DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
The claims filed 4/16/2024 are examined herein.
Claims 1-22 are pending and original.
Claims 1, 17, and 22 are independent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-22 are directed to a system, method, or non-transitory product, and thus fall within the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong 1
The Examiner has identified independent method claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system claim 17 and product claim 22. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a computer system, a plurality of identifiers respectively corresponding to a plurality of transaction fulfillment systems;
scanning a plurality of network locations to determine a plurality of transaction protocols respectively corresponding to the plurality of transaction fulfillment systems;
determining at least one electronic transaction between a user and at least one of the plurality of transaction fulfillment systems respectively based on at least one of the plurality of identifiers;
detecting by the computer system an electronic transaction request;
determining a particular identifier of the plurality of identifiers based on the plurality of transaction protocols and the at least one electronic transaction; and
initiating a first electronic transaction with a particular transaction fulfillment system of the plurality of transaction fulfillment systems based on the particular identifier to fulfill the electronic transaction request.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The claim limitations delineated in bold above recite a fundamental economic practice, as they set forth or describe initiation of transactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The computer system and electronic transactions in claim 1 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of generic computer components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claims 17 and 22 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea)
Step 2A - Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
Claim 1: computer system; electronic transactions;
Claim 17: computer system; electronic transactions; one or more processors; memory
Claim 22: computer system; electronic transactions; non-transitory computer-readable medium; one or more processors
The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 1, 17, and 22 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0056-0059] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 1, 17, and 22 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-16 and 18-21 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 17 and thus correspond to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Dependent claims 3-4 and 21 recite limitations drawn to determining a source of a transaction measuring wireless signals. These limitations, in view of the specification para. [0046], broadly cover determining geographic location of a mobile device. This additional element is described at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Dependent claims 10-14 and 18-20 recite limitations drawn to applying one or more models to determine the particular identifier. The models are used to generally apply the abstract idea and also merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed.
The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Thus, claims 1-22 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.
Claims 1-5, 8-9, 15-17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taveau (US 2015/0348006 A1) in view of Hudson (US 2017/0186027 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 17, 22, Taveau discloses a method and corresponding computer system/non-transitory medium (see para. 0097-0099) comprising:
receiving, by a computer system, a plurality of identifiers respectively corresponding to a plurality of transaction fulfillment systems (see para. 0010, 0025-0027);
determining at least one electronic transaction between a user and at least one of the plurality of transaction fulfillment systems respectively based on at least one of the plurality of identifiers (see para. 0025-0027);
detecting by the computer system an electronic transaction request (see para. 0025-0027);
determining a particular identifier of the plurality of identifiers based on the plurality of transaction protocols and the at least one electronic transaction (see para. 0034-0040); and
initiating a first electronic transaction with a particular transaction fulfillment system of the plurality of transaction fulfillment systems based on the particular identifier to fulfill the electronic transaction request (see para. 0034-0040).
Taveau does not explicitly disclose, but Hudson teaches scanning a plurality of network locations to determine a plurality of transaction protocols respectively corresponding to the plurality of transaction fulfillment systems (see para. 0016-0018, 0038, wherein transaction protocols broadly encompass benefits in view para. 0024 of the specification).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, system, and product of Taveau to include the feature taught by Hudson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to help shoppers find and receive the best price available (see Hudson, para. 0002).
Regarding claim 2, Taveau discloses: determining by the computer system a source of the electronic transaction request; and determining the particular identifier of the plurality of identifiers further based on the source of the electronic transaction request (see para. 0034-0040).
Regarding claim 3, Taveau discloses: measuring wireless signals by the computer system; and determining the source of the electronic transaction request based on the measuring of the wireless signals (see para. 0030).
Regarding claim 4, Taveau discloses: determining by the computer system a geographic location based on the wireless signals; and determining the source of the electronic transaction request based on the geographic location (see para. 0030).
Regarding claim 5, Hudson teaches enabling by the computer system a browser; detecting by the computer system the electronic transaction request via the browser via a first network address; and wherein initiating the first electronic transaction comprises filling by the computer system the particular identifier into fields of a webpage via the browser (see para. 0080).
Regarding claim 8, Taveau discloses: providing by the computer system via a user interface an indication of the particular identifier; receiving via the computer system via the user interface a confirmation of the particular identifier; and initiating the first electronic transaction responsive to the confirmation (see para. 0034-0040).
Regarding claim 9, Taveau discloses: receiving from the user via the computer system at least one transaction threshold corresponding to at least one of the plurality of transaction protocols; and determining the particular identifier further based on the at least one transaction threshold (see para. 0028, wherein the number of points is a transaction threshold).
Regarding claim 15, Taveau discloses: detecting at least one electronic message received by the computer system, the at least one electronic message comprising at least one other transaction protocol; and determining the particular identifier further based on the at least one other transaction protocol (see para. 0036).
Regarding claim 16, Taveau discloses: determining by the computer system a plurality of electronic transactions between the user and the plurality of transaction fulfillment systems respectively based on the plurality of identifiers; and determining the particular identifier of the plurality of identifiers based on the plurality of transaction protocols and the plurality of electronic transactions (see para. 0010, 0027).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taveau (US 2015/0348006 A1) in view of Hudson (US 2017/0186027 A1), further in view of Chidambaram Asokan (US 2021/0201298 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Taveau does not explicitly disclose, but Chidambaram Asokan teaches: enabling by the computer system a browser; detecting by the computer system the electronic transaction request via the browser via a first network address; redirecting the computer system via the browser to a second network address based on the first network address, the plurality of transaction protocols, and the at least one electronic transaction; and initiating the first electronic transaction via the second network address (see para. 0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Taveau to include the features of Chidambaram Asokan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to support payment with external wallets (see Chidambaram Asokan, para. 0046).
