest to a user for purchase in at least 0272, and 0345-0347 and presenting a list of predicted items to the user in at least 0273 and 0274. Wilkinson makes explicit the use of a user’s purchase history in at least 0068 and 0347.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the discount code checking system of Corrieri, in view of Johnson, with the technique of determining items likely of interest to a user as taught by Wilkinson or order to present users with items of high interest that “allows a shopper to easily and quickly shop for items of interest” (Wikinson: 0238).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT SNIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-9604. The examiner can normally be reached M-W: 9:00-4:30 Mountain (11:00-6:30 Eastern).
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at (571)270-3948. 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.
/SCOTT SNIDER/Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights