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 .
Claims 19-39 have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 37 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 37 recites, “The system of claim 33, wherein”, which does not make sense because claim 33 is not a system claim; also the limitation of claim 37 roughly corresponds to that of claim 20, which, like claim 33, depends from claim from claim 19. Claim 37 is therefore treated for examination purposes as depending from independent system claim 35, although, if Applicant wishes, it could also be amended to depend from claim 36. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Analysis - 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 19-39 have been analyzed under 35 U.S.C. 101. First, it is determined that the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. See MPEP 2106.03 (II). In the instant case, claims 19-34 are directed to a method, and thus in the statutory category of process. Claims 35-37 are directed to a system comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, and therefore fall within the statutory category of machine. Claims 38 and 39 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer program instructions, and therefore fall within the statutory category of article of manufacture. Therefore, claims 19-39 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test. (Step 1: YES)
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04. The claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One) as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong Two). See MPEP 2106.04.
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the Alice/Mayo test, claims 19-39 are directed to commercial interactions, a form of abstract idea in the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. Independent claim 19 recites, “facilitating completion of a transaction for the requested product or service”. Independent claim 35 recites, “A system for facilitating conversational commerce . . . and submit an order to at least one server”. Independent claim 38 recites, “to identify queries for products or services . . . and facilitate order submission based on user inputs”. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES)
Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the Alice/Mayo test, claims 19-39 do not merely recite performing commercial interactions, or using a computer and Internet communications to do so. Instead, independent claim 19 recites, “monitoring textual content inputted to a conversational user interface by at least one user during a messaging session, the conversational user interface displayed on a client device performing natural language processing analysis of the textual content to identify a product or service query and extract query conditions defining at least one feature of a requested product or service”, followed by more operations. Independent claim 35 recites, “monitor textual content inputted to a user interface of an instant messaging service by at least one participant; perform natural language processing analysis to identify an in-chat query for a product or service and extract query conditions”, followed by more operations. Independent claim 38 recites, “analyze textual content in an instant messaging session to identify queries for products or services; extract query conditions defining features of requested products or services using natural language processing”, followed by more operations. Thus the claims apply to a situation which arises specifically when particular technology is used (an instant messaging service or similar), and thus apply the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claims as a whole are more than drafting effort to monopolize the exception. (Step 2A, Prong Two: YES)
Because the claimed invention qualifies as significantly more under Step 2A, Prong Two, Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test is not reached.
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.
Claims 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 32, and 34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 8, 12, 15, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 9,917,802 in view of Omori et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0132388) and Warren et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0310527), and further in view of Klassen (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0096589) for claim 34. As may be seen in Table 1 below, some of the limitations of claim 19 of the instant application correspond to limitations of claim 1 of the ‘802 patent with slight differences of phrasing; language present in one claim but not a parallel claim is bolded. Some elements of claim 1 of the ‘802 patent are not present in claim 19 of the instant application, making claim 19 broader, rather than narrower, in those respects. “Facilitating completion of a transaction in claim 19 of the instant application corresponds to, but is broader than, the “submitting an order” element in claim 1 of the ‘802 patent. Claim 19 of the instant application recites “performing natural language processing analysis of the textual content”, which claim 1 of the ‘802 patent does not, but claim 12 of the ‘802 patent recites natural language processing. Claim 19 of the instant application recites “retrieving product or service data that matches the extracted query conditions from one or more external servers”, which claim 1 of the ‘802 patent does not. However, Omori teaches (paragraphs 61 and 62, emphasis added):
[0061] Based on a search query received from a client terminal 100, the search server 11 retrieves a product group which matches the search query from the product DB 13 and passes information from the retrieved product group to the WWW server 12. For example, when the product ID of a product is received as a search query, the search server 11 retrieves, from the product DB 13, a product group of colors, patterns, shapes, or types identical or similar to those represented by the product ID. Details of product search will be described later.
[0062] The WWW server 12, which collaborates with the search server 11, provides the client terminal 100 with a Web site (EC site) which contains information about the product group retrieved by the search server 11 based on the search query received from the client terminal 100.
Omori further teaches (paragraph 81, emphasis added), “Upon receiving the search query, the system server 10 (search server 11) retrieves a product group which matches the received search query from the product DB 13 and passes information about the retrieved product group to the WWW server 12 in the manner described above. When the product ID of a product A and information about the product’s ‘color’ are received as a search query, a product group identical or similar in color to product A is retrieved from the product DB 13 and information about the product group is transmitted to the client terminal 100 which has transmitted the search query.” See also paragraphs 17-19 of Omori. Hence, retrieving product or service data that matches the extracted query conditions from one or more external servers would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority.
Claim 19 of the instant application recites “populating the interactive user interface with the retrieved product or service data”, which claim 1 of the ‘802 patent does not. However, Warren teaches (paragraph 20, emphasis added), “The product service 14 receives product based query requests 18 (including search text) from the network devices 12 and sends appropriately configured query responses 20 back to the network device(s) 12, based on product information 22 received from a search engine 24, for display on a user interface 104 of the device 12.” See also the final sentence of paragraph 20. Warren further teaches (paragraph 91, emphasis added), “The example method is for processing the query 18 by the product service 14 on behalf of a user (e.g., network device 12) requesting product information 22 as stored instructions implemented by a computer processor, the method comprising: receiving 400 the query 18 from the user (e.g., end user, merchant website, etc.) over the communications network 16, the query 18 including the query term 17; comparing 402 the query term 17 to the set of stored rules 25 to determine a matching rule, the set of stored rules 25 based on at least one of content or format of the product information 22 contained in a product index associated with a search engine 24; determining 404 based on the matching rule that the query term 17 is unrelated to searching of the product information 22 in the product index; retrieving 406 content external to the product index; and sending 408 the external content as the product information 22 over the communications network 16 to the user for subsequent presentation on a user interface of the user”. Hence, populating the interactive user interface with the retrieved product or service data would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority.
