DETAILED ACTION
This rejection is in response to application filed 06/26/2024.
Claims 21-40 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1-20 are cancelled.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim that this application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/364,198, filed June 30, 2021, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 15/783,992, filed October 13, 2017, which is a divisional of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/765,507, filed February 12, 2013, now abandoned, a divisional of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/765,271, filed February 12, 2013, now abandoned, and a divisional of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/765,479, filed February 12, 2013, now abandoned, all which claim the benefit of priority from U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/611,317, filed March 15, 2012, U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/611,312, filed March 15, 2012, U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/611,311, filed March 15, 2012, U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/611,306, filed March 15, 2012, and U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/611,302, filed March 15, 2012 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation- 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations in claims 21, 23, 25-26, 28-32 that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 21: display, by the one or more GUIs, a first purchase plan on a purchase planner utility, the purchase planner utility displaying a set of initial allocations as part of the first purchase plan; enable, by the one or more GUIs, a user an ability to execute modifications to the initial allocations in the first purchase plan displayed on the purchase planner utility;
Claim 23:…the purchase planner utility is configured to finalize...;
Claim 25:…the purchase planner utility is configured to dynamically load and update;
Claim 26: …the purchase planner utility is configured to generate…;
Claim 28:… the purchase planner utility operates to determine…;
Claim 29:… the purchase planner utility is configured to display…;
Claim 30: …the purchase planner utility is configured to notify...;
Claim 31: …the purchase planner utility is configured to display ...;
Claim 32: …the purchase planner utility is configured to generate.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites: enable, by the one or more GUIs, a user an ability to execute modifications to the initial allocations in the first purchase plan displayed on the purchase planner utility, rendering said claims indefinite because it is unclear what is being performed. It is clear that a user an ability to execute modifications to the initial allocations in the first purchase plan displayed on the purchase planner utility is not required by a potential infringer, but merely the enabling of the user. But what does that entail? When is the user enabled? How is the use enabled? What is the scope? Appropriate correction of clarification is required.
Claim limitations with “purchase planner utility” performing claimed functions in claims 21, 23, 25-26, 28-32 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The following claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
Claim 21: display, by the one or more GUIs, a first purchase plan on a purchase planner utility, the purchase planner utility displaying a set of initial allocations as part of the first purchase plan; enable, by the one or more GUIs, a user an ability to execute modifications to the initial allocations in the first purchase plan displayed on the purchase planner utility;
Claim 23:…the purchase planner utility is configured to finalize...;
Claim 25:…the purchase planner utility is configured to dynamically load and update;
Claim 26: …the purchase planner utility is configured to generate…;
Claim 28:… the purchase planner utility operates to determine…;
Claim 29:… the purchase planner utility is configured to display…;
Claim 30: …the purchase planner utility is configured to notify...;
Claim 31: …the purchase planner utility is configured to display ...;
Claim 32: …the purchase planner utility is configured to generate.
Claims 21, 23, 25-26, 28-32 recite the purchase planner utility performing functions without reciting the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and failing to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. See MPEP § 2106. In the instant case, claims 21-40 are directed to a system (which falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process/apparatus). Accordingly, the claims will be further analyzed under revised step 2:
Under step 2A (prong 1) of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it must be considered whether the claims recite a judicial exception if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. One of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas is defined as certain methods of organizing human activity that includes fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Regarding representative independent claim 21, recites the abstract idea of:
receive, …, one or more request for pricing (RFP) responses;
derive, …, initial allocations for the one or more RFP responses based on buyer spend data;
enable, …, a user an ability to execute modifications to the initial allocations in the first purchase plan displayed on the purchase planner utility;
alter, …, sections of the purchase planner utility based on the modifications to the initial allocations;
…a second purchase plan based on the modifications to the initial allocations in the purchase planner utility.
The above-recited limitations amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity as it relates to sales activities and commercial interactions because the claim includes receiving RFP responses, enabling users the ability to modify allocations in purchase plan, altering purchase planner, and a second purchase plans based on the modifications. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.
The Step 2A (prong 2) of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP § 2106.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements such as:
A system comprising: one or more computers comprising one or more processors and one or more non- transitory computer readable media, the one or more non-transitory computer readable media having program instructions stored thereon that when executed cause the one or more processors to generate one or more graphical interfaces (GUIs), wherein the one or more computers are configured to: …, by the one or more processors, …; …, by the one or more processors, …; display, by the one or more GUIs, a first purchase plan on a purchase planner utility, the purchase planner utility displaying a set of initial allocations as part of the first purchase plan; …, by the one or more GUIs, …; …, by the one or more processors, ….; display, by the one or more GUIs, …(Claim 21);
… on the one or more GUIs … (Claim 26);
….displayed in the one or more GUIs (Claim 31).
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Independent claims and dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, independent claims and dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. See MPEP § 2106.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
A system comprising: one or more computers comprising one or more processors and one or more non- transitory computer readable media, the one or more non-transitory computer readable media having program instructions stored thereon that when executed cause the one or more processors to generate one or more graphical interfaces (GUIs), wherein the one or more computers are configured to: …, by the one or more processors, …; …, by the one or more processors, …; display, by the one or more GUIs, a first purchase plan on a purchase planner utility, the purchase planner utility displaying a set of initial allocations as part of the first purchase plan; …, by the one or more GUIs, …; …, by the one or more processors, ….; display, by the one or more GUIs, …(Claim 21);
… on the one or more GUIs … (Claim 26);
….displayed in the one or more GUIs (Claim 31).
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the independent claims and dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because the recitations above do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. In addition, they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thomas et al. (US Patent No. 9355403 B2, hereinafter “Thomas”).
Regarding claim 21
Thomas discloses a system comprising: one or more computers comprising one or more processors and one or more non- transitory computer readable media, the one or more non-transitory computer readable media having program instructions stored thereon that when executed cause the one or more processors to generate one or more graphical interfaces (GUIs), wherein the one or more computers are configured to (Thomas, C2, L15-35: non-transitory computer readable medium executed by processor and user interface; C23, L1-15: user interfaces):
receive, by the one or more processors, one or more request for pricing (RFP) responses (Thomas, FIG. 66-67, C41, L40-67: customer specifies a product desired and price to receive a personalized offer and competitor price offers are generated; C42, L1-5: load and provide one or more competitor price offers)
derive, by the one or more processors, initial allocations for the one or more RFP responses based on buyer spend data (Thomas, C9, L10-35: allocation of offers based on customer preferences that are derived; C8, L1-11: develop pricing for customize offers using collected information of customer’s purchase history; C19, L25-67: customer profile history tracks information regarding products and brands customer purchased which is used to determine customer’s preference for brand, price, and quantity of a particular product; C13, L30-55: offer allocation includes matching customers to right offers and price points; C9, L10-35: allocation of offers based on customer data);
display, by the one or more GUIs, a first purchase plan on a purchase planner utility, the purchase planner utility displaying a set of initial allocations as part of the first purchase plan; enable, by the one or more GUIs, a user an ability to execute modifications to the initial allocations in the first purchase plan displayed on the purchase planner utility; (Thomas, FIG. 31, C25, L35-67: offer selection interface displays one or more offers to user to select and user may select add button to add offer to users account);
alter, by the one or more processors, sections of the purchase planner utility based on the modifications to the initial allocations; display, by the one or more GUIs, a second purchase plan based on the modifications to the initial allocations in the purchase planner utility (Thomas, C32, L1-22: if user selects offer, update user’s savings list with the selected offer; FIG. 36, C26, L22-30: A savings list interface may display the offers the user has selected and loaded onto the user's loyalty medium; C40, L10-60: if user accepts offer, the price may change prior to purchase and updated offer with new price is displayed and if updated offer is accepted by user, new price is uploaded; C41, L1-15: updated offer include user change in quantity of items with new price).
Regarding claim 22
Thomas discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the purchase planner utility uses the initial allocations, a seller RFP response, and a list of product cross-references to display the first purchase plan (Thomas, FIG. 31, C25, L35-67: offer selection interface displays one or more offers that include a product, an offer price for that product, a competitor's price for that product as well as other offers; C13, L30-55: offer allocation includes matching customers to right offers and price points; C9, L10-35: allocation of offers based on customer data).
Regarding claim 23
Thomas discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the purchase planner utility is configured to finalize a set of product selections and spending allocations generated when a buyer chooses to generate one or more contracts (Thomas, C20, L15-62: if customer redeems and accepts customized offer, then customer’s savings are increased; C26, L20-65: user’s savings list of selected products and savings reports of customer savings from customized offers accepted).
Regarding claim 24
Thomas discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the first purchase plan includes planned product selections, spending amounts, and product spending allocations for each of one or more committed pricing agreements (Thomas, FIG. 31, C25, L35-67: offer selection interface displays one or more offers that include a product, an offer price for that product, a competitor's price for that product as well as other offers and user may select add button to add offer to users account; C13, L30-55: offer allocation includes matching customers to right offers and price points; C9, L10-35: allocation of offers based on customer data; C27, L55-67 to C28, L1-45: savings allocated based on amount customer spends over a period of time; C24, L30-67: product selections).
Regarding claim 25
Thomas discloses the system of claim 24, wherein the purchase planner utility is configured to dynamically load and update the second purchase plan as a buyer completes multiple RFPs (Thomas, C13, L55-65: load selected offers onto a loyalty medium and keep track of which offers have been redeemed; C32, L1-22: if user selects offer, update user’s savings list with the selected offer; FIG. 36, C26, L22-30: A savings list interface may display the offers the user has selected and loaded onto the user's loyalty medium; C40, L10-60: if user accepts offer, the price may change prior to purchase and updated offer with new price is displayed and if updated offer is accepted by user, new price is uploaded; C41, L1-15: updated offer include user change in quantity of items with new price; FIG. 66-67, C41, L40-67: customer specifies a product desired and price to receive a personalized offer and competitor price offers are generated; C42, L1-5: load and provide one or more competitor price offers).
Regarding claim 26
Thomas discloses the system of claim 24, wherein the purchase planner utility is configured to generate a price response on the one or more GUIs by applying a pricing model to product price information (Thomas, FIG. 31, C25, L35-67: offer selection interface displays one or more offers to user including price; C13, L30-55: when a household has an allocated offer, the Price Point Generator Module 420 may be configured to determine the price for that offer; C20, L60-67: determine price point for customized offers).
Regarding claim 27
Thomas discloses the system of claim 26, wherein the price response defines a relationship between one or more contract parameters and a set of discounted prices for one or more products (Thomas, C18, L45-65: the customer profile may indicate a customer price zone that may be used for determining price points of offers that the customer receives; C13, L30-55: when a household has an allocated offer, the Price Point Generator Module 420 may be configured to determine the price for that offer; C20, L60-67: determine price point for customized offers; C8, L39-50: based on a customer's demonstrated propensity to purchase an item, the customer is allocated a high-buyer reward offer).
Regarding claim 28
Thomas discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the purchase planner utility operates to determine a set of product selections, market share allocations within the set of product selections and contract commitment values to optimize spending for a buyer for a particular product, particular set of products, a product category, or a set of product categories (Thomas, C24, L25-67: product categories and select pre-populated items; C7, L55-67: offers may be generated to maximize profits and savings where a price for an item is chosen that would increase profit for the retailer and also increase a household's savings on that item. The retailer may partner with a CPG manufacturer for the purpose of building market share for both the CPG manufacturer and the retailer. In embodiments, the retailer may utilize the exemplary customer loyalty system disclosed herein in a direct marketing effort to provide everyday prices that are best in the market loaded onto a loyalty medium; C8, L10-20: the retailer may build profitable market share despite low everyday prices because the CPG partner may fund a portion or all of the incremental markdowns to support incremental business; C8, L39-50: based on a customer's demonstrated propensity to purchase an item, the customer is allocated a high-buyer reward offer).
Regarding claim 29
Thomas discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the purchase planner utility is configured to display pricing that reflects a market share level of a particular supplier (Thomas, C7, L55-67: the retailer may utilize the exemplary customer loyalty system disclosed herein in a direct marketing effort to provide everyday prices that are best in the market loaded onto a loyalty medium; FIG. 31, C25, L35-67: offer selection interface displays one or more offers to user including price; C13, L30-55: when a household has an allocated offer, the Price Point Generator Module 420 may be configured to determine the price for that offer; C20, L60-67: determine price point for customized offers).
Regarding claim 30
Thomas discloses the system of claim 29, wherein the purchase planner utility is configured to notify a buyer that a selected purchase plan does not meet one or more selected goals (Thomas, C40, L10-45: notify customer of change in initially accepted offer terms; C18, L45-65: the customer profile may indicate a customer price zone that may be used for determining price points of offers that the customer receives; C13, L30-55: when a household has an allocated offer, the Price Point Generator Module 420 may be configured to determine the price for that offer; C20, L60-67: determine price point for customized offers; C8, L39-50: based on a customer's demonstrated propensity to purchase an item, the customer is allocated a high-buyer reward offer).
Regarding claim 31
Thomas discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the purchase planner utility is configured to display a set of committed pricing agreements corresponding to product selections and spending allocations displayed in the one or more GUIs (Thomas, C13, L55-65: load selected offers onto a loyalty medium and keep track of which offers have been redeemed; C32, L1-22: if user selects offer, update user’s savings list with the selected offer; FIG. 36, C26, L22-30: A savings list interface may display the offers the user has selected and that have been confirmed as loaded onto the user's loyalty medium; FIG. 37A, C26, L30-41: FIG. 37A illustrates another example savings list user interface 3700 displaying a savings list 3702. Each product listed in the savings list 3702 may specify a product name, savings price, a product description, a purchase quantity limit, and an expiration date).
Regarding claim 32
Thomas discloses the system of 21, wherein the purchase planner utility is configured to generate a list of product cross- references (Thomas, C8, L20-50: offer new items to customers and affinity offers for items that are bought with another item).
Regarding claim 33
Thomas discloses the system of claim 32, wherein the product cross-references include valid cross-references for one or more pricing responses (Thomas, C8, L20-50: offer new items with deep pricing discounts or free items to customers and affinity offers for items that are bought with another item).
Regarding claim 34
Thomas discloses the system of claim 32, wherein the list of product cross-references includes a global list that is equally applicable across all potential purchase plans (Thomas, C28, L49-67: global hot offers to all households; C29, L1-25: all potential hot offers).
Regarding claim 35
Thomas discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the initial allocations include one or more of a buyer's current product selections, supplier selections, and product purchase allocations (Thomas, C8, L1-11: develop pricing for customize offers using collected information of customer’s purchase history; C19, L25-67: customer profile history tracks information regarding products and brands customer purchased which is used to determine customer’s preference for brand, price, and quantity of a particular product; C13, L30-55: offer allocation includes matching customers to right offers and price points; C9, L10-35: allocation of offers based on customer data).
Regarding claim 36
Thomas discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the initial allocations are derived from a buyer's current spending on products associated with one or more RFPs (Thomas, C8, L1-11: develop pricing for customize offers using collected information of customer’s purchase history; C19, L25-67: customer profile history tracks information regarding products and brands customer purchased which is used to determine customer’s preference for brand, price, and quantity of a particular product; C13, L30-55: offer allocation includes matching customers to right offers and price points; C9, L10-35: allocation of offers based on customer data).
Regarding claim 37
Thomas discloses the system of claim 37, wherein the initial allocations reflect a buyer's product selections, sales volume, and product purchase allocations (Thomas, C9, L10-35: allocation of offers based on customer preferences; C10, L20-31: allocating offers that are most relevant to a household while also representing incremental sales to the retailer; C8, L20-67: allocation based on customer propensity to purchase item and list of items based on item quantity).
Regarding claim 38
Thomas discloses the system of claim 37, wherein the product purchase allocations reflect which products the buyer intends to purchase to meet a need for a particular product identified in one or more RFPs (Thomas, C24, L25-40: target offers for items based on customer needs; C9, L10-35: allocation of offers based on customer preferences; C10, L20-31: allocating offers that are most relevant to a household while also representing incremental sales to the retailer; C8, L20-67: allocation based on customer propensity to purchase item and list of items based on item quantity).
Regarding claim 39
Thomas discloses the system of claim 36, wherein the initial allocations are derived from a supplier RFP response (Thomas, C29, L1-20: retailer provides targeted hot offers to customers; C10, L20-31: allocating offers that are most relevant to a household while also representing incremental sales to the retailer; C14, L30-45: products and brands sold at the retailer and offers associated with those products and brands; C35, L35-50: retailer allocate offer to increase retailer sales).
Regarding claim 40
Thomas discloses the system of claim 39, wherein the initial allocations are modified by the purchase planner utility to provide the buyer with a lowest overall cost based on a response of a seller RFP (Thomas, C6, L4-24: retailer provide lower price point; C36, L1-10: allocate low buyer offer; C40, L10-60: updated offer with new lower price is displayed).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is cited as Heath (US Pub. No. 20130073473 A1) related to tracking buying patterns to offer deals to consumers, Clopp (US Pub. No. 20090259547 A1) related to managing referrals between a consumer, merchant, and at least one affiliate and awarding promotions, and non-patent literature, “Matching buyers and suppliers: an intelligent dynamic exchange model," related to helping market participants serve the needs of target buyers and suppliers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATASHA DEVI RAMPHAL whose telephone number is (571)272-2644. The examiner can normally be reached 11 AM - 7:30 PM (EST).
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 5712726763. 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.
/LATASHA D RAMPHAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688