Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Application
Claim(s) 1-20 were previously pending and were rejected in the previous office action. Claim(s) 1, 13, and 20 were amended. Claim(s) 2-12 and 14-19 were left as previously/originally presented. Claim(s) 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 03, 2026, has been entered
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting
Applicant's arguments, on page(s) 11-13, filed on June 03, 2026, has been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to Claim 13. Examiner, respectfully, does not find the argument persuasive because it does not appear to show the claims are patentably distinct from the reference claims. See MPEP 804(I)(B)(1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-18 Applicant’s Response, filed June 03, 2026, with respect to 35 USC § 101 rejection of Claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues, on page 16, that the amended Independent Claim(s) 1, 13, and 20, do not fall within the revised Step 2A Prong 1 framework under the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.” Examiner, respectfully, disagrees.
As an initial matter, Courts have provided various sub groupings within organizing human activity grouping encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is also noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Examiner, respectfully, notes that the specific limitation(s) that fall within the subject matter groupings of the abstract idea. Independent Claim 1 recites “storing,” “receive credential information of a customer service agent associated with a retailer, the credential information indicating an access level of the customer service agent” “receive identification data associated with a customer,” “responsive to receiving the identification data and validating the credential information of the customer service agent,” “query, shopping cart data of the customer,” “storing,” “query,” “enforce access control over customer account data based on the access level indicated by the credential information,” “generate a first option selectable by the customer service agent to modify a price of a pre-purchase item that is included within an active shopping cart of the customer before the customer completes purchasing the pre-purchase item from the retailer, wherein upon selection of the first administrative option to modify the price of the pre-purchase item,” “display,” “a first graphical representation of the active shipping cart of the customer, the active shopping cart being associated with the identification data, and the first graphical representation having an appearance corresponding to a first customer view of the active shopping cart,” “a second option selectable by the customer service agent to issue a concession for an order item after the customer completes purchasing the order item from the retailer, wherein upon selection of the second option to issue the concession for the order item,” “display,” “a second graphical representation of a customer order information, the customer order information being associated with the identification data, and the second graphical representation having an appearance corresponding to the second customer view of the customer order information,” “wherein, when the access level indicated by the credential information is below a threshold access level excludes a portion of the customer account data from a response returned,” and “wherein, responsive to receiving an instruction to modify the price of the pre-purchase item, write the modification to the shopping cart information data,” function(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions).
Independent Claim 13, recites “prompting a customer service agent to input credentials, wherein the credentials correspond to an identity of the customer service agent, the credentials indicating an access level of the customer service agent,” “in response to a positive verification of the credentials, prompting the customer service agent to enter identification data associated with a customer,” “receiving the identification data associated with the customer from the customer service agent,” “in response to receiving the identification data, query, shopping cart data of the customer,” “query,” “enforce access control over customer account data based on the access level indicated by the credentials,” “providing to the customer service agent,” “a first option selectable by the customer service agent to modify a price of pre-purchase item that is included within an active shopping cart of the customer before the customer completes purchasing the pre-purchase item form the retailer, wherein upon selection of the first option to modify the price of the pre-purchase item,” “display,” “a first graphical representation of the active shopping cart of the customer, the active shopping cart being associated with the identification data, and the first graphical representation having an appearance corresponding to a first customer view of the active shopping cart,” “wherein, when the access level indicated by the credentials is below a threshold access level, exclude a portion of the customer account data from a response returned,” and “wherein, responsive to receiving an instruction to modify the price of the pre-purchase item, write the modification to the shopping cart information,” step(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions).
Independent Claim 20, recites “storing,” “receive a request, from a customer, directed to a customer service agent representing a retailer, to match a price of an item from the retailer to a competitor price,” “receive credential information of the customer service agent, the credential information indicating an access level of the customer service agent,” “in response to receiving the identification data, query shopping cart data of the customer,” “query,” “enforce access control over customer account data based on the access level indicated by the credential information,” “provide to the customer service agent,” “a graphical representation as viewed by the customer, the graphical representation including a graphical view of an active shopping cart and the customer order information associated with an account of the customer,” “a first option selectable by the customer service agent for when the item is a pre-purchase item that is included within the active shopping cart of the customer before the customer completes purchasing the pre-purchase item from the retailer,” “a second option selectable by the customer service agent for when the item is an order item that is included within the customer order information of the customer after the customer completes purchasing the order item form the retailer,” “wherein upon selection of the first option, execute instructions to modify the price of the item, a modified price for the item having a value up to the competitor price, including displaying them modified price for the item on the active shopping cart as viewed by the customer, “ “wherein upon selection of the second option, execute instructions to issue a concession for the item, the concession having a value that is up to the difference between the price of the item and the competitor price, including displaying the concession amount for the item on the customer order information as viewed by the customer,” “wherein, when the access level indicated by the credential information is below a threshold access level, exclude a portion of the customer account data from a response returned to the customer service agent device,” and “wherein, responsive to receiving an instruction to modify the price of the pre-purchase item, write the modification to the shopping cart information,” function(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions).
Similar to, Credit Acceptance Corp v, Westlake Services, where the court found that that processing a credit application between a customer and dealer, where the business relation is the relationship between the customer and the dealer during the vehicle purchase was merely a commercial transaction, which, is a form of certain methods of organizing human activity. In this case, the claim(s) are similar to a business relationship between an entity and customer(s), which, an agent is presented with a user interface for issuing concessions for user orders, which the customer information is not displayed to the agent depending on the agents credentials. The agent can then modify the price of the items, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea of a business relation such as issuing concessions for online shopping.
Also, the limitations can recite a fundamental economic practice including enhancing security and privacy associated with commercial transactions by omitting certain information associated with transacting parties. Cf Mortgage Grader Inc. v. First Choice Loan Services, Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1318, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding ineligible claims enabling borrowers to shop for loan packages anonymously using a computer); CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372 (noting that a recited step that utilized a map of credit card numbers to determine the validity of a credit card transaction could be performed entirely mentally by merely using logical reasoning to identify a likely instance of fraud by merely observing that numerous transactions using different credit cards all originated from the same IP address); Also, see Prism Techs. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 696 F. App'x 1014, 1016-18 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (unpublished) (holding ineligible claims directed to the abstract process of (1) receiving identity data from a device with a request for access to resources; (2) confirming authenticity of the identity data associated with that device; (3) determining whether the identified device is authorized to access the requested resources; and (4) if authorized, permitting access to the requested resources); See, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Thus, applicant’s claims fall within at least the enumerated grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Second, Applicant argues, on page(s) 16-18, that the invention provides that the application is now integrated into a practical application thus sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
As an initial matter, it is important to note that first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel"), see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
Here, in this case the specification discloses a solution to protect customer’s privacy, see applicant’s specification(s) 0048 and 0117 and see applicant’s arguments on page(s) 10-11. This is at best is an improvement to the abstract idea itself (e.g., customer privacy) rather than a technological improvement.
First, the step(s) of accomplishing this desired improvement in the specification is made in blanket conclusory manner by merely protecting customer privacy by hiding and uncovering information based on the level of access the customer service agent is granted, is not an improvement in the functioning of a computer system, but more directed to the use of a generic computer to carry out the recited abstract idea of hiding customer information, see applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0048 and 0117. Thus, when the specification states the improvement in a conclusory manner the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Also, another important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP §2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Here, in this case applicant’s limitations merely receiving, receiving, querying, querying, validating, generating, selecting, modifying, selecting, issuing, excluding, modifying, and writing, shopping information using computer components that operate in their ordinary capacity (e.g., a computing system, a processor, a memory, a customer service agent device, a cart application programming interface, a shopping cart information data store, a user data application programming interface, a customer account information data store, a remote customer service agent device, an agent user interface, a first/second administrative option, a customer service tool, and a customer user interface), which are no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, similar to, TLI Communications, where the court found that there was no improvement upon computers or technology when mere gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result. Here, in this case a credential and identification data is received (e.g., gathering). The system will then validate the credential information and generate an interface (e.g., analyzing). The system will then modify a price of a pre-purchase item, which the system can issue a concession (e.g., analyzing). The system can then provide a viewable portion of information to an agent (e.g., displaying) thus merely gathering shopping information, analyzing the information, and then presenting the certain information to an agent are not sufficient to show an improvement in computers or technology of determining shopping information for customer’s information.
Furthermore, similar to, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC., the court provided that arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. In this case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application when the system enables a customer service agent to quickly competitor pricing and determine refund amounts for customers, see paragraph(s) 0031, 0080 and 0132, since the user interface merely provides pricing information to a customer and/or agent to process the information more quickly doesn’t show an improvement in computer-functionally or technology.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In this case, while applicant argues that the limitations provide an improvement to the multi-interface customer service computing system. Examiner disagrees. Applicant has not positively recited in the claims of how the system is able to mask/blur data fields based on the agent access levels, how the masking/blur data is applied to the interface to apply a visual obscuration layer(s) over the interface to protect the customer data on the interface. Nor is it positively recited as to how the agent interface is then blurred to obscure/blur the masked data and how that same interface can provide unmasked data dependent on the agents access levels. And in turn how that is then an improvement to the multi-interface, possibly see paragraph 0115 and Fig. 16 (other paragraph(s) and drawings maybe helpful). Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Third, Applicant argues, on page(s) 17-18, that the combination requires a user data application programming interface that enforces access control based on a credential-indicated access level, and a cart application programming interface through which price modification are written to the shopping cart information data store. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Here, in this case applicant’s limitations merely enforcing and writing, shopping information in a database using computer components that operate in their ordinary capacity (e.g., the customer service agent device, the agent user interface, the shopping cart information data store, and the cart application programming interface), which are no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
.Also, similar to BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 889 F.3d 1281, 1287-88, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1693-94 (Fed. Cir. 2018), where the court found that providing historical usage information to users while they are inputting data, in order to improve the quality and organization of information added to a database, because "an improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database’s functionality," was not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. In this case, applicant has provided that the shopping cart information data store is used to store data, see applicant’s specification paragraph 0058, thus merely improving how the information is stored in a memory is not equivalent to how the database memory is being improved. Also, see consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant argues, on page(s) 18-22, that Marchant et al. (US 11,042,918 B2) in view of Saarenvirta (US 11,887,138 B2) and further in view of Sampson (US 10,049,227 B1) do not explicitly teach accessing enforcement to a credential-indicated access level of the customer service agent, or identifying a threshold at which the user data application programming interface excludes data from the reposone returned to the agent device. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As an initial matter, under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification – the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (discussed below), see MPEP 2111.01(I). Also, "Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See, MPEP 2111.01(II). Also, see MPEP 1207.03(a)(II), which provides citing a different portion of a reference to elaborate upon that which has been cited previously does not constitute a new ground of rejection.
In this case, Marchant et al. teaches an cart API that is a set of functions or procedures that enable a program or application to gain access to the data. The cart API controls access to the shopping cart information data store for accessing by the customer service assistance computing device or customer device. The API controls access to the customer account information data store for accessing the customer service assistance computing device, which the same data may be accessed by both a customer and a customer service representative. Merchant et al., also, teaches a user data API that provides access control to certain types of user data. Any sensitive or otherwise private data related to a customer account is only accessible by customer service agents with the proper access rights. A customer service agent supervisor may have permission to access or view a customer's credit card information that is included in the order information data store. Only a customer service agent using a trusted terminal, which the terminal has a higher level of security, or being positioned within an enterprise, or otherwise having stronger access controls to ensure security of customer data. This allows the customer service agent access to sensitive customer data (e.g., credential-indicated access level of the customer service agent). A customer service agent with a comparatively lower-security computing terminal may still be provided with the ability to view a customer's shopping cart and selected customer account or order information, but certain types of data may be excluded from that view that may otherwise be included such as a credit card or other data, including, for example, PCI data. Merchant et al., further, teaches the user data API may provide access control to certain types of user data. Any sensitive or otherwise private data related to a customer account is only accessible by customer service agents with the proper access rights. A customer service agent supervisor may have permission to access or view a customer's credit card information that is included in the order information data store. Or, only a customer service agent using a trusted terminal may access such sensitive customer data, while a comparatively lower-security computing terminal may still be provided with the ability to view a customer's shopping cart and selected customer account or order information, but certain types of data may be excluded from that view that may otherwise be included. The customer service agent can view the exact issues encountered by the customer, and can directly access and edit the customer's account information in ways that the customer may not be able to. The customer service agent can make modifications to orders already placed, apply pricing corrections, add/remove items from a shopping cart. The agent can query through customer account information and shopping cart information. The agent can search the customer account information data store through the user data API and the shopping cart information through an user data API. Therefore, Merchant teaches an access enforcement system that allows agent credentials to access various information based on the agents access levels.