Regarding claim 7, the combination as set forth with regards to base claim 6 teaches: receiving from the user via the computer system at least one transaction threshold corresponding to at least one of the plurality of transaction protocols (see Taveau, para. 0028) ; and redirecting the computer system via the browser to the second network address further based on the at least one transaction threshold (see Chidambaram Asokan para. 0046-0047).
Claims 10-14 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taveau (US 2015/0348006 A1) in view of Hudson (US 2017/0186027 A1), further in view of Taheri (US 2025/0117836 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Taveau does not explicitly disclose, but Taheri teaches: determining a plurality of text instances based on the scanning of the plurality of network locations; calculating a plurality of embeddings respectively based on the plurality of text instances; calculating another embedding based on the electronic transaction request; comparing the another embedding to the plurality of embeddings to determine at least one particular text instance of the plurality of text instances; and applying a model to the at least one particular text instance and the at least one electronic transaction to determine the particular identifier of the plurality of identifiers (see para. 0043, 0067-0073, wherein the use of a Large Language Model involves calculating/comparing embeddings to determine semantic similarity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Taveau to include the feature of Taheri.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to assist the user in identifying the best offers (see Taheri, para. 0104).
Regarding claim 11, Taheri teaches: applying the model to the plurality of text instances to calculate the plurality of embeddings; generating a query based on the electronic transaction request; and applying the model to the query to calculate the another embedding (see para. 0067-0073).
Regarding claim 12, Taheri teaches: scanning other network locations to determine other text instances; and training the model based on the other text instances (see para. 0043, 0067-0073).
Regarding claim 13, Taheri teaches: wherein the model comprises a generative large language model (see para. 0043, 0067-0073).
Regarding claim 14, Taveau does not explicitly disclose, but Taheri teaches: determining a plurality of text instances based on the scanning of the plurality of network locations; applying a first model to calculate a plurality of embeddings respectively based on the plurality of text instances; applying the first model to calculate another embedding based on the electronic transaction request; comparing the another embedding to the plurality of embeddings to determine at least one particular text instance of the plurality of text instances; and applying a second model to the at least one particular text instance and the at least one electronic transaction to determine the particular identifier of the plurality of identifiers (see para. 0043, 0067-0073).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Taveau to include the feature of Taheri.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to assist the user in identifying the best offers (see Taheri, para. 0104).
Regarding claim 18, Taveau does not explicitly disclose, but Taheri teaches: scanning other network locations to determine text instances; training a model based on the text instances; and determining the particular identifier further based on the model (see para. 0043, 0067-0073).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Taveau to include the feature of Taheri.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to assist the user in identifying the best offers (see Taheri, para. 0104).
Regarding claim 19, Taveau does not explicitly disclose, but Taheri teaches: determining a plurality of text instances based on the scanning of the plurality of network locations; scanning other network locations to determine other text instances; training a model based on the other text instances; applying the model to the plurality of text instances to calculate a plurality of embeddings; generating a query based on the electronic transaction request; applying the model to the query to calculate another embedding; comparing the another embedding to the plurality of embeddings to determine at least one particular text instance of the plurality of text instances; and determining the particular identifier based on the at least one particular text instance and the at least one electronic transaction (see para. 0043, 0067-0073).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Taveau to include the feature of Taheri.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to assist the user in identifying the best offers (see Taheri, para. 0104).
Regarding claim 20, Taheri teaches: detecting at least one electronic message received by the computer system, the at least one electronic message comprising at least one other transaction protocol; and generating the query further based on the at least one electronic transaction and the at least one other transaction protocol (see para. 0043, 0067-0073).
Regarding claim 21, Taveau discloses: measuring wireless signals by the computer system; determining a source of the electronic transaction request based on the measuring the wireless signals; and generating the query further based on the at least one electronic transaction and the source of the electronic transaction request (see para. 0030).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mahajan (US 2025/0124453 A1) discloses systems and methods for real time, frictionless channel switching to map and transpose a transaction on a preferred channel from an incoming channel. The systems and methods may use a machine learning model that processes features from a plurality of channels to determine the preferred channel. An omni channel processor is used to determine intended functionality data of the transaction for the preferred channel. The systems and methods may generate transposed intent data based on the intended functionality data of the transaction for the preferred channel. A deep link is generated and embedded with the transposed intent data and a channel access token for the transaction on the preferred channel. The deep link is configured to access and complete the requested transaction on the preferred channel.
Korobov (US 2025/0139175 A1) discloses a smart spider and web scraping system with custom templates, artificial intelligence for custom attribute extraction, artificial intelligence for providing quick fixes for machine learning extracted web page data, and direct HTTP request extraction without crawling.
Osuala (US 2024/0111794 A1) discloses querying a data source represented by data object embeddings in a vector space, wherein a processor inputs, to a trained embedding generation model, a received query and at least one token for receiving from the trained embedding generation model a set of embeddings of the vector space. The set of embeddings comprises an embedding of the received query and at least one embedding of the at least one token respectively, wherein the embedding of each token is a prediction of an embedding of a supplement of the query. The data object embeddings may be searched for data object embeddings that match the set of embeddings. This may result in search result embeddings of the set of embeddings. Data objects that are represented by the search result embeddings may be determined. At least part of the determined data objects may be provided.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3405. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm 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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ERIC T WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
ERIC WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3693