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 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 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (a judicial exception without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1-26, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method. Claim 25 recites a non-transitory computer-readable media. Claim 26 recites a system
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of matching customers with sales associates based on a purchase intention. This idea is described by the following steps:
A method comprising:
accessing products for sale viewed by a plurality of users;
collecting user information from the plurality of users;
analyzing the user information;
predicting a purchase intention, for a user within the plurality of users, of the one or more products for sale, wherein the predicting is based on the analyzing;
matching the user with a sales associate from a plurality of sales associates, wherein the matching is based on the predicting; and
initiating an interaction between the user and the sales associate.
Claims 25 and 26 recite equivalent limitations.
This idea falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas as it is directed towards commercial interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors (i.e., matching the user with a sales associate and initiate an interaction between the user and the sales associate).
Step 2A, prong 2: Claims 1, 25 and 26 recite additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Claims 1, 25 and 26 recite one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the computing system to perform operations. However, these elements are generic computing components (see at least paragraphs 086) that are simply used to perform operations that would otherwise be abstract (see MPEP2106.05(f)).
Claims 1, 25 and 26 additionally recite using a first machine-learned model. However, the machine-learned models are recited at a high level of generality and are merely used as tools to perform the process (i.e., determining the cost of fulfilling an add-on order offer and determining a conversion rate) (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claims 1, 25 and 26 also recite the limitation “initiating an interaction in an overlay on the website”. However, these limitations are considered insignificant extra solution activity as they amount to necessary data gathering and outputting, wherein all uses of the recited abstract idea require such data gathering (i.e. collecting user information) and data output (i.e. displaying an overlay on the website) (see2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: Claims 1, 25 and 26 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept.
For the reasons identified with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, claims 1, 25 and 26 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For example, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
With respect to the limitations determined to be insignificant extra solution activity, these elements are similar to at least the following concepts determined by the courts to be insignificant extra solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). For example, at least paragraph 31 describes a network system that facilitates a request for services received from a user including a selection of a merchant.
Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. For example, at least paragraph 107describes presenting an offer for an add-on order to be added to a primary order.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea identified at step 2A—Prong One, without changing the analysis already presented. Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims identified at step 2A—Prong Two.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. These do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known components for the same reasons presented with respect to the elements in the independent claims above.
Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, the claims 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 1-10, 15, 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodell et al. (US 20170103346) in view of Wang et al. (US 20180033042).
Claim 1. Bodell et al. (Bodell) teaches a computer-implemented method for reserving zero-wait time agent interaction, the method comprising:
accessing a website, wherein the website includes one or more products for sale, wherein the website is viewed by a plurality of users [0016];
collecting user information, using one or more processors, from the plurality of users viewing the website [0016], [0027], [0081];
analyzing the user information, wherein the analyzing is based on machine learning [0081], [0041];
predicting a purchase intention, for a user within the plurality of users, of the one or more products for sale, wherein the predicting is based on the analyzing, and wherein the predicting is based on machine learning [0042], [0081];
matching the user with a sales associate from a plurality of sales associates, wherein the matching is based on the predicting [0027]; and
initiating an interaction, in an overlay on the website, between the user and the sales associate [0081].
Bodell does not teach that said “initiating an interaction” includes initiating an interaction in an overlay on the website.
Wang et al. (Wang) teaches a computer-implemented method for providing personalized proactive interaction. Based on the context information, the engine is configured to determine whether the user is likely in need of help, such that it would be beneficial to present that user with a proactive chat option (e.g., a pop-up in a lower right-hand corner of a browser, a web page overlay). When it is determined that a proactive chat option should be provided, the engine determines which of a plurality of agents are best suited for participating in that proactive chat. A number of factors may be considered, including a busyness of each agent (e.g., a number of chats in which that agent is currently participating in), an expertise of an agent (e.g., an agent who specializes in knowledge of certain products/services, an agent who is an expert at sales). The agent can then evaluate the appropriateness of a proactive chat. Should the agent deem that a proactive chat would be beneficial, the agent can initiate the proactive chat option with a greeting that is personalized to the user/and or the context of the user [0024].
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bodell to include that said “initiating an interaction” includes initiating an interaction in an overlay on the website, as disclosed in Wang, because it would advantageously help to avoid a wait in a queue for an available agent, as taught by Wang [0024].
Claim 2. Bodell teaches said method further comprising updating, from the interaction between the user and the sales associate, the user information [0081].
Claim 3. Bodell teaches said method wherein the user information includes website history, chat text, voice interaction, or video usage information [0031].
Claim 4. Bodell teaches said method wherein the user information includes implicit information, wherein the implicit information is gathered by the sales associate [0041], [0038].
Claim 5. Bodell teaches said method further comprising forming a shopper signal, for the sales associate, wherein the shopper signal indicates a probability of a sale by the user, and wherein the shopper signal is based on machine learning [0042], [0081].
Claim 6. Bodell teaches said method further comprising rematching the user with another sales associate, wherein the rematching is based on the collecting, and wherein the rematching is based on machine learning [0027].
Claim 7. Bodell teaches said method further comprising gathering information about the plurality of sales associates [0027].
Claim 8. Bodell teaches said method wherein the gathering information includes expertise, hobbies, appearance, conversion rate, tone, or style [0017].
Claim 9. Bodell teaches said method wherein the matching is based on the gathering information, and wherein the matching is further based on machine learning [0081].
Claim 10. Bodell teaches said method wherein the interaction comprises a text chat or voice call [0041].
Claim 15. Bodell teaches said method further comprising showing, by the sales associate, information about the one or more products for sale [0016].
Claim 20. Bodell teaches said method wherein the predicting includes a purchase intention for each user in the plurality of users [0027].
Claim 21. Bodell teaches said method further comprising prioritizing the plurality of users, wherein the prioritizing is based on the purchase intention that was predicted [0081].
Claim 22. Bodell teaches said method further comprising selecting, by the sales associate, one user from the plurality of users that was prioritized [0081].
Claim 23. Bodell teaches said method further comprising matching a user ID, of the user, with an ID from one or more third party sources [0031], [0033], [0051].
Claim 24. Bodell teaches said method wherein the user views a database supporting the website directly on a mobile device application [0016].
Claim 25 is rejected on the same rationale as set forth above in claim 1.
System claims 26 repeats the subject matter of method claim 1, as a set of apparatus elements rather than a series of steps. As the underlying processes of claim 1 have been shown to be fully disclosed by the teachings of Bodell and Wang in the above rejections of claim 1, it is readily apparent that the system disclosed by Bodell and Wang includes the apparatus to perform these functions. As such, these limitations are rejected for the same reasons given above for method claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Claims 11-13, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Bodell and Wang, in view of Dillon et al. (US 20200226672).
Claim 11. The combination of Bodell and Wang teaches all the limitations of claim 11 except that the interaction comprises a video chat.
Dillon et al. (Dillon) teaches a computer-implemented method for improving electronic commerce transactions using live video chat. If the consumer is interested in the product, the retailer can then scan the universal product bar code on the product and the product information will be presented to the consumer via live video chat. If the consumer would like to purchase the product, they can buy indicate they want to purchase the product and they will be directed to a checkout page within video chat that allows them to enter their credit card and delivery information [0006].
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 combination of Bodell and Wang to include that the interaction comprises a video chat, as disclosed in Dillon, because it would advantageously help to assist the customers in discovering and shopping for products and share product data such as, inventory, technical features, style and other options, pricing data, and discuss the product live, as taught by Dillon [0004].
Claim 12. The combination of Bodell and Wang teaches all the limitations of claim 12 except inviting, to the video chat, one or more additional users from within the plurality of users.
Dillon teaches a computer-implemented method for improving electronic commerce transactions using live video chat. The invited devices (e.g., the second or more user devices or retailer devices) may confirm the request to initiate a video chat, after which a video chat between the users and their devices begins [0019].
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 combination of Bodell and Wang to include inviting, to the video chat, one or more additional users from within the plurality of users, as disclosed in Dillon, because it would advantageously help to assist the customers in discovering and shopping for products and share product data such as, inventory, technical features, style and other options, pricing data, and discuss the product live, as taught by Dillon [0004].
Claim 13. The combination of Bodell and Wang teaches all the limitations of claim 13 except that the video chat includes video of the sales associate only.
Dillon teaches a computer-implemented method for improving electronic commerce transactions using live video chat. The product information may be updated during the video chat. A product price is entered, but other product information, such as style, color, quantity, etc, may be modified by the retailer or a retailer's associate [0024].
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 combination of Bodell and Wang to include that the video chat includes video of the sales associate only, as disclosed in Dillon, because it would advantageously help to assist the customers in discovering and shopping for products and share product data such as, inventory, technical features, style and other options, pricing data, and discuss the product live, as taught by Dillon [0004].
Claim 16. The combination of Bodell and Wang teaches all the limitations of claim 16 except playing, by the sales associate, a short-form video to highlight the one or more products for sale to the user.
Dillon teaches a computer-implemented method for improving electronic commerce transactions using live video chat. During the video chat, the retailer’s associate may use the retailer device to transmit video to the customer. Transmitting video from the retailer device to the customer allows a retailer to visually show the customer options of products available for purchase (e.g., based on information provided via the customer device, for example, through verbal communication during the live chat [0020].
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 combination of Bodell and Wang to include playing, by the sales associate, a short-form video to highlight the one or more products for sale to the user, as disclosed in Dillon, because it would advantageously show the details of a product being shown relative to a light source, rotate or manipulate the product to facilitate a customer's decision to purchase the product, as taught by Dillon [0020].
Claim 17. Same reasoning applied to claim 17.
Claim 18. The combination of Bodell and Wang teaches all the limitations of claim 18 except enabling, within the video chat, an ecommerce purchase of the one or more products for sale.
Dillon teaches a computer-implemented method for improving electronic commerce transactions using live video chat. A product price can be modified during a video chat (e.g., based on a discount applied directly by the retailer via retailer device, a discount applied by a customer via customer device (e.g., by entering a discount code into a customer input layer), or based on time-based fees (e.g., service charges for time spent in video chat) and/or additional flat fees accrued during the video chat (e.g., the provision of consulting advice to the customer by the retailer or a retailer's associate). In some embodiments, the customer may modify such information, for example, to select the particular product amounts and styles for purchase [0024].
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 combination of Bodell and Wang to include enabling, within the video chat, an ecommerce purchase of the one or more products for sale, as disclosed in Dillon, because it would advantageously help the customers make informed purchasing and sale decisions, as taught by Dillon [0017].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Bodell, Wang and Dillon, in view of Gratton et al. (US 20090233542).
Claim 19. The combination of Bodell, Wang and Dillon teaches all the limitations of claim 19 except providing the video chat to one or more third parties.
Gratton et al. (Graton) teaches a computer-implemented method for providing chat data and video content between multiple viewers. In at least one embodiment, a system may be configured to transmit portions of the video chat data to third party recipients through a third-party presentation device. For example, the local user may select a portion of the chat data featuring the remote user and transmit the selected portion to the third-party presentation device [0034].
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 combination of Bodell, Wang and Dillon to include providing the video chat to one or more third parties, as disclosed in Gratton, because it would advantageously allow for easy access by all collaborators.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Bodell, Wang and Dillon, and further in view of Konig et al. (US 20210201327).
Claim 14. The combination of Bodell, Wang and Dillon teaches all the limitations of claim 14 except sharing a screen, by the user, with the sales associate.
Konig et al. (Konig) a computer-implemented method relating to customer experience automation wherein the customer automation system also may enable the customer and agent to share relevant content with each other throughout the interaction In one embodiment, the agent or customer may share screens, documents (contracts, warranties, etc.), photos, and other files with each other [0113].
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 combination of Bodell, Wang and Dillon to include sharing a screen, by the user, with the sales associate, as disclosed in Konig, because it would advantageously allow multiple people to view the same content simultaneously, ensuring everyone is on the same page and eliminating confusion that can come from verbal or written descriptions alone, as well as save time by reducing the need to send files back and forth and allows for real-time problem-solving, training, and presentations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20160042419 to Singh discloses methods and systems for providing customized interaction experience to customers. A customer's web journey on the website may include selection of mobile phones from among the products displayed in the products display section. The apparatus may be caused to capture the customer activity, such as for example, accessing of images related to mobile phones. The customer's journey on the web page may also include a brief focus event (or a mouse roll over event) on accessories related to mobile phones. Accordingly, from the captured customer activity, the apparatus may be caused to determine the interaction data as content related to (1) mobile phones and (2) accessories related to mobile phones. The apparatus may further determine the non-interaction data as content related to images/sections not accessed by the customer during the customer's web journey on the web page. For example, content related to other electronic devices (like laptops, tablet devices), apparel and footwear and the like may be determined as non-interaction data by the apparatus. In an example embodiment, a customer's selection (or non-selection) of filtering options displayed in the products filter section may also be captured and interaction/non-interaction data determined based on the captured information. Upon prediction of the customer's intention using the prediction models, it may be determined that the customer intends to buy an Android based mobile phone. It may further be inferred that the customer has additional budget to purchase an accessory related to the Android based mobile phone.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILA AIRAPETIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3202. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-6763. 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.
/MILA AIRAPETIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688