Furthermore, as initial matter based on the BRI of the claim and applicant’s specification paragraph 0117. The threshold access level is merely the position level of the personnel. Applicant’s specification merely provides “…Such hidden information may be uncovered based on the level of access the customer service agent is granted. For example, a supervisor customer service agent may be granted access to information that is hidden from a staff customer service agent….” Here, Sampson teaches a system for data masking. The system can permit access to certain information based on permission-based access level. The system can determine an individual with a lower-level access permission level will not be permitted more information than an individual with high-level access permission level (e.g., access level indicated by the credential information is below a threshold access level). Sampson, further, teaches the system can determine individuals assigned or associated roles will limit their access to customer information. The system can assign insurance agents and administration assistants different levels of access to customer information. The system will then mask the sensitive customer data through a virtual shutter for masking the sensitive information within the agent interface based on certain individuals having lower access levels than other individuals (e.g., access level indicated by the credential information is below a threshold access level excludes a portion of the customer account data). Thus, teaches that excluding customer information based on lower access roles. Therefore, applicants arguments are not persuasive.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 13 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,042,918 B2 (hereinafter Patent 918) in view of Saarenvirta (US 11,887,138 B2) and further in view of Sampson (US 10,049,227 B1) and further in view of Marchant et al. (US 11,042,918 B2).
Regarding Claim 13, Patent 918, teaches a method comprising:
prompting a customer service agent to input credentials, wherein the credentials correspond to an identity of the customer service agent. (Claim 20)(Patent 918 et al. teaches prompting a customer service agent to input credentials, wherein the credentials correspond to the identity of the customer service agent)
in response to a positive verification of the credentials, prompting the customer service agent to enter identification data associated with a customer. (Claim 20)(Patent 918 et al. teaches in response to a positive verification of the credentials, prompting the customer service agent to enter identification data associated with a customer)
receiving the identification data associated with the customer from the customer service agent. (Claim 20)(Patent 918 teaches receiving the identification data associated with the customer from the customer service agent)
in response to receiving the identification data,
querying, through a cart application programming interface, a shopping cart information data store storing shopping cart data of the customer.
querying, through a user data application programming interface, a customer account information data store, wherein the user data application programming interface enforces access control over customer account data based on the access level indicated by the credentials.
providing an agent user interface to the customer service agent. (Claim 20)(Patent 918 teaches in response to receiving the identification data, providing a user interface to the customer service agent)
the agent user interface including:
a fist administrative option selectable by the customer service agent to modify a price of a pre-purchase item that is included within an active shopping cart of the customer before the customer completes purchasing the pre-purchase item from the retailer, wherein upon selection of the first administrative option to modify the price of the pre-purchase item. (Column 3, Lines 55-62); (Column 10, Lines 26-36 and 54-65)(Patent 918 teaches at least one option selectable by a customer service agent to execute a function modifying the customer account information)
the agent user interface displays:
a first graphical representation of the active shopping cart of the customer, the active shopping cart being associated with the identification data, and the first graphical representation having an appearance corresponding to a first customer view of the active shopping cart within a customer user interface. (Claim 20)(Patent 918 teaches a first graphical representation of an active shopping cart of the customer, the active shopping store cart being associated with the identification data, and the first graphical representation having an appearance corresponding to a customer view of the active shopping cart)
With respect to the above limitations: while Patent 918 et al. teaches a customer and customer agent interface. The customer agent interface includes an administrative option for executing a function that affects the customers shopping cart. The agent is able to provide credentials and identification data to the system for generating an customer agent interface. Patent 918, also, teaches a first graphical representation of an active shopping cart of the customer that is associated with the identification data and has the appearance corresponding to the customer view of the active shopping cart. However, Patent 918, doesn’t explicitly teach a customer service agent selectable options is able to modify a price of a pre-purchase item that is included in the customers shopping cart, before the customer completes purchasing the pre-purchase item from the retailer. The selection of the first administrative option modifies the price of the pre- purchase item. Patent 918, also, doesn’t explicitly teach the credentials indicate an access level. Patent 918, also, doesn’t explicitly teach the access level indicates the credentials are below a threshold, the user application programming interface excludes a portion of the customer account data from a response returned to the customer service agent device. The system will then receive an instruction from the customer service agent device through the agent user interface to modify the price and write the modification to the shopping cart information data store.
But, Saarevirta in the analogous art of modifying pricing plans for items, teaches
a fist administrative option selectable by the customer service agent to modify a price of a pre-purchase item that is included before the customer completes purchasing the pre-purchase item from the retailer, wherein upon selection of the first administrative option to modify the price of the pre-purchase item. (Column 10, Lines 44-54); (Column 31, Lines 6-24); (Column 40, Lines 56-67); and (Column 41, Lines 1-6)(Saarenvirta teaches a retail pricing plan may be implemented by the retailer. The retailer’s computer system can output the retail price plan, which the retailer user can modify the retail pricing plan for the product availability, see Column 31, Lines 6-24. Saarenvirta, also, teaches that the retailer computer interface allows the retailer to interact with the interface to make adjustments to the product pricing. Saarenvirta, also, teaches the retailer interface includes a link/button for editing the pricing/modifying the price points for the products, see Column 40, Lines 56-67 and Column 41, Lines 1-6)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify using an agent user interface for modifying functions of the customers shopping cart order of Patent 918, by incorporating the teachings of modifying a pricing plan for items using interface links of Saarevirta, with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention in order to improve retailers efficiently planning prices for products. (Saarenvirta: Column 1, Lines 14-30)
With respect to the above limitations: while Saarenvirta teaches modifying a pricing plan for items using interface links. However, Patent 918 and Saarenvirta et al., do not explicitly teach teaches a customer and customer agent interface. The customer agent interface includes an administrative option for executing a function that affects the customers shopping cart. The agent is able to provide credentials and identification data to the system for generating an customer agent interface. Patent 918, also, teaches a first graphical representation of an active shopping cart of the customer that is associated with the identification data and has the appearance corresponding to the customer view of the active shopping cart. Patent 918 and Saarenvirta et al., also, do not explicitly teach the credentials indicate an access level. Patent 918 and Saarenvirta et al., also, doesn’t explicitly teach the access level indicates the credentials are below a threshold, the user application programming interface excludes a portion of the customer account data from a response returned to the customer service agent device. The system will then receive an instruction from the customer service agent device through the agent user interface to modify the price and write the modification to the shopping cart information data store
But, Sampson in the analogous art of masking customer data, teaches wherein the credential information of the customer service agent is below a threshold access level. (Abstract); (Column 17, Lines 40-67); (Column 18, Lines 1-10); (Column 22, Lines 52-67); and (Column 23, Lines 1-20)(Sampson teaches a system for data masking. The system can permit access to certain information based on permission-based access level (e.g., credential information). The system can determine an individual with a lower-level access permission level (e.g., below a threshold access level) will not be permitted more information than an individual with high-level access permission level. Sampson, further, teaches the system can determine individuals assigned or associated roles will limit their access to customer information. The system can assign insurance agents and administration assistants different levels of access to customer information. The system will then mask the sensitive customer data through a virtual shutter for masking the sensitive information within the agent interface based on certain individuals having lower access levels (e.g., below a threshold) than other individuals. Examiner, respectfully, notes that based on the BRI of the claim and applicant’s specification paragraph 0117. That the threshold access level is merely the position level of the personnel. Applicant’s specification merely provides “…Such hidden information may be uncovered based on the level of access the customer service agent is granted. For example, a supervisor customer service agent may be granted access to information that is hidden from a staff customer service agent…,” thus the above reference reads on applicant’s limitations)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify using an agent user interface for modifying functions of the customers shopping cart order of Patent 918 and modifying a pricing plan for items using interface links of Saarevirta, by incorporating the teachings of masking sensitive customer information in an agent interface based on the access levels of the agents and if one individual is lower than another individual then they will not be presented certain information of Sampson, with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention in order to improve a system for protecting information. (Sampson: Column 1, Lines 48-57)
With respect to the above limitations: while Sampson teaches masking sensitive customer information in an agent interface based on the access levels of the agents and if one individual is lower than another individual then they will not be presented certain information. However, Patent 918, Saarenvirta et al., and Sampson, do not explicitly teach teaches a customer and customer agent interface. The customer agent interface includes an administrative option for executing a function that affects the customers shopping cart. The agent is able to provide credentials and identification data to the system for generating an customer agent interface. Patent 918, Saarenvirta, and Sampson, also, teaches a first graphical representation of an active shopping cart of the customer that is associated with the identification data and has the appearance corresponding to the customer view of the active shopping cart. Patent 918, Saarenvirta et al., and Sampson, also, do not explicitly teach the credentials indicate an access level. Patent 918, Saarenvirta et al., and Sampson, also, doesn’t explicitly teach the access level indicates the credentials are below a threshold, the user application programming interface excludes a portion of the customer account data from a response returned to the customer service agent device. The system will then receive an instruction from the customer service agent device through the agent user interface to modify the price and write the modification to the shopping cart information data store
But, Marchant et al. in the analogous art customer service, teaches
prompting a customer service agent to input credentials, wherein the credentials correspond to an identity of the customer service agent, the credentials indicating an access level of the customer service agent. (Column 2, Lines 7-26); and (Claim 20)(Marchant et al. teaches prompting a customer service agent to input credentials, wherein the credentials correspond to the identity of the customer service agent. Marchant et al., also, teaches that the customer account information may be obscured or excluded from view from the customer service agent based on their credentials of the customer service agent and/or the manner in which the customer account information is accessed. Some customer service agents may be not be able to view some forms of customer payment information while other agents may be able to view the same)
wherein, when the access level indicated by the credentials the user data application programming interface excludes a portion of the customer account data from a response returned to the customer service agent device. (Column 6, Lines 15-34)(Merchant et al. teaches the user data API may provide access control to certain types of user data. Any sensitive or otherwise private data related to a customer account is only accessible by customer service agents with the proper access rights. A customer service agent supervisor may have permission to access or view a customer's credit card information that is included in the order information data store. Or, only a customer service agent using a trusted terminal may access such sensitive customer data, while a comparatively lower-security computing terminal may still be provided with the ability to view a customer's shopping cart and selected customer account or order information, but certain types of data may be excluded from that view that may otherwise be included)
wherein responsive to receiving an instruction from the customer service agent device through the agent user interface to modify the price of the pre-purchase item, the computing system writes the modification to the shopping cart information data store through the cart application programming interface. (Column 12, Lines 21-26)(Marchant et al. teaches a customer service agent can view the exact issues encountered by the customer, and can directly access and edit the customer's account information in ways that the customer may not be able to. The customer service agent can make modifications to orders already placed, apply pricing corrections, add/remove items from a shopping cart)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify using an agent user interface for modifying functions of the customers shopping cart order of Patent 918, modifying a pricing plan for items using interface links of Saarevirta, and masking sensitive customer information in an agent interface based on the access levels of the agents and if one individual is lower than another individual then they will not be presented certain information of Sampson, by incorporating the teachings of customer service agents access levels including credentials. The system can use a user API to exclude information provided to a customer service agent. The customer service agent can view the issues encountered by the customer and access and edit the customer’s account information and make modifications to the orders of Marchant et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention in order to allow customer service agents to view an exact version of the customer's account, including a customer shopping carta system for protecting information. (Merchant et al.: Column 16, Lines 9-19)
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(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: Independent Claim(s) 1, 13, and 20 recites a customer service entity is able to log-in to the entities computer. The customer service entity can then modify a price for a customer order, which the customer is able purchase the order based on the modified pricing. The customer service entity is then able to issue a concession to the purchased order. Independent Claim(s) 1, 13, and 20, as a whole recites limitation(s) that are directed to the abstract idea(s) of certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions).
Independent Claim 1 recites “storing,” “receive credential information of a customer service agent associated with a retailer, the credential information indicating an access level of the customer service agent” “receive identification data associated with a customer,” “responsive to receiving the identification data and validating the credential information of the customer service agent,” “query, shopping cart data of the customer,” “storing,” “query,” “enforce access control over customer account data based on the access level indicated by the credential information,” “generate a first option selectable by the customer service agent to modify a price of a pre-purchase item that is included within an active shopping cart of the customer before the customer completes purchasing the pre-purchase item from the retailer, wherein upon selection of the first administrative option to modify the price of the pre-purchase item,” “display,” “a first graphical representation of the active shipping cart of the customer, the active shopping cart being associated with the identification data, and the first graphical representation having an appearance corresponding to a first customer view of the active shopping cart,” “a second option selectable by the customer service agent to issue a concession for an order item after the customer completes purchasing the order item from the retailer, wherein upon selection of the second option to issue the concession for the order item,” “display,” “a second graphical representation of a customer order information, the customer order information being associated with the identification data, and the second graphical representation having an appearance corresponding to the second customer view of the customer order information,” “wherein, when the access level indicated by the credential information is below a threshold access level excludes a portion of the customer account data from a response returned,” and “wherein, responsive to receiving an instruction to modify the price of the pre-purchase item, write the modification to the shopping cart information data,” function(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions).