Claim 20 of the instant application, which depends from claim 19, corresponds essentially to language of claim 1 of the ‘802 patent. Claim 21 of the instant application, which depends from claim 19, recites “executing one or more application programming interface (API) calls”, and is thus essentially parallel to part of claim 15 of the ‘802 patent. Claim 22 of the instant application, which depends from claim 19, is parallel to claim 12 of the ‘802 patent. Claim 26 of the instant application, which depends from claim 21, is essentially parallel to claim 15 of the ‘802 patent. Claim 27 of the instant application, which depends from claim 19, is essentially parallel to claim 7 of the ‘802 patent (although omitting some language of claim 7 of the ‘802 patent). Claim 31 of the instant application, which depends from claim 19, is essentially parallel to the elements of claim 1 of the ‘802 patent: “generating an interactive UI using said webpage template; adapting said interactive UI to include a plurality of selectable GUI elements which comply with at least a portion of said query conditions”, in light of the further element of claim 1 of the ‘802 patent, “identifying a selection of at least one of the plurality of selectable GUI elements by said at least one participant”. Claim 32 of the instant application, which depends from claim 19, recites that the content textual analysis includes identifying emoticons indicative of a product or service, which is implicit from the recited “performing an analysis of said textual content to identify an in-chat query for a product or a service and query conditions defining at least one feature of said product or said service” in claim 1 of the ‘802 patent, together with the limitation of claim 18 of the ‘802 patent, “in which said in-chat query is encoded using at least one emoticon”.
Claim 34 of the instant application, which depends from claim 19, is in part parallel to language of claim 8 of the ‘802 patent; it further recites “submitting status messages to the messaging session.” Klassen teaches (Abstract, emphasis added), “A mobile communication device operable to automatically send a notification of a status change within a messaging session.” Klassen further teaches (Abstract, emphasis added), “The device further includes a transceiver operable to communicate with a plurality of remote devices and operable to automatically transmit the session status change message to each one of a group of at least two remote real-time messaging applications responsive to the generation of the session status change message by the status update module.” Hence, submitting status messages to the messaging session would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority.
Table 1
Instant Application
U.S. Patent 9,917,802
19. A computer-implemented method comprising:
monitoring textual content inputted to a conversational user interface by at least one user during a messaging session, the conversational user interface displayed on a client device;
performing natural language processing analysis of the textual content to identify a product or service query and extract query conditions defining at least one feature of a requested product or service;
selecting, from a plurality of available templates, a user interface template corresponding to the identified product or service query;
generating an interactive user interface using the selected template, wherein the interactive user interface is adapted according to at least a portion of the extracted query conditions and user identity information;
retrieving product or service data that matches the extracted query conditions from one or more external servers;
populating the interactive user interface with the retrieved product or service data;
receiving user selections and additional data through the interactive user interface; and
facilitating completion of a transaction for the requested product or service by transmitting the user selections and additional data to at least one remote merchant server.
20. The method of claim 19, further comprising automatically providing access to the interactive user interface within the conversational interface by inputting a link into the messaging session.
21. The method of claim 19, wherein the retrieving product or service data is performed by executing one or more application programming interface (API) calls to at least one remote server.
22. The method of claim 19, wherein the natural language processing analysis is performed by a natural language processing (NLP) engine.
26. The method of claim 21, wherein the API calls acquire response data from the at least one remote server, and the interactive user interface is adapted according to the response data.
27. The method of claim 19, wherein the messaging session includes a computerized agent that participates as a member of the messaging session and performs the monitoring and analysis of textual content.
32. The method of claim 19, wherein the textual content includes identifying emoticons indicative of a product or service.
34. The method of claim 19, further comprising receiving payment confirmations made by the at least one participant in the interactive user interface and submitting status messages to the messaging session.
1. A computerized method of allowing a web server to automatically adapt a webpage based on textual content which is acquired from an instant messaging service managed by an instant messaging server, comprising:
monitoring textual content inputted to a user interface of an instant messaging (IM) service by at least one participant of an IM session managed by the IM service, said user interface being displayed on a display of a client device;
performing an analysis of said textual content to identify an in-chat query for a product or a service and query conditions defining at least one feature of said product or said service;
selecting a webpage template from a dataset comprising a plurality of webpage templates according to said in-chat query;
generating an interactive UI using said webpage template;
adapting said interactive UI to include a plurality of selectable GUI elements which comply with at least a portion of said query conditions;
storing said adapted interactive UI to be available to a browser via a link; automatically inputting said link into said IM session so as to allow said at least one participant to access said adapted interactive UI using a browser running on said client device;
identifying a selection of at least one of said plurality of selectable GUI elements by said at least one participant; and
submitting an order for said product or said service to at least one remote server based on said selection which is received via said adapted interactive UI.
7. The method of claim 1 further comprising:
managing a computerized agent subscribed to said IM service by a telephone number, said computerized agent being a participant of said IN; and
performing said monitoring using said computerized agent which analyses said textual content to identify automatically said query.
8. The method of claim 1 further comprising:
monitoring user inputs into said adapted interactive UI; and
submitting a new chat message to said IM session, said new chat message being presented to said at least one participant and being indicative of said adapted interactive UI.
12. The method of claim 1, in which said analysis is performed by a natural language processing (NLP) engine.
15. The method of claim 1, in which said adapting comprises executing a script for executing API calls for acquiring based on at least a portion of said query conditions, response data from said at least one remote server and adapting said interactive UI according to said response data.
12. The method of claim 1, in which said in-chat query is encoded using at least one emoticon.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 19, 20, 22, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jablokov et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0303445) in view of Zhang (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0215871), Bhadury et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0296294), and Savla (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0058939). As per claim 19, Jablokov discloses monitoring textual content inputted to a user interface of an instant messaging service by at least one user during a messaging session (e.g., paragraph 11, emphasis added), “Such systems, methods, and software are utilized in the context of a communication system including text messaging instant messaging, or both.” See Figures 2 and 5. Jablokov further discloses (paragraph 13, emphasis added), “The method includes the steps of receiving a message sent from a sender for communication to a recipient, scanning words of the message and identifying words for which advertising is available for delivery, communicating the message to the recipient, and communicating advertising for an identified word of the text of the message for presenting to at least one of the sender and the recipient.” Jablokov discloses (paragraph 196, emphasis added), “The advertising filters utilize, for example, audio fingerprinting, keyword or grammar lookups, natural language understanding, semantic analysis, or other technique in order to derive interestingness for further processing.” Jablokov does not expressly disclose natural language processing, but Zhang, for example, teaches natural language processing (paragraph 30, emphasis added), “In some embodiments, a natural language processor may be used to convert natural language (e.g., human language) received from the user of the instant messaging client 160 into a more formal representation that may be understood by a machine. The natural language processor may also convert machine data, for example, information from a database, into a natural language more easily read or understood by a human.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ priority to perform natural language processing analysis of the textual content, for at least the obvious advantages of conducting computer operations based on natural language used by a human.
Jablokov does not disclose natural language processing to identify a product or service query and extract query conditions defining at least one feature of a requested product or service. However, Zhang teaches extracting product data associated with products (paragraph 26, emphasis added), “For example, the data collection module 210 may use a web-crawling component to access various websites on the internet and extract product data associated with the various products.” Zhang further teaches (paragraph 39, emphasis added), “One or more products may be identified as corresponding to the user’s request and product data of the one or more identified products may be retrieved and transmitted to the user as illustrated by message 520 (‘There is a hockey game Saturday at 7:30 PM in San Jose.’).”
Zhang then teaches a product or service query, and retrieving product or service data that matches the extracted query conditions (paragraph 38, emphasis added), “As illustrated in FIG. 5, the user interface 500 is an instant messaging client on a client machine that shows messages of the user (User) and the IM robot (IMRobot). In this fictional scenario, a user requests product data with message 500 (‘What events are going on this weekend?’). As discussed above, this request for product data may be too broad and the interpreter module 220 of FIG. 2 may determine that more search criteria are needed. Prompts for the user to provide search criteria may be generated and transmitted to the user’s instant messaging client as shown in message 510 (‘Where are you located?’). The user may reply to the prompt as shown in message 515 (‘san jose, ca’).” Zhang then teaches (paragraph 39, emphasis added), “Additional search criteria may be gathered from the user and at some point, the interpreter module 220 will determine that enough search criteria are obtained and search a database. One or more products may be identified as corresponding to the user’s request and product data of the one or more identified products may be retrieved and transmitted to the user as illustrated by message 520 (‘There is a hockey game Saturday at 7:30 PM in San Jose.’).” See also Figures 4 and 5 of Zhang. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ priority to identify (e.g., by natural language processing analysis of textual content) a product or service query and extract query conditions defining at least one feature of a requested product or service, for at least the obvious advantage, as per Zhang, of determining what product or service is wanted, and being able to provide useful and specific information on that product or service.
Jablokov does not disclose selecting, from a plurality of available templates, a user interface template corresponding to the identified product or service query, but Bhadury teaches selecting a template from a plurality of templates (Abstract, emphasis added), “The layered panel is created using a template wherein the template is selected from a plurality of templates and the layered panel created is a micro-website, or content for a mobile device.” Bhadury further teaches a “micro-website” or “web page”, thereby implying a user interface (paragraph 21, emphasis added), “For example, the page layout designer 310 can configure a general theme for the panel, or for the micro-website containing the panel. The page layout designer 310 can also configure the location on the panel or web page of items as a logo, buttons, links to other pages, and content items within the panel or web page.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ priority to select, from a plurality of available templates, a user interface template corresponding to the identified product or service query, and generate an interactive user interface using the user interface template, wherein the interactive user interface is adapted according to at least a portion of the extracted query conditions and user identity information, for at least the obvious advantage of providing a user interface suitable to the specific circumstances.
Zhang as set forth above (Figures 4 and 5; paragraphs 26, 38, and 39) teaches retrieving product or service data that matches the extracted query conditions. Zhang does not expressly teach doing so from one or more external servers, but Zhang teaches providing a link to purchase a product (paragraph 39, emphasis added), “The interpreter module 220 may further identify a message to the user confirming the user’s interest in the identified product (‘Are you interested in going to this game?’) and, in response, providing additional product data, for example, at message 525, the IM robot provides a user with a link to purchase tickets to the game.” A link, aka hyperlink, implies a server, and the context in Zhang implies an external server of whoever sells tickets to hockey games in San Diego. Further, Savla teaches (paragraph 74, emphasis added), “A client and server are generally remote from each other and typically interact through a communication network.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ priority to retrieve the product or service data from one or more external servers, for at least the obvious advantage of enabling product and/or service purchases from sellers external to the purchaser and to whatever system is providing the conversational user interface.
Zhang further teaches populating the interactive user interface with the retrieved product or service data (Figures 4 and 5; paragraphs 38 and 39, quoted from in several places above; see also paragraph 40). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ priority to populate the interactive user interface with the retrieved product or service data, for at least the obvious advantage of enabling a user and potential customer to view desired information, and purchase products or services if he wishes to.
Zhang further teaches receiving user selections and additional data through the interactive user interface (paragraphs 40 and 41; Figure 5). Specifically, Zhang teaches in paragraph 40, emphasis added: “In some cases a user may request additional details about a product as illustrated in message 530 (‘Who are they playing?). In response to the user’s question, the interpreter module 220 may identify the additional product data requested by the user, retrieve it, generate a response that includes the additional product data, and transmit the response to the user’s instant messaging client as seen in message 535 (‘The San Jose Sparks are playing the Anaheim Pucks.’).” Zhang further teaches in paragraph 41, emphasis added: “If the user selects the link to purchase the product (in this case tickets to the game), a user may be taken to a user interface such as a web page or application interface where the user can make a transaction associated with the product (e.g., purchase the product). During the transaction process, the user may be asked for an instant messaging identifier (e.g., a screen name). If the user provides his instant messaging identifier, it may be stored at a web server 120”. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ priority to receive user selections and additional data through the interactive user interface, for at least the obvious advantage of enabling purchases, thus providing a service to the user, and for example, receiving a commission or other payments from the user/purchaser and/or seller.
Yet further, Zhang teaches facilitating completion of a transaction for a requested product or service by transmitting the user selections and additional data to at least one remote merchant server (paragraphs 40 and especially 41, as quoted in the preceding paragraph of the Office Action). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ priority to facilitate completion of a transaction for the requested product or service by transmitting the user selections and additional data to at least one remote merchant server, for at least the obvious advantage of enabling purchases, thus providing a service to the user, and for example, receiving a commission or other payments from the user/purchaser and/or seller. Likewise, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ priority for the at least one merchant server to be at least one remote merchant server, based on Savla (paragraph 74), as quoted above.
As per claim 20, Jablokov discloses hyperlinks (paragraph 31, emphasis added), “In a feature of this aspect of the invention, the method further includes providing an option to the recipient for forwarding the advertisement to the sender, wherein the provided option includes forwarding a hyperlink associated with the advertising.” Jablokov further discloses opening a link or hyperlink (paragraph 139, emphasis added), “In a feature, the additional content data comprises a web address, and the step of presenting the advertising based on the received additional content data comprises opening the web address in a web browser of the mobile communication device.” Jablokov further discloses (paragraph 250, emphasis added), “The additional content data (C) may itself comprise the advertising for display, or, preferably, the additional content data content comprises an Internet web address. The additional content data is communicated to Adam’s mobile phone 12, whereby, upon receipt, the mobile phone 12 is caused to present the advertising to Adam. In this regard, it will be appreciated that if the additional content includes a web address (e.g., www dot suzysushi dot com), such address may be passed to the mobile web browser of the mobile phone 12 for display of advertising via the web browser.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ priority to automatically provide access to the interactive user interface within the conversational interface by inputting a link into the conversational interface, for at least the obvious advantage of readily facilitating access to advertising or other content that could lead to a purchase, and therefore to profit, directly or by obtaining a commission, fee for presenting advertising, etc.
As per claim 22, Zhang does not use the word “engine” in conjunction with natural language processing, but does substantively disclose an engine (paragraph 30, emphasis added), “In some embodiments, a natural language processor may be used to convert natural language (e.g., human language) received from the user of the instant messaging client 160 into a more formal representation that may be understood by a machine. The natural language processor may also convert machine data, for example, information from a database, into a natural language more easily read or understood by a human.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ priority for the natural language processing analysis to be performed by a natural language processing (NLP) engine, for at least the obvious advantage of enabling the natural language processing to be feasibly carried out.
As per claim 33, Savla teaches receiving payment confirmations via a messaging interface (paragraph 54, emphasis added), “Once the payment or financial transaction is complete, the payment site 440 can send a confirmation of payment (or error message) to the client messaging app 416/424, which can display the confirmation of payment (or error message) to the client user.” Savla further teaches posting status updates about a transaction (paragraph 61, emphasis added), “Additionally, a user’s status messages or user profile on the messaging system can be updated to indicate the completion of a payment transaction while chatting. For example, status messages like the following can be displayed within the messaging system: ‘paid using PayPal to XYZ’, or ‘bought XYZ using PayPal’ or ‘ordered movie tickets using PayPal.’” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ priority to receive payment confirmations via the messaging interface and post status updates about the transaction, for such obvious advantages as keeping a user informed the completion of purchases or other payment transactions which he has attempted to make, and having such information displayed to other users of a messaging system, for example, to help persuade such other users that a payment tool works, or inclining them to purchase products or services which a first user has bought.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jablokov et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0303445) in view of Zhang (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0215871), Bhadury et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0296294), and Savla (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0058939) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Burkhardt et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0168054). Jablokov does not disclose that the retrieving product or service data is performed by executing one or more application programming interface (API) calls to at least one remote server, but Bhadury teaches “API driven scripts” (paragraph 7), and Burkhardt teaches calling APIs and API servers (paragraph 54, emphasis added), “One or more API servers 626 may provide a set of API functions for querying and writing to the network-based commerce system 600. APIs may be called through the HTTP transport protocol.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ priority for the retrieving product or service data to be performed by executing one or more application programming interface (API) calls to at least one remote server, for at least the obvious advantage of enabling the use of software not available on a local computer; moreover it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ priority for the at least one server to be at least one remote server based on Savla (paragraph 74), as quoted above with regard to claim 19.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jablokov et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0303445) in view of Zhang (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0215871), Bhadury et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0296294), and Savla (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0058939) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Ng et al. (U.S. Patent 9,031,866). Jablokov does not disclose that the query conditions include at least one of: a type of product or service, characteristics of the requested product or service, and a number of participants in the order. However, Ng teaches conditions including at least a type of product or service (column 9, lines 6-15, emphasis added), “As shown in FIG. 5, after step 510, the process passes to step 520. Step 520 reflects another type of request. That is, in step 520, the process inputs a customer request for a product search. The request may include various particulars, such as the product or type of product that is requested, an area in which the customer wishes to purchase the product, a store the customer wishes to purchase from, a type of store (e.g., on-line stores); a price range and other constraints. Further details are described below. After step 520 of FIG. 5, the process passes to step 530.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority for the query conditions to include at least one of: a type of product or service, characteristics of the requested product or service, and a number of participants in the order, for at least the obvious advantage of facilitating a user’s obtaining the type of product or service that he wants.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jablokov et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0303445) in view of Zhang (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0215871), Bhadury et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0296294), and Savla (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0058939) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Stoll et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0311324). Stoll teaches determining an identifier of at least one participant by extracting an identifier from metadata of a message (paragraph 84, emphasis added), “In some implementations, the data analysis module 126 determines the identity of the user who sent the response message 118. In some implementations, the identity of the user can be determined by determining the communication method used to transmit the message and identifying message related metadata associated with the user.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ priority for the user identity information to include an identifier of the at least one participant extracted from metadata of the messaging session, for at least the obvious advantage of readily obtaining such user identity information.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jablokov et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0303445) in view of Zhang (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0215871), Bhadury et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0296294), and Savla (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0058939) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Faith et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0332284). Jablokov does not disclose that the method further comprises using information about previous purchases or preferences of the at least one participant for personalizing the interactive user interface, but Faith teaches personalizing an interface based on previous purchases or preferences of a user (paragraph 78, emphasis added; see also Figure 4), “In this embodiment, the process 136 further includes customizing (e.g., personalizing) the requested offers interface based on the changed attribute of the changed user profile, as indicated by block 136 . . . In some embodiments, the modified attribute or attributes may include location preferences, life events (e.g., getting married or going to college), store preferences, previous purchases, and redemption preferences, and the offers interface may be customized base [sic] on these modified attributes to present offers likely to be of interest to the user.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority for the method to further comprise using information about previous purchases or preferences of the at least one participant for personalizing the interactive user interface, for the stated advantage of present offers likely to be of interest to the user, and the obvious advantage of profiting from the acceptance of some of those offers.
Claims 30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jablokov et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0303445) in view of Zhang (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0215871), Bhadury et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0296294), and Savla (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0058939) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Gandhi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0052633). As per claim 30, Jablokov does not disclose authenticating the at least one participant using security questions or password authentication before completing the transaction, but Gandhi, for example, teaches using security questions or password authentication before completing a transaction (paragraph 30, emphasis added; see also Figure 2), “At step 204, sender 102 or recipient 104 establishes a chat session on the chat server 134 through the network 136. In one embodiment, chat server 134 authenticates the identity of sender 102 and recipient 104 by requesting and verifying identifying information, such as a password.” This occurs before steps 210 and 212 (shown in Figure 2, and described in paragraphs 38 and 39, respectively), and thus before completing a transaction. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ priority to authenticate the at least one participant using security questions or password authentication before completing the transaction, for such obvious advantages as assuring that a purchaser is who he claims to be, and possesses an account from which he is able to make payment.
As per claim 32, Jablokov does not disclose that the textual content analysis includes identifying emoticons indicative of a product or service. However, Gandhi teaches the use of emoticons in textual content to convey information related to commerce (paragraph 12, emphasis added), “A sender or first user in a chat session configures a chat to accept certain text, e.g., a combination of emoticons or a string of text or symbols, as actionable for payment (‘actionable text’). Gandhi further teaches emoticons in paragraph 31, emphasis added: “In one embodiment, various emoticons such as smiley faces”, and “Any variety of numbers, symbols, letters and/or emoticons can be configured to trigger payment and any combination can be configured to translate into a certain dollar amount.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ priority for the textual content analysis to include identifying emoticons indicative of a product or service, for such obvious advantages as recognizing textual content actionable for payment for a particular product or service, or otherwise used to be compactly indicative of a product or service.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jablokov et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0303445) in view of Zhang (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0215871), Bhadury et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0296294), and Savla (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0058939) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Pridmore et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0222547). Jablokov does not expressly disclose that the interactive user interface includes graphical user interface elements that allow selection from options which comply with conditions defined in the query, although this may considered implicit. However, Pridmore teaches allowing users to select among options products meeting various conditions or specifications (paragraph 25, emphasis added), “The retailer 107 allows users to select different options for a customizable product from the website according to the user’s specifications. For example, if retailer 107 is a pizza restaurant, the retailer 107 provides a ‘customize’ option that allows the user to select the particular toppings to include on a pizza sold by the retailer 107. The retailer 107 also provides preconfigured products 203 that are ‘specialty pizzas’ including toppings pre-selected by the retailer 107.” See also Figure 2. Pridmore further teaches a user interface (paragraph 10, emphasis added), “FIG. 2 illustrates a user interface for recommendations of options for customizable products based on social information, in accordance with one embodiment.” Pridmore further teaches regarding the user interface (paragraph 20, emphasis added), “The user interface or application allows the user to perform various actions or activities associated with the social networking system 100 and to view information provided by the social networking system 100.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ priority for the interactive user interface to include graphical user interface elements that allow selection from options which comply with conditions defined in the query, for the obvious advantages of enabling users to select options which can be fulfilled, and are in accordance with the users’ wants, and to make purchases, which should lead to financial gain.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jablokov et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0303445) in view of Zhang (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0215871), Bhadury et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0296294), and Savla (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0058939) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of McCarthy et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0177600). Jablokov does not expressly monitoring inputs made by at least one participant in the interactive user interface and submitting status messages to the messaging session, but McCarthy teaches determining actions involving inputs (paragraph 109, emphasis added), “At state 4, a determination/inference is made as to whether the visitor was ‘converted’ (e.g., took an action which achieved a goal associated with the chat enabled website, such as making a purchase from the website or filling out a form presented via the web site), also referred to as a conversion event.” McCarthy teaches monitoring and further teaches submitting a status message to a chat system (paragraph 110, emphasis added), “Optionally, the chat system monitors whether a conversion event occurred within a specified time period (sometimes referred to herein as a rechat interval) after chat occurred (e.g. after the chat was initiated or after the chat session ended). Information related to the event (e.g., a list of items purchased, the cost of each item, forms filled out, and/or other information) is passed to the chat system 102 via the chat beacon.” See also paragraph 112. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority to monitor inputs made by at least one participant in the interactive user interface and submit status messages to the messaging session, for at least the obvious advantage, as in McCarthy, of informing a chat/IM system of whether a participant has taken an action which achieved a goal of the chat/IM system, such as making a purchase or filling out a form, and for the obvious advantage of informing a participant of an interaction with a website, such as a purchase being completed.
Claim 35, 36, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jablokov et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0303445) in view of Zhang (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0215871), Bhadury et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0296294), Savla (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0058939), and Burkhardt et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0168054). As per claim 35, Zhang teaches (paragraph 49, emphasis added), “The example computer system 900 includes a processor 902 (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU) a graphics processing unit (GPU) or both), a main memory 904 and a static memory 906, which communicate with each other via a bus 908.” Zhang further teaches (paragraph 50, emphasis added), “The disk drive unit 916 includes a machine-readable medium 922 on which is stored one or more sets of instructions (e.g., software 924) embodying any one or more of the methodologies and functions described herein. The software 924 may also reside, completely or at least partially, within the main memory 904 and/or within the processor 902 during execution thereof by the computer system 900, the main memory 904 and the processor 902 also constituting machine-readable media.” Hence, the system comprising: at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the system to perform operations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority, for the obvious advantage of causing desired operations to be performed.
Jablokov discloses monitoring textual content inputted to a user interface of an instant messaging service by at least one participant (e.g., paragraph 11, emphasis added), “Such systems, methods, and software are utilized in the context of a communication system including text messaging instant messaging, or both.” See Figures 2 and 5. Jablokov further discloses (paragraph 13, emphasis added), “The method includes the steps of receiving a message sent from a sender for communication to a recipient, scanning words of the message and identifying words for which advertising is available for delivery, communicating the message to the recipient, and communicating advertising for an identified word of the text of the message for presenting to at least one of the sender and the recipient.” Jablokov discloses (paragraph 196, emphasis added), “The advertising filters utilize, for example, audio fingerprinting, keyword or grammar lookups, natural language understanding, semantic analysis, or other technique in order to derive interestingness for further processing.” Jablokov does not expressly disclose natural language processing, but Zhang, for example, teaches natural language processing (paragraph 30, emphasis added), “In some embodiments, a natural language processor may be used to convert natural language (e.g., human language) received from the user of the instant messaging client 160 into a more formal representation that may be understood by a machine. The natural language processor may also convert machine data, for example, information from a database, into a natural language more easily read or understood by a human.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ priority to perform natural language processing analysis to identify an in-chat query, for at least the obvious advantages of conducting computer operations based on natural language used by a human.
Jablokov does not disclose natural language processing to identify a product or service query and extract query conditions defining at least one feature of a requested product or service. However, Zhang teaches extracting product data associated with products (paragraph 26, emphasis added), “For example, the data collection module 210 may use a web-crawling component to access various websites on the internet and extract product data associated with the various products.” Zhang further teaches (paragraph 39, emphasis added), “One or more products may be identified as corresponding to the user’s request and product data of the one or more identified products may be retrieved and transmitted to the user as illustrated by message 520 (‘There is a hockey game Saturday at 7:30 PM in San Jose.’).”
Zhang then teaches a product or service query, and retrieving product or service data that matches the extracted query conditions (paragraph 38, emphasis added), “As illustrated in FIG. 5, the user interface 500 is an instant messaging client on a client machine that shows messages of the user (User) and the IM robot (IMRobot). In this fictional scenario, a user requests product data with message 500 (‘What events are going on this weekend?’). As discussed above, this request for product data may be too broad and the interpreter module 220 of FIG. 2 may determine that more search criteria are needed. Prompts for the user to provide search criteria may be generated and transmitted to the user’s instant messaging client as shown in message 510 (‘Where are you located?’). The user may reply to the prompt as shown in message 515 (‘san jose, ca’).” Zhang then teaches (paragraph 39, emphasis added), “Additional search criteria may be gathered from the user and at some point, the interpreter module 220 will determine that enough search criteria are obtained and search a database. One or more products may be identified as corresponding to the user’s request and product data of the one or more identified products may be retrieved and transmitted to the user as illustrated by message 520 (‘There is a hockey game Saturday at 7:30 PM in San Jose.’).” See also Figures 4 and 5 of Zhang. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ priority to identify (e.g., by natural language processing analysis) a product or service query and extract query conditions defining at least one feature of a requested product or service, for at least the obvious advantage, as per Zhang, of determining what product or service is wanted, and being able to provide useful and specific information on that product or service.
Jablokov does not disclose selecting a webpage template from a dataset comprising a plurality of webpage templates according to the in-chat query, but Bhadury et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0296294) teaches selecting a template from a plurality of templates (Abstract, emphasis added), “The layered panel is created using a template wherein the template is selected from a plurality of templates and the layered panel created is a micro-website, or content for a mobile device.” Bhadury further teaches a “micro-website” or “web page”, thereby implying a user interface (paragraph 21, emphasis added), “For example, the page layout designer 310 can configure a general theme for the panel, or for the micro-website containing the panel. The page layout designer 310 can also configure the location on the panel or web page of items as a logo, buttons, links to other pages, and content items within the panel or web page.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ priority to select a webpage template from a dataset comprising a plurality of webpage templates according to the in-chat query and generate an interactive user interface using the webpage template adapted according to the query conditions and participant identity, for at least the obvious advantage of providing a user interface suitable to the specific circumstances.
Jablokov does not disclose executing application programming interface (API) calls to acquire response data from remote servers, but Bhadury teaches “API driven scripts” (paragraph 7), and Burkhardt et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0168054) teaches calling APIs and API servers (paragraph 54, emphasis added), “One or more API servers 626 may provide a set of API functions for querying and writing to the network-based commerce system 600. APIs may be called through the HTTP transport protocol.” Zhang teaches retrieving response data (paragraph 40, emphasis added): “In some cases a user may request additional details about a product as illustrated in message 530 (‘Who are they playing?). In response to the user’s question, the interpreter module 220 may identify the additional product data requested by the user, retrieve it, generate a response that includes the additional product data, and transmit the response to the user’s instant messaging client as seen in message 535 (‘The San Jose Sparks are playing the Anaheim Pucks.’).” Further, Savla (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0058939) teaches (paragraph 74, emphasis added), “A client and server are generally remote from each other and typically interact through a communication network.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ priority to execute API calls to acquire response data from remote servers, for at least the obvious advantages of enabling the use of software or other response data present on one or more remote server computers.
Zhang further teaches populating the interactive user interface with the retrieved product or service data (Figures 4 and 5; paragraphs 38 and 39, quoted from in several places above; see also paragraph 40). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ priority to populate the interactive user interface with the retrieved product or service data, for at least the obvious advantage of enabling a user and potential customer to view desired information, and purchase products or services if he wishes to.
Yet further, Zhang teaches submitting an order based on completing data received via an interactive user interface (paragraphs 40 and 41; Figure 5). Specifically, Zhang teaches in paragraph 40, emphasis added: “In some cases a user may request additional details about a product as illustrated in message 530 (‘Who are they playing?). In response to the user’s question, the interpreter module 220 may identify the additional product data requested by the user, retrieve it, generate a response that includes the additional product data, and transmit the response to the user’s instant messaging client as seen in message 535 (‘The San Jose Sparks are playing the Anaheim Pucks.’).” Zhang further teaches in paragraph 41, emphasis added: “If the user selects the link to purchase the product (in this case tickets to the game), a user may be taken to a user interface such as a web page or application interface where the user can make a transaction associated with the product (e.g., purchase the product). During the transaction process, the user may be asked for an instant messaging identifier (e.g., a screen name). If the user provides his instant messaging identifier, it may be stored at a web server 120”. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ priority to submit an order to at least one server based on completing data received via the interactive user interface, for at least the obvious advantage of enabling purchases, thus providing a service to the user, and for example, receiving a commission or other payments from the user/purchaser and/or seller. Likewise, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ priority for the at least one server to be at least one remote server, based on Savla (paragraph 74), as quoted above.
As per claim 36, Jablokov discloses presenting ads presented in a messaging session (Abstract, emphasis added), “The ad impressions are delivered within text messages and/or instant message chat threads.” Jablokov further discloses URLs, which are links (paragraph 128, emphasis added), “In a feature, the additional content data comprises a web address for passing to a web browser of the mobile communication device. [00134] In a feature, the additional content data comprises a URL for retrieving the advertising for presentation by the mobile communication device.” See also paragraphs 139 and 140. Jablokov further discloses a web address used for a display of advertising (paragraph 250, emphasis added), “The additional content data (C) may itself comprise the advertising for display, or, preferably, the additional content data content comprises an Internet web address. The additional content data is communicated to Adam’s mobile phone 12, whereby, upon receipt, the mobile phone 12 is caused to present the advertising to Adam. In this regard, it will be appreciated that if the additional content includes a web address (e.g., www dot suzysushi dot com), such address may be passed to the mobile web browser of the mobile phone 12 for display of advertising via the web browser.” Jablokov further discloses (paragraph 201, emphasis added), “The ad impression may be delivered only to the author of the message. Alternatively, the ad impression may be delivered both to the author of the message and to the intended recipient of the message . . . . Moreover, if the ad impression is sent to either of, but not both of, the author and intended recipient, then such person may be provided with the option of conveniently forwarding the ad impression to the other person if desired, whether by text message, instant message email, hyperlink, or injection of the ad impression into a message itself.” Hence, it would have been at least obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ priority for the computer code to cause the system to automatically input a link to the interactive user interface into the messaging session, in order to implement what Jablokov, the primary reference, discloses as being done.
As per claim 37, it is well known for webpages or webpages, which have or are user interfaces, to be stored on web servers, as taught, for example, by Zhang (paragraph 22, emphasis added), “The web servers 120 may host one or more websites, such as an e-commerce website, a review website that posts reviews and ratings on products, a discussion forum website, or any other website that contains product information.” Zhang further teaches (paragraph 41, emphasis added), “If the user selects the link to purchase the product (in this case tickets to the game), a user may be taken to a user interface such as a web page or application interface where the user can make a transaction associated with the product (e.g., purchase the product).” The use of the words “selects the link” implies that the link is unique. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ priority for the interactive user interface to be stored on a web server and made available via a unique link, for at least the obvious advantage of making the interactive user interface available and usable by routine communications technology which came into widespread use before the end of the twentieth century.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jablokov et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0303445) in view of Zhang (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0215871), Bhadury et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0296294), Savla (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0058939), and Burkhardt et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0168054). Zhang teaches at least one processor and at least one memory (paragraph 49, emphasis added), “The example computer system 900 includes a processor 902 (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU) graphics processing unit (GPU) or both), a main memory 904 and a static memory 906, which communicate with each other via bus 908.” Zhang further teaches computer program instructions (paragraph 50, emphasis added), “The disk drive system 916 includes a machine-readable medium 922 on which is stored one or more sets of instructions (e.g., software 924) embodying any one or more of the methodologies or functions described herein. The software 924 may also reside, completely or at least partially, within the main memory 904 and/or within the processor 902 during execution thereof by the computer system 900”. See also Figure 9 of Zhang. Zhang further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium (paragraph 52, emphasis added), “The term ‘machine-readable medium’ shall also be taken to include any non-transitory medium that is capable of storing, encoding, or carrying a set of instructions for execution by the machine and cause the machine to perform any one or more of the methodologies of the present invention.” Hence, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer program instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the processor to perform operations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority, for the obvious advantage of causing a computer system to perform desired operations.
Jablokov discloses analyzing textual content in an instant messaging session to identify queries relevant to products or services (e.g., paragraph 11, emphasis added), “Such systems, methods, and software are utilized in the context of a communication system including text messaging instant messaging, or both.” See Figures 2 and 5. Jablokov further discloses (paragraph 13, emphasis added), “The method includes the steps of receiving a message sent from a sender for communication to a recipient, scanning words of the message and identifying words for which advertising is available for delivery, communicating the message to the recipient, and communicating advertising for an identified word of the text of the message for presenting to at least one of the sender and the recipient.” Jablokov discloses (paragraph 196, emphasis added), “The advertising filters utilize, for example, audio fingerprinting, keyword or grammar lookups, natural language understanding, semantic analysis, or other technique in order to derive interestingness for further processing.” Zhang teaches extracting product data associated with products (paragraph 26, emphasis added), “For example, the data collection module 210 may use a web-crawling component to access various websites on the internet and extract product data associated with the various products.” Zhang further teaches (paragraph 39, emphasis added), “One or more products may be identified as corresponding to the user’s request and product data of the one or more identified products may be retrieved and transmitted to the user as illustrated by message 520 (‘There is a hockey game Saturday at 7:30 PM in San Jose.’).” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ priority to use natural language processing, for at least the obvious advantages of conducting computer operations based on natural language used by a human.
Jablokov does not disclose extracting query conditions defining features of requested products or services using natural language processing, but Zhang, for example, teaches natural language processing (paragraph 30, emphasis added), “In some embodiments, a natural language processor may be used to convert natural language (e.g., human language) received from the user of the instant messaging client 160 into a more formal representation that may be understood by a machine. The natural language processor may also convert machine data, for example, information from a database, into a natural language more easily read or understood by a human.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ priority to use natural language processing, for at least the obvious advantages of conducting computer operations based on natural language used by a human.
Jablokov does not disclose generating an adaptive interactive user interface based on selected templates and the extracted query conditions, but Bhadury teaches selecting a template from a plurality of templates (Abstract, emphasis added), “The layered panel is created using a template wherein the template is selected from a plurality of templates and the layered panel created is a micro-website, or content for a mobile device.” Bhadury further teaches a “micro-website” or “web page”, thereby implying a user interface (paragraph 21, emphasis added), “For example, the page layout designer 310 can configure a general theme for the panel, or for the micro-website containing the panel. The page layout designer 310 can also configure the location on the panel or web page of items as a logo, buttons, links to other pages, and content items within the panel or web page.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ priority to generate an adapted interactive user interface based on selected templates and the extracted query conditions, for at least the obvious advantage of providing a user interface suitable to the specific circumstances.
Jablokov does not disclose executing application programming interface (API) calls to acquire response data from remote servers, but Bhadury teaches “API driven scripts” (paragraph 7), and Burkhardt teaches calling APIs and API servers (paragraph 54, emphasis added), “One or more API servers 626 may provide a set of API functions for querying and writing to the network-based commerce system 600. APIs may be called through the HTTP transport protocol.” Zhang teaches retrieving response data (paragraph 40, emphasis added): “In some cases a user may request additional details about a product as illustrated in message 530 (‘Who are they playing?). In response to the user’s question, the interpreter module 220 may identify the additional product data requested by the user, retrieve it, generate a response that includes the additional product data, and transmit the response to the user’s instant messaging client as seen in message 535 (‘The San Jose Sparks are playing the Anaheim Pucks.’).” Further, Savla teaches (paragraph 74, emphasis added), “A client and server are generally remote from each other and typically interact through a communication network.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ priority to execute API calls to acquire response data from remote servers, for at least the obvious advantages of enabling the use of software or other response data present on one or more remote server computers.
Yet further, Zhang teaches facilitating order submission based on user inputs to the interactive user interface (paragraphs 40 and 41, emphasis added). Specifically from paragraph 40: “In some cases a user may request additional details about a product as illustrated in message 530 (‘Who are they playing?). In response to the user’s question, the interpreter module 220 may identify the additional product data requested by the user, retrieve it, generate a response that includes the additional product data, and transmit the response to the user’s instant messaging client as seen in message 535 (‘The San Jose Sparks are playing the Anaheim Pucks.’).” Zhang further teaches in paragraph 41, emphasis added: “If the user selects the link to purchase the product (in this case tickets to the game), a user may be taken to a user interface such as a web page or application interface where the user can make a transaction associated with the product (e.g., purchase the product). During the transaction process, the user may be asked for an instant messaging identifier (e.g., a screen name). If the user provides his instant messaging identifier, it may be stored at a web server 120”. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ priority to facilitate order submission based on user inputs to the interactive user interface, for at least the obvious advantage of aiding a user in buying a desired product or service, and perhaps directly profiting from the sale, or else receiving service fees or commissions from a buyer or seller.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jablokov et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0303445) in view of Zhang (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0215871), Bhadury et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0296294), Savla (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0058939), and Burkhardt et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0168054) as applied to claim 38 above, and further in view of McCarthy et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0177600). Jablokov does not expressly monitoring user inputs to the interactive user interface and providing status messages to the messaging session, but McCarthy teaches determining actions involving inputs (paragraph 109, emphasis added), “At state 4, a determination/inference is made as to whether the visitor was ‘converted’ (e.g., took an action which achieved a goal associated with the chat enabled website, such as making a purchase from the website or filling out a form presented via the web site), also referred to as a conversion event.” McCarthy teaches monitoring and further teaches providing a status update to a chat system (paragraph 110, emphasis added), “Optionally, the chat system monitors whether a conversion event occurred within a specified time period (sometimes referred to herein as a rechat interval) after chat occurred (e.g. after the chat was initiated or after the chat session ended). Information related to the event (e.g., a list of items purchased, the cost of each item, forms filled out, and/or other information) is passed to the chat system 102 via the chat beacon.” See also paragraph 112. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority to monitor inputs to the interactive user interface and provide status updates to the messaging session, for at least the obvious advantage, as in McCarthy, of informing a chat/IM system of whether a participant has taken an action which achieved a goal of the chat/IM system, such as making a purchase or filling out a form, and for the obvious advantage of informing a user of an interaction with a website, such as a purchase being completed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 25 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record, Jablokov et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0303445), discloses various elements of claim 19, with other elements obvious in view of the teachings of in view of Zhang (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0215871), Bhadury et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0296294), and Savla (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0058939), as set forth above. In particular, Bhadury teaches the use of templates. However, neither Jablokov, nor Bhadury, nor any other prior art of record, discloses that the plurality of available templates are each adapted for an order for a product or service of a certain type.
Claim 26 is rejected for double patenting, and objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and further upon filing of a valid Terminal Disclaimer.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record, Jablokov et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0303445), discloses various elements of claim 19, with other elements obvious in view of the teachings of in view of Zhang (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0215871), Bhadury et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0296294), and Savla (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0058939), as set forth above. As further set forth above with regard to claim 21, Burkhardt et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0168054) teaches API calls. Jablokov, Burkhardt, and the other three references applied to claim 21 do not disclose that the API calls acquire response data from the at least one remote server, and that the interactive user interface is adapted according to the response data. Yang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0047368) , the closest prior art of record for claim 26, teaches (Abstract, emphasis added), “Response data may be received in response to the API call. The graphical user interface may be displayed using at least a subset of the received response data.” Yang does not expressly disclose a remote server. There is insufficient teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the teaching of Yang with the five other references applied to claim 21 to arrive at method of claim 26.
Claims 27 and 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, and claim 27 is rejected for double patenting, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and further upon filing of a valid Terminal Disclaimer.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record, Jablokov et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0303445), discloses various elements of claim 19, with other elements obvious in view of the teachings of in view of Zhang (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0215871), Bhadury et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0296294), and Savla (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0058939), as set forth above. However, neither Jablokov nor any other prior art of record teaches, discloses, or reasonably suggests that the messaging session includes a computerized agent that participates as a member of the messaging session and performs the monitoring and analysis of textual content.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Omori et al. (U.S. Patent 7,822,650) is the patent issued on the application published as U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0132388, and used as a secondary reference for double patenting. Klassen (U.S. Patent 8,064,934) is the patent issued on the application published as U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0096589, and used as a secondary reference for double patenting. Warren et al. (U.S. Patent 11,170,425) is the patent issued on the application published as U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/310527, and used as a secondary reference for double patenting. Melzer et al. (U.S. Patent 11,983,736), the parent case, has been considered for possible double patenting (rejections not made).
Yu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0313141) disclose a system and method for learning user genres and styles and for matching products to user preferences. Yang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0047368) disclose an application development tool.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS D ROSEN, whose telephone number is (571)272-6762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM-5:30 PM, M-F. Non-official/draft communications may be faxed to the examiner at 571-273-6762, or emailed to Nicholas.Rosen@uspto.gov (in the body of an email, please, not as an attachment).
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, Marissa Thein, can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/NICHOLAS D ROSEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 April 1, 2026