Independent Claim 13, recites “prompting a customer service agent to input credentials, wherein the credentials correspond to an identity of the customer service agent, the credentials indicating an access level of the customer service agent,” “in response to a positive verification of the credentials, prompting the customer service agent to enter identification data associated with a customer,” “receiving the identification data associated with the customer from the customer service agent,” “in response to receiving the identification data, query, shopping cart data of the customer,” “query,” “enforce access control over customer account data based on the access level indicated by the credentials,” “providing to the customer service agent,” “a first option selectable by the customer service agent to modify a price of pre-purchase item that is included within an active shopping cart of the customer before the customer completes purchasing the pre-purchase item form the retailer, wherein upon selection of the first option to modify the price of the pre-purchase item,” “display,” “a first graphical representation of the active shopping cart of the customer, the active shopping cart being associated with the identification data, and the first graphical representation having an appearance corresponding to a first customer view of the active shopping cart,” “wherein, when the access level indicated by the credentials is below a threshold access level, exclude a portion of the customer account data from a response returned,” and “wherein, responsive to receiving an instruction to modify the price of the pre-purchase item, write the modification to the shopping cart information,” step(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions).
Independent Claim 20, recites “storing,” “receive a request, from a customer, directed to a customer service agent representing a retailer, to match a price of an item from the retailer to a competitor price,” “receive credential information of the customer service agent, the credential information indicating an access level of the customer service agent,” “in response to receiving the identification data, query shopping cart data of the customer,” “query,” “enforce access control over customer account data based on the access level indicated by the credential information,” “provide to the customer service agent,” “a graphical representation as viewed by the customer, the graphical representation including a graphical view of an active shopping cart and the customer order information associated with an account of the customer,” “a first option selectable by the customer service agent for when the item is a pre-purchase item that is included within the active shopping cart of the customer before the customer completes purchasing the pre-purchase item from the retailer,” “a second option selectable by the customer service agent for when the item is an order item that is included within the customer order information of the customer after the customer completes purchasing the order item form the retailer,” “wherein upon selection of the first option, execute instructions to modify the price of the item, a modified price for the item having a value up to the competitor price, including displaying them modified price for the item on the active shopping cart as viewed by the customer, “ “wherein upon selection of the second option, execute instructions to issue a concession for the item, the concession having a value that is up to the difference between the price of the item and the competitor price, including displaying the concession amount for the item on the customer order information as viewed by the customer,” “wherein, when the access level indicated by the credential information is below a threshold access level, exclude a portion of the customer account data from a response returned to the customer service agent device,” and “wherein, responsive to receiving an instruction to modify the price of the pre-purchase item, write the modification to the shopping cart information,” function(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., behaviors and/or business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions). For instance, in this case, Independent Claim(s) 1, 13, and 20, are similar to an customer service agent that can modify item pricing based on competitor pricing, which the customer service agent can then issue a concession for the purchased order. The mere recitation of generic computer components (Claim 1: a computing system, a memory, a processor, a customer service agent device, a cart application programming interface, a shopping cart information data store, a user data application programming interface, a customer account information data store, an agent interface, a remote customer service agent device, a first administrative option, a second administrative option, and a customer user interface; Claim 13: an agent user interface, a first administrative option, a cart application programming interface, a shopping cart information data store, a user data application programming interface, a customer account information data store, and a customer user interface; and Claim 20: a computing system, a processor, a memory, a customer service agent device, a cart application programming interface, a shopping cart information data store, a user data application programming interface, a customer device, an agent user interface, a customer user interface, a first administrative option, and a second administrative option) do not take the claims out of the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity. Therefore, Independent Claim(s) 1, 13, and 20, recites the above abstract idea(s).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole describes how to generally “apply,” the concept(s) of “receiving,” “receiving,” “validating,” “querying,” “querying,” “generating,” “selecting,” “excluding,” “modifying,” “displaying,” “selecting,” “issuing,” “displaying,” and “prompting,” respectively, information in a computer environment. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are as follows (Claim 1: a computing system, a memory, a processor, a customer service agent device, a cart application programming interface, a shopping cart information data store, a user data application programming interface, a customer account information data store, an agent interface, a remote customer service agent device, a first administrative option, a second administrative option, and a customer user interface; Claim 13: an agent user interface, a first administrative option, a cart application programming interface, a shopping cart information data store, a user data application programming interface, a customer account information data store, and a customer user interface; and Claim 20: a computing system, a processor, a memory, a customer service agent device, a cart application programming interface, a shopping cart information data store, a user data application programming interface, a customer device, an agent user interface, a customer user interface, a first administrative option, and a second administrative option), respectively, are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Here, in this case applicant’s limitations merely receiving, receiving, querying, querying, validating, generating, excluding, selecting, modifying, displaying, selecting, issuing, displaying, and prompting information using computer components that operate in their ordinary capacity (e.g., a computing system, a memory, a processor, a customer service agent device, a cart application programming interface, a shopping cart information data store, a user data application programming interface, a customer account information data store, an agent interface, a remote customer service agent device, a first administrative option, a second administrative option, and a customer user interface), which are no more than using instructions to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components wherein the focus of the claim as a whole is directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea thus merely amounting to “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In this case, there is nothing in the claims of how the system is able to mask/blur data fields based on the agent access levels, how the masking/blur data is applied to the interface to apply a visual obscuration layer(s) over the interface to protect the customer data on the interface. Nor is it positively recited as to how the agent interface is then blurred to obscure/blur the masked data and how that same interface can provide unmasked data dependent on the agents access levels. And in turn how that is then an improvement to the multi-interface.
Also, similar to, TLI Communications, where the court found that there was no improvement upon computers or technology when mere gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result. Here, in this case a credential and identification data is received (e.g., gathering). The system will then validate the credential information and generate an interface (e.g., analyzing). The system will then modify a price of a pre-purchase item, which the system can issue a concession (e.g., analyzing). The system can then provide a viewable portion of information to an agent (e.g., displaying) thus merely gathering shopping information, analyzing the information, and then presenting the certain information to an agent are not sufficient to show an improvement in computers or technology of determining shopping information for customer’s information
Furthermore, similar to, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC., the court provided that arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. In this case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application when the system enables a customer service agent to quickly competitor pricing and determine refund amounts for customers, see paragraph(s) 0031, 0080 and 0132, since the user interface merely provides pricing information to a customer and/or agent to process the information more quickly doesn’t show an improvement in computer-functionally or technology.
Also, similar to, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, the court provided that merely “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer,” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. In this case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application when the user interface(s) efficiently enables the agent and customer to efficiently and quickly modify/view pricing information, see applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0030-0031, 0034, 0079-0080, 0115, 0132, and 0141-0142, since the appending generic computer functionality merely lends to speed or efficiency to the performance of an abstract concept doesn’t meaningfully limit the claim(s) thus as a whole applicant’s limitations merely describe how to generally “apply,” the concept(s) of an existing process of modifying and presenting pricing information thus at best are mere instructions to apply the exception. Each of the above limitations simply implement an abstract idea that is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which, is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Therefore, when viewed in combination these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the above abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted previously, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply,” the abstract idea in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Claim(s) 10-12, 14, and 19 : The various metrics of Dependent Claim(s) 10-12, 14, and 19, merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to Independent Claim(s) 1, 13, and 20, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim(s) 2 and 15: The additional limitation(s) of describing “presenting,” are further directed to a method of organizing human activity, as described above for Independent Claim(s) 1 and 13, respectively. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are a customer user interface and a remote customer device. Examiner, notes that the customer user interface and remote customer device, are generically claimed that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the additional elements is merely presenting, information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. The recitation(s) of “presenting,” falls within certain methods of organizing human activity. Also, see gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; and arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019). For the reasons described above with respect to Claim(s) 2 and 15, the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 3 and 16: The additional limitation(s) of describing “receiving,” “modifying,” “executing,” “modifying,” and “displaying,” are further directed to a method of organizing human activity, as described above for Independent Claim(s) 1 and 13, respectively. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are a computing system, a user interface, and a customer user interface. Examiner, notes that the computing system, user interface, and customer user interface, are generically claimed that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the additional elements is merely receiving, modifying, executing, modifying, and displaying, information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. The recitation(s) of “receive an instruction to modify the price of the pre-purchase item from the active shopping cart in response to receipt of user input from the customer service agent,” and “execute the instruction, thereby modifying the price the item, including displaying a modified price for the pre-purchase item on the first customer view of the active shopping cart,” falls within certain methods of organizing human activity. Also, see gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; and arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019). For the reasons described above with respect to Claim(s) 3 and 16, the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 4 and 17: The additional limitation(s) of describing “receiving,” “issuing,” “executing,” issuing,” and “displaying,” are further directed to a method of organizing human activity, as described above for Independent Claim(s) 1 and 13, respectively. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are a computing system, a user interface, and a customer user interface. Examiner, notes that the computing system, user interface, and customer user interface, are generically claimed that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the additional elements is merely receiving, issuing, executing, issuing, and displaying, information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. The recitation(s) of “receive an instruction to issue the concession for the order item in response to receipt of user input from the customer service agent,” and “execute the instruction, thereby issuing the concession for the order item, including displaying a concession amount for the order item on the second customer view of the customer order information,” falls within certain methods of organizing human activity. Also, see gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; and arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019). For the reasons described above with respect to Claim(s) 4 and 17, the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5: The additional limitation(s) of describing “selecting,” “modifying,” and “receiving,” are further directed to a method of organizing human activity, as described above for Independent Claim(s) 1, respectively. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are a first administrative option. Examiner, notes that the first administrative option, are generically claimed that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the additional elements is merely selecting, modifying, and receiving, information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. The recitation(s) of “customer service agent selecting the first option to modify the price of the pre-purchase item is in response to receiving a request from the customer to match the price of the pre-purchase item to a competitor price,” falls within certain methods of organizing human activity. Also, see gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; and arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019). For the reasons described above with respect to Claim(s) 5, the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6: The additional limitation(s) of describing “selecting,” “issuing,” and “receiving,” are further directed to a method of organizing human activity, as described above for Independent Claim(s) 1, respectively. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are a second administrative option. Examiner, notes that the first administrative option, are generically claimed that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the additional elements is merely selecting, modifying, and receiving, information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. The recitation(s) of “customer service agent selecting the second option to issue a concession is in response to receiving a request from the customer to match a price of the order item price to a competitor price,” falls within certain methods of organizing human activity. Also, see gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; and arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019). For the reasons described above with respect to Claim(s) 6, the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 7 and 18: The additional limitation(s) of describing “displaying,” are further directed to a method of organizing human activity, as described above for Independent Claim(s) 1 and 13, respectively. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are an agent user interface. Examiner, notes that agent user interface, are generically claimed that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the additional elements is merely displaying, information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. The recitation(s) of “displays a competitor check section that includes information retrieved from a competitor listing of the pre-purchase item or the order item, the information including one or more of: a competitor price for the pre-purchase item or the order item, a data at which the information was retrieved, a time at which the information was retrieved, a stock status for the pre-purchase item or the order item, a name of an entity that stocks the pre-purchase item or the order item, a name of an entity that fulfills the pre-purchase item or the order item, and a uniform resource locator link to the competitor listing of the pre-purchase item or the order item,” falls within certain methods of organizing human activity. Also, see gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; and arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019). For the reasons described above with respect to Claim(s) 7 and 18, the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8: The additional limitation(s) of describing “displaying,” “modifying,” and “issuing,” are further directed to a method of organizing human activity, as described above for Independent Claim(s) 1, respectively. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are an agent user interface. Examiner, notes that the agent user interface, are generically claimed that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the additional elements is merely displaying, modifying, and issuing, information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. The recitation(s) of “automatically displays a suggestion for a price modification monetary amount or a concession monetary amount,” “the price modification monetary amount is a monetary amount up to which the customer service agent may modify the price of the pre-purchase item,” and “the concession monetary amount is a monetary amount up to which the customer service agent may issue a concession for the order item,” falls within certain methods of organizing human activity. Also, see gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; and arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019). For the reasons described above with respect to Claim(s) 8, the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9: The additional limitation(s) of describing “entering,” are further directed to a method of organizing human activity, as described above for Independent Claim(s) 1, respectively. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are an agent user interface. Examiner, notes that the agent user interface, are generically claimed that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the additional elements is merely displaying, information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. The recitation(s) of “includes an option for the customer service agent to manually enter a concession amount for the order item, wherein the concession amount is up to a price for the order item,” falls within certain methods of organizing human activity. Also, see gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; and arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019). For the reasons described above with respect to Claim(s) 7, the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) 2-12 and 14-19 above do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) in the dependent claim(s) above are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component(s), which, do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claim(s) 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 13, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchant et al. (US 11,042,918 B2) in view of Saarenvirta (US 11,887,138 B2) and further in view of Sampson (US 10,049,227 B1).
Regarding Claim 13, Marchant et al., teaches a method comprising:
prompting a customer service agent to input credentials, wherein the credentials correspond to an identity of the customer service agent, the credentials indicating an access level of the customer service agent. (Column 2, Lines 7-26); (Column 9, Lines 65-67); Column 10, Lines 1-16); and (Claim 20)(Marchant et al. teaches prompting a customer service agent to input credentials, wherein the credentials correspond to the identity of the customer service agent. Marchant et al., also, teaches that the customer account information may be obscured or excluded from view from the customer service agent based on their credentials of the customer service agent and/or the manner in which the customer account information is accessed. Some customer service agents may be not be able to view some forms of customer payment information while other agents may be able to view the same)
in response to a positive verification of the credentials, prompting the customer service agent to enter identification data associated with a customer. (Column 2, Lines 7-26); and (Claim 20)(Marchant et al. teaches in response to a positive verification of the credentials, prompting the customer service agent to enter identification data associated with a customer)
receiving the identification data associated with the customer from the customer service agent. (Column 2, Lines 7-26); and (Claim 20)(Marchant et al. teaches receiving the identification data associated with the customer from the customer service agent)
in response to receiving the identification data,
querying, through a cart application programming interface, a shopping cart information data store storing shopping cart data of the customer. (Column 5, Lines 19-39), (Column 13, Lines 15-67); (Column 14, Lines 1-37); and (Fig. 2, 272, 274, 400, and 500) (Marchant et al. teaches an cart API that is a set of functions or procedures that enable a program or application to gain access to the data. The cart API controls access to the shopping cart information data store for accessing by the customer service assistance computing device or customer device. The API controls access to the customer account information data store for accessing the customer service assistance computing device, which the same data may be accessed by both a customer and a customer service representative. The agent can search through the customer active shopping cart information. The agent can search the shopping cart information data store via the Cart API)
querying, through a user data application programming interface, a customer account information data store, where the user data application programming interface enforces access control over customer account data based on the access level indicated by the credentials . (Column 6, Lines 15-34); (Column 13, Lines 15-67); (Column 14, Lines 15-57); and (fig. 2, 272, 274, 400, and 500) (Merchant et al teaches a user data API that provides access control to certain types of user data. Any sensitive or otherwise private data related to a customer account is only accessible by customer service agents with the proper access rights. A customer service agent supervisor may have permission to access or view a customer's credit card information that is included in the order information data store. Or, only a customer service agent using a trusted terminal, which the terminal has a higher level of security, or being positioned within an enterprise, or otherwise having stronger access controls to ensure security of customer data. This allows the customer service agent access to sensitive customer data. A customer service agent with a comparatively lower-security computing terminal may still be provided with the ability to view a customer's shopping cart and selected customer account or order information, but certain types of data may be excluded from that view that may otherwise be included such as a credit card or other data, including, for example, PCI data. The agent can query through customer account information. The agent can search the customer account information data store through the user data API)
providing an agent user interface to the customer service agent. (Column 2, Lines 7-26); and (Claim 20)(Marchant et al. teaches in response to receiving the identification data, providing a user interface to the customer service agent)
the agent user interface including:
a fist administrative option selectable by the customer service agent to modify
.
the agent user interface displays:
a first graphical representation of the active shopping cart of the customer, the active shopping cart being associated with the identification data, and the first graphical representation having an appearance corresponding to a first customer view of the active shopping cart within a customer user interface. (Column 1, Lines 34-53)(Marchant et al. teaches a first graphical representation of an active shopping cart of the customer, the active shopping store cart being associated with the identification data, and the first graphical representation having an appearance corresponding to a customer view of the active shopping cart)
wherein, when the access level indicated by the credentialsonly a customer service agent using a trusted terminal may access such sensitive customer data, while a comparatively lower-security computing terminal may still be provided with the ability to view a customer's shopping cart and selected customer account or order information, but certain types of data may be excluded from that view that may otherwise be included)
wherein responsive to receiving an instruction from the customer service agent device through the agent user interface to modify the price of the pre-purchase item, the computing system writes the modification to the shopping cart information data store through the cart application programming interface. (Column 12, Lines 21-26)(Marchant et al. teaches a customer service agent can view the exact issues encountered by the customer, and can directly access and edit the customer's account information in ways that the customer may not be able to. The customer service agent can make modifications to orders already placed, apply pricing corrections, add/remove items from a shopping cart)
With respect to the above limitations: while Marchant et al. teaches a customer and customer agent interface. The customer agent interface includes an administrative option for executing a function that affects the customers shopping cart. The agent is able to provide credentials and identification data to the system for generating an customer agent interface. Marchant et al., also, teaches a first graphical representation of an active shopping cart of the customer that is associated with the identification data and has the appearance corresponding to the customer view of the active shopping cart. However, Marchant et al., doesn’t explicitly teach a customer service agent selectable options is able to modify a price of a pre-purchase item that is included in the customers shopping cart, before the customer completes purchasing the pre-purchase item from the retailer. The selection of the first administrative option modifies the price of the pre-purchase item. Merchant et al., also, doesn’t explicitly teach if the agent is below an access level threshold, then a portion of the customer information is hidden within the agent interface.
But, Saarevirta in the analogous art of modifying pricing plans for items, teaches a fist administrative option selectable by the customer service agent to modify a price of a pre-purchase item that is included before the customer completes purchasing the pre-purchase item from the retailer, wherein upon selection of the first administrative option to modify the price of the pre-purchase item. (Column 10, Lines 44-54); (Column 31, Lines 6-24); (Column 40, Lines 56-67); and (Column 41, Lines 1-6)(Saarenvirta teaches a retail pricing plan may be implemented by the retailer. The retailer’s computer system can output the retail price plan, which the retailer user can modify the retail pricing plan for the product availability, see Column 31, Lines 6-24. Saarenvirta, also, teaches that the retailer computer interface allows the retailer to interact with the interface to make adjustments to the product pricing. Saarenvirta, also, teaches the retailer interface includes a link/button for editing the pricing/modifying the price points for the products, see Column 40, Lines 56-67 and Column 41, Lines 1-6)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify using an agent user interface for modifying functions of the customers shopping cart order of Marchant et al., by incorporating the teachings of modifying a pricing plan for items using interface links of Saarevirta, with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention in order to improve retailers efficiently planning prices for products. (Saarenvirta: Column 1, Lines 14-30)
With respect to the above limitations: while Saarenvirta teaches a customer service agent selectable options is able to modify a price of a pre-purchase item that is included in the customers shopping cart, before the customer completes purchasing the pre-purchase item from the retailer. The selection of the first administrative option modifies the price of the pre-purchase item. However, Merchant et al./Saarenvirta, do not explicitly teach if the agent is below an access level threshold, then a portion of the customer information is hidden within the agent interface.
But, Sampson in the analogous art of masking customer data, teaches wherein, when the access level indicated by the credentials is below a threshold access level. (Abstract); (Column 17, Lines 40-67); (Column 18, Lines 1-10); (Column 22, Lines 52-67); and (Column 23, Lines 1-20)(Sampson teaches a system for data masking. The system can permit access to certain information based on permission-based access level (e.g., credential information). The system can determine an individual with a lower-level access permission level (e.g., below a threshold access level) will not be permitted more information than an individual with high-level access permission level. Sampson, further, teaches the system can determine individuals assigned or associated roles will limit their access to customer information. The system can assign insurance agents and administration assistants different levels of access to customer information. The system will then mask the sensitive customer data through a virtual shutter for masking the sensitive information within the agent interface based on certain individuals having lower access levels (e.g., below a threshold) than other individuals. Examiner, respectfully, notes that based on the BRI of the claim and applicant’s specification paragraph 0117. That the threshold access level is merely the position level of the personnel. Applicant’s specification merely provides “…Such hidden information may be uncovered based on the level of access the customer service agent is granted. For example, a supervisor customer service agent may be granted access to information that is hidden from a staff customer service agent…,” thus the above reference reads on applicant’s limitations)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify using an agent user interface for modifying functions of the customers shopping cart order of Marchant et al. and modifying a pricing plan for items using interface links of Saarevirta, by incorporating the teachings of masking sensitive customer information in an agent interface based on the access levels of the agents and if one individual is lower than another individual then they will not be presented certain information of Sampson, with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention in order to improve a system for protecting information. (Sampson: Column 1, Lines 48-57)
Regarding Claim 15, Marchant et al./Saarevirta/Sampson, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 13 and wherein the customer user interface is presented at a remote customer device. (Column 1, Liens 54-67)(Marchant et al. teaches a user interface is presentable at a remote customer service agent device)
Regarding Claim 19, Marchant et al./Saarevirta/Sampson, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 13 and wherein the concession includes one or more of: a monetary discount amount, a monetary discount percentage, and a credit amount to use at the retailer. (Column 14, Lines 38-49); and (Column 15, Lines 38-49)(teaches a number of concessions or discounts are given to the customer. The concession can be for a certain percentage or amount, see Column 15, Lines 38-49)
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchant et al. (US 11,042,918 B2) in view of Saarenvirta (US 11,887,138 B2) and Sampson (US 10,049,227 B1), as applied to Claim 13, and further in view of Stack (US 6,076,070 A).
Regarding Claim 16, Marchant et al./Saarevirta/Sampson, teaches all the limitations as applied Claim 13 and
receiving an instruction to in reposone to receipt of user input from the customer service agent at the user interface)
executing the instruction, thereby
With respect to the above limitations: while Marchant et al. teaches receiving an instruction to select and perform a function affecting the active shopping cart of the customer based on the user input of a customer agent at the user interface. Marchant et al., also, teaches executing the instructions thereby affecting the active shopping cart of the customer. However, Marchant et al., do not explicitly teach modifying the price of the pre-purchase item, which will then be displayed to the first customer view of the customer interface.
But, Saarevirta in the analogous art of modifying pricing plans for items, modify the price of the pre-purchase item. (Column 10, Lines 44-54); (Column 31, Lines 6-24); (Column 40, Lines 56-67); and (Column 41, Lines 1-6)(Saarenvirta teaches a retail pricing plan may be implemented by the retailer. The retailer’s computer system can output the retail price plan, which the retailer user can modify the retail pricing plan for the product availability, see Column 31, Lines 6-24. Saarenvirta, also, teaches that the retailer computer interface allows the retailer to interact with the interface to make adjustments to the product pricing. Saarenvirta, also, teaches the retailer interface includes a link/button for editing the pricing/modifying the price points for the products, see Column 40, Lines 56-67 and Column 41, Lines 1-6)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify using an agent user interface for modifying functions of the customers shopping cart order of Marchant et al., by incorporating the teachings of modifying a pricing plan for items using interface links of Saarevirta, with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention in order to improve retailers efficiently planning prices for products. (Saarenvirta: Column 1, Lines 14-30)
With respect to the above limitations: while Saarenvirta teaches modifying the price of the pre-purchase item. However, Marchant et al./Saarenvirta/Sampson, do not explicitly teach displaying the updated pricing to the first customer view of the customer interface.
But, Stack in the analogous art of reducing item pricing, modifying the price of the item, including displaying a modified price for the pre-purchase item on the first customer view. (Column 4, Lines 1-15)(Stack teaches if the vendors item price is capable of being reduced, the comparison computer program at the vendors site will reduce the price to a value less than or equal to the competitor’s price and the new price will be sent to the customer in the form of a new or revised display screen (e.g., first customer view))
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify using an agent user interface for modifying functions of the customers shopping cart order of Marchant et al., modifying a pricing plan for items using interface links of Saarevirta, and masking sensitive customer information in an agent interface based on the access levels of Sampson, by incorporating the teachings of displaying the reduced pricing information for the item to a customer of Stack, with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention in order to help compare goods and prices of competitors nearly simultaneously for allowing shoppers to find better pricing for items. (Stack: Column 1, Lines 30-67)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A HEFLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3524. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:00 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/B.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights