DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the Amendments filed on 04/03/2026.
Claims 1-28 are rejected.
Claims 1-28 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 04/03/2026, has been entered. Claims 1-3, 7-12, and 16-26 have been amended.
Claim Objections
The claim objections from the prior Office Action have been withdrawn pursuant Applicant’s amendments.
Rejections Under 35 USC § 112(b)
The 35 USC § 112(b) rejections from the prior Office Action have been withdrawn pursuant Applicant’s amendments.
Double Patenting
The double patenting rejections have been maintained as detailed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received 06/10/2026 has been reviewed and considered.
Priority
The current Application is a CON of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332 which claims priority from Provisional Application 63/294,654, filed 12/29/2021. Therefore, the instant claims receive the effective filing date of 12/29/2021.
Eligibility
Claims 1-28, when looked at as a whole, are eligible over 101 as the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application under Prong Two of Step 2A. Specifically, the recitations of the integration platform separate from the website displays the set of protection plan offers and that customer selection of an interactive interface object on a website to add the item to a virtual shopping cart or to process a transaction involving the item from the virtual shopping cart triggering a modal window to display a subset of the set of protection plan offers that are selectable via a second interactive interface object that is displayed in the modal window 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.
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 .
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332 contains all of the limitations recited in claim 1 of the current application as follows:
Claim 1 of the current Application
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332
receiving, using an interface engine of the integration platform, a catalog of items from a merchant, wherein the catalog of items includes a first item;
dynamically matching, using a product catalog mapping engine of the integration platform, individual ones of a set of protection plan offers with individual ones of a set of items of the catalog of items,
wherein the set of protection plan offers are displayed, by the interface engine of the integration platform, in a live website associated with the merchant; and
in response to determining that a customer has selected an interactive interface object on the live website to: adding the first item to a virtual shopping cart or to process a transaction involving the first item from the virtual shopping cart, overlaying a modal window over the live website, wherein the modal window displays a subset of the set of protection plan offers that are mapped to the first item and are selectable via a second interactive interface object displayed in the modal window.
receive, using an interface engine of the integration platform, a catalog of items from the merchant, wherein the catalog of items includes the item;
dynamically matching, using a product catalog mapping engine of the integration platform, the set of protection plan offers with a set of items of the catalog of items from the merchant,
wherein the set of protection plan offers are displayed, by the interface engine of the integration platform, in a live website associated with the merchant;
in response to determining that the customer has selected an interactive interface object on the live website to: add the item to a virtual shopping cart or to process a transaction involving the item from the virtual shopping cart, overlaying a modal window over the live website, wherein the modal window displays a subset of the set of protection plan offers that are mapped to the item and are selectable via a second interactive interface object displayed in the modal window;
receive a notification related to the transaction involving the item, the protection plan, and the customer;
processing the transaction of the item, by an orders application programming interface (API) or a contracts API of the integration platform, to create a service contract associated with the protection plan, the protection plan corresponding to pricing of the item and a time period of the protection plan;
creating a data structure including a product reference identifier and a protection plan identifier associated with the service contract and automatically registering the protection plan on behalf of the customer; and
providing the product reference identifier and the protection plan identifier, by the orders API or the contracts API of the integration platform, to perform an action associated with the transaction
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332 contains all of the limitations recited in claim 2 of the current application as follows:
Claim 2 of the current Application
Claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332
receiving, by the interface engine of the integration platform, the catalog of items and a notification related to the transaction;
determining, by a data processing engine of the integration platform, the set of protection plan offers to display in the live website; and
performing, by the integration platform, an action associated with the transaction and an associated protection plan
receiving, by the interface engine of the integration platform, the catalog of items and the notification related to the transaction;
determining, by a data processing engine of the integration platform, the set of protection plan offers to display in the live website; and
performing, by the integration platform, the action associated with the transaction and the protection plan
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332 contains all of the limitations recited in claim 3 of the current application as follows:
Claim 3 of the current Application
Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332
wherein the integration platform includes an offers management system comprising a set connected platforms, the computer-implemented method further comprising:
operating, by the one or more processors of the integration platform, the offers management system that includes a set of connected platforms to manage aspects of the set of protection plan offers
wherein the computer instructions which when executed by the one or more processors further cause the integration platform to:
provide an offers management system that includes a set of connected platforms to manage aspects of the set of protection plan offers
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332 contains all of the limitations recited in claim 4 of the current application as follows:
Claim 4 of the current Application
Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332
wherein the offers management system includes an offers management administrative module, a rules system, an offers API, a content management system, lead tokens, and an offer rendering
wherein the offers management system includes an offers management administrative module, a rules system, an offers API, a content management system, lead tokens, and an offer rendering
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332 contains all of the limitations recited in claim 5 of the current application as follows:
Claim 5 of the current Application
Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332
wherein the set of protection plan offers are chosen according to rules based on at least one of offer price, merchant, product type, term length, coverage type, service type, region, and subregion
wherein the set of protection plan offers are chosen according to rules based on at least one of offer price, merchant, product type, term length, coverage type, service type, region, and subregion
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332 contains all of the limitations recited in claim 6 of the current application as follows:
Claim 6 of the current Application
Claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332
wherein the set of protection plan offers are provided natively at the live website associated with the merchant
wherein the set of protection plan offers are provided natively at the live website associated with the merchant
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332 contains all of the limitations recited in claim 7 of the current application as follows:
Claim 7 of the current Application
Claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332
wherein the transaction includes purchase of a protection plan, and performing an action associated with the transaction and the protection plan comprises:
generating a service contract associated with the first item, the customer, and the protection plan
wherein the transaction includes purchase of the protection plan, and performing the action associated with the transaction and the protection plan comprises:
generating the service contract associated with the item, the customer, and the protection plan
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332 contains all of the limitations recited in claim 8 of the current application as follows:
Claim 8 of the current Application
Claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332
wherein the transaction includes purchase of a protection plan, and performing an action associated with the transaction and the protection plan comprises:
generating a refund associated with the first item, the customer, and the protection plan
wherein the transaction includes purchase of the protection plan, and performing the action associated with the transaction and the protection plan comprises:
generating a refund associated with the item, the customer, and the protection plan
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332 contains all of the limitations recited in claim 9 of the current application as follows:
Claim 9 of the current Application
Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332
wherein the transaction does not include purchase of a protection plan, and performing an action associated with the transaction and the protection plan comprises:
generating a lead token associated with the first item, the customer, and the protection plan
wherein the transaction does not include purchase of the protection plan, and performing the action associated with the transaction and the protection plan comprises:
generating a lead token associated with the item, the customer, and the protection plan
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332 contains all of the limitations recited in claim 10 of the current application as follows:
Claim 10 of the current Application
Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332
An integration system for facilitating determination and presentation of a set of protection plan offers related to an item offered by a merchant, selection of a protection plan by a consumer, and lifecycle management of the protection plan by posing questions to the consumer and processing a claim for repair or replacement of the item associated with the protection plan, the integration system comprising:
one or more processors; and
a memory operatively connected to the one or more processors, and including computer code that when executed, causes the integration system to:
receive, using an interface engine of the integration system, a catalog of items from a merchant, wherein the catalog of items includes the item;
dynamically match, using a product catalog mapping engine of the integration system, individual ones of a set of protection plan offers with individual ones of a set of items of the catalog of items,
wherein the set of protection plan offers are displayed, by the interface engine of the integration system, in a live website associated with the merchant;
in response to determining that a customer has selected an interactive interface object on the live website to: add the item to a virtual shopping cart or to process a transaction involving the item from the virtual shopping cart, overlay a modal window over the live website, wherein the modal window displays a subset of the set of protection plan offers that are mapped to the item and are selectable via a second interactive interface object displayed in the modal window;
receive a notification associated with the transaction involving the item, the protection plan, and the customer;
process the transaction of the item, by an orders application programming interface (API) or a contracts API of the integration system, to create a service contract associated with the protection plan, the protection plan corresponding to pricing of the item and a time period of the protection plan;
create a data structure including a product reference identifier and a protection plan identifier associated with the service contract and automatically registering the protection plan on behalf of the customer; and
provide a product reference identifier and a protection plan identifier, by the orders API or the contracts API of the integration system, to perform an action associated with the transaction
An integration system facilitating determination and presentation of a set of protection plan offers related to an item offered by a merchant, selection of a protection plan by a consumer, and lifecycle management of the protection plan by posing questions to the consumer and processing a claim for repair or replacement of the item associated with the protection plan, the integration system comprising:
one or more processors; and
a memory operatively connected to the one or more processors, and including computer code that when executed, causes the integration system to perform a method comprising:
receiving, using an interface engine of the integration system, a catalog of items from a merchant, wherein the catalog of items includes the item;
dynamically matching, using a product catalog mapping engine of the integration system, the set of protection plan offers with a set of items of the catalog of items from the merchant,
wherein the set of protection plan offers are displayed, by the interface engine of the integration platform, in a live website associated with the merchant;
in response to determining that the customer has selected an interactive interface object on the live website to: add the item to a virtual shopping cart or to process a transaction involving the item from the virtual shopping cart, overlaying a modal window over the live website, wherein the modal window displays a subset of the set of protection plan offers that are mapped to the item and are selectable via a second interactive interface object displayed in the modal window;
receiving a notification associated with the transaction involving the item, the protection plan, and the customer;
processing the transaction of the item, by an orders application programming interface (API) or a contracts API of the integration system, to create a service contract associated with the protection plan, the protection plan corresponding to pricing of the item and a time period of the protection plan;
creating a data structure including a product reference identifier and a protection plan identifier associated with the service contract and automatically registering the protection plan on behalf of the customer; and
providing the product reference identifier and the protection plan identifier, by the orders API or the contracts API of the integration system, to perform an action associated with the transaction
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332 contains all of the limitations recited in claim 11 of the current application as follows:
Claim 11 of the current Application
Claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332
wherein the computer code causes the integration system to:
receive the catalog of items and the notification associated with the transaction;
determine the set of protection plan offers to display in the live website; and
perform the action associated with the transaction and the protection plan
wherein the computer code causes the integration system to perform the method further comprising:
receiving the catalog of items and the notification associated with the transaction;
determining the set of protection plan offers to display in the live website; and
performing the action associated with the transaction and the protection plan
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332 contains all of the limitations recited in claim 12 of the current application as follows:
Claim 12 of the current Application
Claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332
wherein the computer code causes the integration system to:
provide an offers management system that includes a set of connected platforms to manage aspects of the set of protection plan offers
wherein the computer code causes the integration system to perform the method further comprising:
providing an offers management system that includes a set of connected platforms to manage aspects of the set of protection plan offers
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332 contains all of the limitations recited in claim 13 of the current application as follows:
Claim 13 of the current Application
Claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332
wherein the offers management system includes an offers management administrative module, a rules system, an offers API, a content management system, lead tokens, and an offer rendering
wherein the offers management system includes an offers management administrative module, a rules system, an offers API, a content management system, lead tokens, and an offer rendering
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332 contains all of the limitations recited in claim 14 of the current application as follows:
Claim 14 of the current Application
Claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332
wherein the set of protection plan offers are chosen according to rules based on at least one of offer price, merchant, product type, term length, coverage type, service type, region, and subregion
wherein the set of protection plan offers are chosen according to rules based on at least one of offer price, merchant, product type, term length, coverage type, service type, region, and subregion
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332 contains all of the limitations recited in claim 15 of the current application as follows:
Claim 15 of the current Application
Claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332
wherein the set of protection plan offers are provided natively at the live website associated with the merchant
wherein the set of protection plan offers are provided natively at the live website associated with the merchant
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332 contains all of the limitations recited in claim 16 of the current application as follows:
Claim 16 of the current Application
Claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332
wherein the transaction includes purchase of the protection plan, and the computer code causes the integration system to:
generate the service contract associated with the item, the customer, and the protection plan
wherein the transaction includes purchase of the protection plan protection, and the method further comprises:
generating the service contract associated with the item, the customer, and the protection plan
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332 contains all of the limitations recited in claim 17 of the current application as follows:
Claim 17 of the current Application
Claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332
wherein the transaction includes purchase of the protection plan, and the computer code causes the integration system to:
generate a refund associated with the item, the customer, and the protection plan
wherein the transaction includes purchase of the protection plan, and the method further comprises:
generating a refund associated with the item, the customer, and the protection plan
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332 contains all of the limitations recited in claim 18 of the current application as follows:
Claim 18 of the current Application
Claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332
wherein the computer code causes the integration system to perform the computer code causes the integration system to:
generate a lead token associated with the item, the customer, and the set of protection plan offers
wherein the computer code causes the integration system to perform the method further comprising:
generating a lead token associated with the item, the customer, and the set of protection plan offers
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332 contains all of the limitations recited in claim 19 of the current application as follows:
Claim 19 of the current Application
Claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, which, when executed by one or more processors of an integration platform, cause the one or more processors to:
facilitate determination and presentation of a set of protection plan offers related to an item offered by a merchant, selection of a protection plan by a consumer, and lifecycle management of the protection plan by posing questions to the consumer and processing a claim for repair or replacement of the item associated with the protection plan:
receive, at an integration platform, a catalog of items from the merchant, wherein the catalog of items includes the item;
dynamically match, by the integration platform, individual ones of a set of protection plan offers with individual ones of the set of items of the catalog of items,
wherein the set of protection plan offers are displayed, by an interface engine of the integration platform, in a live website associated with the merchant;
in response to determining that a customer has selected an interactive interface object on the live website to: add the item to a virtual shopping cart or to process a transaction involving the item from the virtual shopping cart, overlay a modal window over the live website, wherein the modal window displays a subset of the set of protection plan offers that are mapped to the item and are selectable via a second interactive interface object displayed in the modal window;
receive, at the integration platform, a notification associated with the transaction involving the item, the protection plan, and the customer;
process the transaction of the item to create a service contract associated with the protection plan, the protection plan corresponding to pricing of the item and a time period of the protection plan;
create a data structure including a product reference identifier and a protection plan identifier associated with the service contract and automatically registering the protection plan on behalf of the customer; and
provide a product reference identifier and a protection plan identifier to perform, by the integration platform, an action associated with the transaction
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, which when executed by one or more processing resources of an integration platform facilitating determination and presentation of a set of protection plan offers related to an item offered by a merchant, selection of a protection plan by a consumer, and lifecycle management of the protection plan by posing questions to the consumer and processing a claim for repair or replacement of the item associated with the protection plan, cause the one or more processing resources to perform a method comprising:
receiving, at the integration platform, a catalog of items from the merchant, wherein the catalog of items includes the item;
dynamically matching, by the integration platform, the set of protection plan offers with a set of items of the catalog of items from the merchant,
wherein the set of protection plan offers are displayed, by an interface engine of the integration platform, in a live website associated with the merchant;
in response to determining that the customer has selected an interactive interface object on the live website to: add the item to a virtual shopping cart or to process a transaction involving the item from the virtual shopping cart, overlaying a modal window over the live website, wherein the modal window displays a subset of the set of protection plan offers that are mapped to the item and are selectable via a second interactive interface object displayed in the modal window;
receiving, at the integration platform, a notification associated with the transaction involving the item, the protection plan, and the customer;
processing the transaction of the item to create a service contract associated with the protection plan, the protection plan corresponding to pricing of the item and a time period of the protection plan;
creating a data structure including a product reference identifier and a protection plan identifier associated with the service contract and automatically registering the protection plan on behalf of the customer; and
providing the product reference identifier and the protection plan identifier to perform, by the integration platform, an action associated with the transaction
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332 contains all of the limitations recited in claim 20 of the current application as follows:
Claim 20 of the current Application
Claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332
which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
receive the catalog of items and the notification associated with the transaction;
determine the set of protection plan offers to display in the live website associated with the merchant; and
perform the action associated with the transaction and the protection plan
that cause the one or more processing resources to perform the method further comprising:
receiving the catalog of items and the notification associated with the transaction;
determining the set of protection plan offers to display in the live website associated with the merchant; and
performing the action associated with the transaction and the protection plan
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332 in view of Ward et al. (US 2016/0063564 A1) hereinafter Ward as follows:
Claim 21 of the current Application
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332
providing an integration platform, comprising an interface engine and one or more processors programmed with computer instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the integration platform to perform the steps of:
receiving, at the integration platform, a selection of a first item of one or more selectable items associated with a merchant;
dynamically determining relevant offers that are mapped to respective items of the selectable items based on one or more criteria, wherein the dynamically relevant offers are displayed, by the interface engine of the integration platform, in a live website associated with the merchant;
displaying, by the interface engine, an interactive interface object associated with the first item, wherein the interactive interface object is configured to be selected by a customer on a computer user interface; and
in response to determining that the customer has selected an interactive interface object on the live website associated with a product, overlaying a modal window over the live website, wherein the modal window displays the dynamically relevant offers that are mapped to the first item and are selectable via a second interactive interface object displayed in the modal window
receive, using an interface engine of the integration platform, a catalog of items from the merchant, wherein the catalog of items includes the item;
dynamically matching, using a product catalog mapping engine of the integration platform, the set of protection plan offers with a set of items of the catalog of items from the merchant,
wherein the set of protection plan offers are displayed, by the interface engine of the integration platform, in a live website associated with the merchant;
in response to determining that the customer has selected an interactive interface object on the live website to: add the item to a virtual shopping cart or to process a transaction involving the item from the virtual shopping cart, overlaying a modal window over the live website, wherein the modal window displays a subset of the set of protection plan offers that are mapped to the item and are selectable via a second interactive interface object displayed in the modal window;
receive a notification related to the transaction involving the item, the protection plan, and the customer;
processing the transaction of the item, by an orders application programming interface (API) or a contracts API of the integration platform, to create a service contract associated with the protection plan, the protection plan corresponding to pricing of the item and a time period of the protection plan;
creating a data structure including a product reference identifier and a protection plan identifier associated with the service contract and automatically registering the protection plan on behalf of the customer; and
providing the product reference identifier and the protection plan identifier, by the orders API or the contracts API of the integration platform, to perform an action associated with the transaction
Patent No. 12,131,332 does not explicitly disclose receiving, at the integration platform, a selection of a first item of one or more selectable items associated with a merchant; and mapping the respective items based on one or more criteria.
Ward, however, teaches offering a warranty (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of receiving, at the integration platform, a selection of a first item of one or more selectable items associated with a merchant (Ward, see at least: (Ward, see at least: “The offer engine 148 offers a warranty based on the categorization of the goods and services being purchased [i.e. receiving, at the integration platform, a selection of a first item]. The warranty offer may be based on a price range or selling price of the goods and services being purchased. The offer engine may provide details related to the term and coverage as shown in FIGS. 4 to 6. The offer engine may further provide text to encourage the consumer to purchase a warranty. An example of such text is shown in FIG. 4 and is visibly displayed on a webpage for the consumer to read” [0033] and Fig. 4 displays a page with a TV selected from the E-store [i.e. a selection of a first item of one or more selectable items associated with a merchant]); and
the known technique of mapping the respective items based on one or more criteria (Ward, see at least: “The goods and services offered by the e-commerce store are categorized by the categorization engine 146 at step 310 or may alternatively be categorized in real time” [0032] and “The offer engine 148 may offer a warranty based on analysis of consumer purchasing habits based on data related to previous purchases, data collected on e-commerce websites, aggregate data on consumer behaviour, and consumer demographics [i.e. mapping the respective items based on one or more criteria]” [0034]). This known technique is applicable to the method of Patent No. 12,131,332 as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to offering a warranty.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of receiving, at the integration platform, a selection of a first item of one or more selectable items associated with a merchant; and mapping the respective items based on one or more criteria, as taught by Ward, to the teachings of Patent No. 12,131,332 would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modification of receiving, at the integration platform, a selection of a first item of one or more selectable items associated with a merchant; and mapping the respective items based on one or more criteria, as taught by Ward, into the method of Patent No. 12,131,332 would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would allow a third party warranty provider to offer a warranty at a point-of-sale (Ward, [0006]).
Claim 22 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332 contains all of the limitations recited in claim 22 of the current application as follows:
Claim 22 of the current Application
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332
wherein a modal window over the live website displays a subset of a set of protection plan offers that are mapped to the first item and are selectable via a second interface object displayed in the modal window
receive, using an interface engine of the integration platform, a catalog of items from the merchant, wherein the catalog of items includes the item;
dynamically matching, using a product catalog mapping engine of the integration platform, the set of protection plan offers with a set of items of the catalog of items from the merchant,
wherein the set of protection plan offers are displayed, by the interface engine of the integration platform, in a live website associated with the merchant;
in response to determining that the customer has selected an interactive interface object on the live website to: add the item to a virtual shopping cart or to process a transaction involving the item from the virtual shopping cart, overlaying a modal window over the live website, wherein the modal window displays a subset of the set of protection plan offers that are mapped to the item and are selectable via a second interactive interface object displayed in the modal window;
receive a notification related to the transaction involving the item, the protection plan, and the customer;
processing the transaction of the item, by an orders application programming interface (API) or a contracts API of the integration platform, to create a service contract associated with the protection plan, the protection plan corresponding to pricing of the item and a time period of the protection plan;
creating a data structure including a product reference identifier and a protection plan identifier associated with the service contract and automatically registering the protection plan on behalf of the customer; and
providing the product reference identifier and the protection plan identifier, by the orders API or the contracts API of the integration platform, to perform an action associated with the transaction
Claim 24 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332 in view of Tanksali et al. (US 2018/0268418 A1), hereinafter Tanksali as follows:
Claim 24 of the current Application
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332
creating, by the integration platform, a data structure including a product reference identifier and a protection plan identifier associated with a service contract and automatically registering a protection plan that corresponds to the protection plan identifier on behalf of the customer;
storing the data structure in at least one data store of the integration platform; and
providing the product reference identifier and the protection plan identifier, by an orders API or a contracts API of the integration platform, to perform an action associated with a transaction
creating a data structure including a product reference identifier and a protection plan identifier associated with the service contract and automatically registering the protection plan on behalf of the customer; and
providing the product reference identifier and the protection plan identifier, by the orders API or the contracts API of the integration platform, to perform an action associated with the transaction
Patent No. 12,131,332 does not explicitly disclose creating, by the integration platform, a data structure including a product reference identifier and a protection plan identifier associated with a service contract and automatically registering a protection plan that corresponds to the protection plan identifier on behalf of the customer; and storing the data structure in at least one data store of the integration platform.
Tanksali, however, teaches warranty transactions (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of creating, by the integration platform, a data structure including a product reference identifier and a protection plan identifier associated with a service contract and automatically registering a protection plan that corresponds to the protection plan identifier on behalf of the customer (Tanksali, see at least: “warranty vault system 150 may assign a warranty ID to the warranty enriched transaction data, such as, for example, a numerical identifier, an alphanumerical identifier, and/or the like. Warranty vault system 150 may store the warranty enriched transaction data in a warranty vault database 155 [i.e. creating, by the integration platform, a data structure]. Warranty vault database 155 may store the warranty enriched transaction data using any suitable technique described herein or known in the art. For example, warranty vault database 155 may store the warranty enriched transaction data based on the warranty ID [i.e. including protection plan identifier associated with the service contract], merchant ID, the user account, and/or the like. Warranty vault database 155 may also group the warranty enriched transaction data based on merchant ID, user account, and/or the like” [0028] and “The transaction information may comprise transaction-related data such … a product attribute (e.g., a product code, a product description, etc.) [i.e. including a product reference identifier]” [0025] and “Electronic warranty enriched transaction data provided by merchants may be automatically associated with the corresponding transaction, and transmitted after the sale, or after authorization of the transaction, without user intervention [i.e. and automatically registering a protection plan that corresponds to the protection plan identifier on behalf of the customer]” [abstract]); and
the known technique of storing the data structure in at least one data store of the integration platform (Tanksali, see at least: “warranty vault system 150 may assign a warranty ID to the warranty enriched transaction data, such as, for example, a numerical identifier, an alphanumerical identifier, and/or the like. Warranty vault system 150 may store the warranty enriched transaction data in a warranty vault database 155 [i.e. storing the data structure in at least one data store of the integration platform]. Warranty vault database 155 may store the warranty enriched transaction data using any suitable technique described herein or known in the art. For example, warranty vault database 155 may store the warranty enriched transaction data based on the warranty ID, merchant ID, the user account, and/or the like. Warranty vault database 155 may also group the warranty enriched transaction data based on merchant ID, user account, and/or the like” [0028]). These known techniques are applicable to the method of Patent No. 12,131,332 as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to warranty transactions.
It would have been recognized that applying the known techniques of creating, by the integration platform, a data structure including a product reference identifier and a protection plan identifier associated with a service contract and automatically registering a protection plan that corresponds to the protection plan identifier on behalf of the customer; and storing the data structure in at least one data store of the integration platform, as taught by Tanksali, to the teachings of Patent No. 12,131,332 would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modifications of creating, by the integration platform, a data structure including a product reference identifier and a protection plan identifier associated with a service contract and automatically registering a protection plan that corresponds to the protection plan identifier on behalf of the customer; and storing the data structure in at least one data store of the integration platform, as taught by Tanksali, into the method of Patent No. 12,131,332 would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would automatically associate warranty enriched transaction data with a corresponding transaction without user intervention (Tanksali, abstract).
Claim 25 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332 contains all of the limitations recited in claim 25 of the current application as follows:
Claim 25 of the current Application
Claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332
generating a refund associated with the first item, the customer, and a protection plan
generating a refund associated with the item, the customer, and the protection plan
Claim 26 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332 contains all of the limitations recited in claim 26 of the current application as follows:
Claim 26 of the current Application
Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332
generating a lead token associated with the first item, the customer, and a set of protection plan offers
generating a lead token associated with the item, the customer, and the protection plan
Claim 28 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332 in view of Ward et al. (US 2016/0063564 A1) hereinafter Ward as follows:
Claim 28 of the current Application
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332
customizing text in protection plan offers, shipping options, and information pages at a network document of the merchant
Patent No. 12,131,332 does not explicitly disclose customizing text in protection plan offers, shipping options, and information pages at a network document of the merchant.
Ward, however, teaches offering a warranty (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of customizing text in protection plan offers, shipping options, and information pages at a network document of the merchant (Ward, see at least: “The offer engine 148 may offer a warranty based on analysis of consumer purchasing habits based on data related to previous purchases, data collected on e-commerce websites, aggregate data on consumer behaviour, and consumer demographics [i.e. customizing text in protection plan offers and shipping options]” [0034] and “The offer engine 148 may send a merchant text to use to encourage the consumer to purchase a warranty [i.e. customizing text in protection plan offers] or additional goods and services. The text provided is determined using A/B testing to determine text that successfully encourages the consumer to purchase the warranty or additional goods and services. The merchant may be provided with text in the form of phrases that are ranked based on rates of success for encouraging the consumer to purchase the warranty or additional goods and service” [0037] and “The merchant may then select the text to use [i.e. customizing text in information pages at a network document of the merchant] based on the ranking and perceived needs of the consumer” [0040] and Fig. 5 displays the item (i.e. the TV) and the offer for a two year extended warranty including the offer for loss and theft protection [i.e. customizing text in shipping options] being added to the cart; Interpreted in light of [0017] of Applicant’s Spec). This known technique is applicable to the method of Patent No. 12,131,332 as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to offering a warranty.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of customizing text in protection plan offers, shipping options, and information pages at a network document of the merchant, as taught by Ward, to the teachings of Patent No. 12,131,332 would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modification of customizing text in protection plan offers, shipping options, and information pages at a network document of the merchant, as taught by Ward, into the method of Patent No. 12,131,332 would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would allow a third party warranty provider to offer a warranty at a point-of-sale (Ward, [0006]).
Examiner Note: Claims 23 and 27 are not rejected under Double Patenting as they are sufficiently distinct from the claimed invention recited in U.S. Patent No. 12,131,332.
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.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 21-22, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward et al. (US 2016/0063564 A1) hereinafter Ward, in view of in view of Haynes et al. (US 9,123,069 B1), hereinafter Haynes.
Regarding claim 1, Ward discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
-one or more processors of an integration platform, wherein the one or more processors programmed with computer instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors (Ward, see at least: “The data processing system 100 further includes a plurality of processors. FIG. 2 illustrates an exemplary architecture 200 of a processor in the data processing system 100. An internal bus system 202 interconnects a central processing unit (CPU) 204 with a memory 206, an input/output adapter 208, a communications adapter 210, a user interface adapter 212, and a display adapter 214” [0028]), cause the integration platform to perform the steps of:
-receiving, using an interface engine of the integration platform, a catalog of items from a merchant, wherein the catalog of items includes a first item (Ward, see at least: “There is a database 144 on the server 122. The database 144 contains a list of goods and services offered by a merchant [i.e. wherein the catalog of items includes a first item] which are categorized by a categorization engine 146. The database 144 may be populated by uploading or downloading a merchant database or manually inputting data [i.e. receiving, using an interface engine of the integration platform, a catalog of items from a merchant]” [0031] and “in addition to being implemented on a variety of hardware platforms, the warranty management system may also be implemented on a variety of software platforms [i.e. using an interface engine of the integration platform], i.e. the operating system used may vary between processors” [0029]);
-dynamically matching, using a product catalog mapping engine of the integration platform, individual ones of a set of protection plan offers with individual ones of a set of items of the catalog of items, wherein a protection plan offers are displayed, by the interface engine of the integration platform, in a live website associated with the merchant (Ward, see at least: “The goods and services offered by the e-commerce store are categorized by the categorization engine 146 [i.e. using a product catalog mapping engine of the integration platform] at step 310 or may alternatively be categorized in real time [i.e. dynamically matching]. Warranty stock keeping units (SKUs) are loaded onto the e-commerce store website at step 320 and a computer program in the form of JavaScript® code is inserted into the e-commerce store website at step 330 [i.e. dynamically matching, using a product catalog mapping engine of the integration platform, individual ones of a set of protection plan offers with individual ones of a set of items of the catalog of items]. The JavaScript® code triggers the offer engine 148 on the server 122 to offer a warranty when a consumer clicks an icon, for example, ADD TO CART, to purchase goods or services at step 340 … The warranty offer appears on the e-commerce store website [i.e. wherein a protection plan offer is displayed in a live website associated with the merchant], as shown in FIG. 4, despite the warranty offer being made by a third party warranty provider [i.e. by the interface engine of the integration platform] and not a merchant operating the e-commerce store” [0032] and “The offer engine 148 offers a warranty based on the categorization of the goods and services being purchased [i.e. matching individual ones of a set of protection plan offers with individual ones of a set of items of the catalog of items]. The warranty offer may be based on a price range or selling price of the goods and services being purchased. The offer engine may provide details related to the term and coverage as shown in FIGS. 4 to 6” [0033] and “in addition to being implemented on a variety of hardware platforms, the warranty management system may also be implemented on a variety of software platforms [i.e. using a product catalog mapping engine of the integration platform], i.e. the operating system used may vary between processors” [0029]); and
-in response to determining that a customer has selected an interactive interface object on the live website to: adding the first item to a virtual shopping cart or to process a transaction involving the first item from the virtual shopping cart, displaying a subset of the set of protection plan offers that are mapped to the first item and are selectable via a second interactive interface object displayed (Ward, see at least: “Warranty stock keeping units (SKUs) are loaded onto the e-commerce store website at step 320 and a computer program in the form of JavaScript® code is inserted into the e-commerce store website at step 330. The JavaScript® code triggers the offer engine 148 on the server 122 to offer a warranty [i.e. displaying a subset of the set of protection plan offers that are mapped to the first item] when a consumer clicks an icon, for example, ADD TO CART [i.e. in response to determining that the customer has selected an interactive interface object on the live website to: adding the first item to a virtual shopping cart or to process a transaction involving the first item from the virtual shopping cart], to purchase goods or services at step 340 … The warranty offer appears on the e-commerce store website, as shown in FIG. 4, despite the warranty offer being made by a third party warranty provider and not a merchant operating the e-commerce store. If the consumer accepts the warranty offer [i.e. and are selectable via a second interactive interface object displayed] then the warranty SKU is inserted into the consumer's cart” [0032]).
Ward does not explicitly disclose the set of protection plan offers being display in the live website; and in response to determining that the customer has selected an interactive interface object on the live website overlaying a modal window over the live website, wherein the modal window displays a subset of the set of protection plan offers that are mapped to the first item and are selectable via a second interactive interface object displayed in the modal window.
Haynes, however, teaches online transactions (i.e. abstract) including the known technique of the set of protection plan offers being display in the live website (Haynes, see at least: “FIG. 9 is a schematic diagram showing details of item queue 114 following user selection of the "more options" line item 126. When the user selects this line item 126, a list of additional options is presented to the user. The list of other options is limitless and may include, without limitation, gift options, extended warranty options [i.e. the set of protection plan offers to display in the live website]” Col. 7 Ln. 27-32); and
the known technique of, in response to determining that the customer has selected an interactive interface object on the live website, overlay a modal window over the live website, wherein the modal window displays a subset of the set of protection plan offers that are mapped to the first item and are selectable via a second interactive interface object displayed in the modal window (Haynes, see at least: “the user hovers a pointer over the purchase interface 128 [i.e. in response to determining that the customer has selected an interactive interface object on the live website], which causes a purchase preview 206 to be presented. In the illustrated example, the purchase preview 206 is presented in place of the item queue 114. However, in other examples, the purchase preview 206 could be instead presented in a separate window, in a separate frame, overlaid over the item queue or a portion of the item detail page [i.e. overlay a modal window over the live website]” Col. 4 Ln. 61-67 and “FIG. 9 is a schematic diagram showing details of item queue 114 following user selection of the "more options" line item 126. When the user selects this line item 126, a list of additional options is presented to the user. The list of other options is limitless and may include, without limitation, gift options, extended warranty options [i.e. wherein the modal window displays a subset of the set of protection plan offers that are mapped to the first item and are selectable via a second interactive interface object displayed in the modal window], accessories, recent orders, and help, to name just a few” Col. 7 Ln. 27-33). These known techniques are applicable to the method of Ward as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to online transactions.
It would have been recognized that applying the known techniques of the set of protection plan offers being display in the live website; and in response to determining that the customer has selected an interactive interface object on the live website, overlay a modal window over the live website, wherein the modal window displays a subset of the set of protection plan offers that are mapped to the first item and are selectable via a second interactive interface object displayed in the modal window, as taught by Haynes, to the teachings of Ward would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modifications of the set of protection plan offers being display in the live website; and in response to determining that the customer has selected an interactive interface object on the live website, overlay a modal window over the live website, wherein the modal window displays a subset of the set of protection plan offers that are mapped to the item and are selectable via a second interactive interface object displayed in the modal window, as taught by Haynes, into the method of Ward would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would provide simpler and faster online shopping (Haynes, Col. 2 Ln. 54-57).
Regarding claim 2, Ward in view of Haynes teaches the method of claim 1. Ward further discloses:
-receiving, by the interface engine of the integration platform, the catalog of items and a notification related to the transaction (Ward, see at least: “There is a database 144 on the server 122. The database 144 contains a list of goods and services offered by a merchant which are categorized by a categorization engine 146. The database 144 may be populated by uploading or downloading a merchant database or manually inputting data [i.e. receiving the catalog of items]” [0031] and “The mainframe computer 124 of the e-commerce store provides consumer information and purchase information to the server 122 at step 710 [i.e. receiving a notification associated with the transaction]. The purchase information is scanned to identify purchases associated with an extended warranty at step 720” [0035] and “in addition to being implemented on a variety of hardware platforms, the warranty management system may also be implemented on a variety of software platforms [i.e. by the interface engine of the integration platform]” [0029]; Examiner interprets the interface engine as software run on hardware in light of [0055] and [0126] of Applicant’s spec);
-determining, by a data processing engine of the integration platform, the protection plan offer to display in the live website (Ward, see at least: “when a purchase is made at an e-commerce store. The goods and services offered by the e-commerce store are categorized by the categorization engine 146 at step 310 or may alternatively be categorized in real time. Warranty stock keeping units (SKUs) are loaded onto the e-commerce store website at step 320 and a computer program in the form of JavaScript® code is inserted into the e-commerce store website at step 330 [i.e. to display in the live website]. The JavaScript® code triggers the offer engine 148 on the server 122 to offer a warranty [i.e. determines the protection plan offer and the shipping protection plan offer] when a consumer clicks an icon, for example, ADD TO CART, to purchase goods or services at step 340. In other examples however the JavaScript® code could be developed with code for the e-commerce store and pull data from the server 122. The warranty offer appears on the e-commerce store website, as shown in FIG. 4, despite the warranty offer being made by a third party warranty provider and not a merchant operating the e-commerce store” [0032] and “in addition to being implemented on a variety of hardware platforms, the warranty management system may also be implemented on a variety of software platforms [i.e. a data processing engine of the integration system]” [0029] and Fig. 4 displays the item (i.e. the TV) and the offer for a two year extended warranty including an offer for loss and theft protection [i.e. the product protection plan offer and the shipping protection plan offer to display in the live website]; Examiner interprets the data processing engine as software run on hardware in light of [0055] and [0126] of Applicant’s spec); and
-performing, by the integration platform, the action associated with the transaction and an associated protection plan (Ward, see at least: “If a purchase is associated with an extended warranty [i.e. associated with the transaction and the protection plan specification] then a confirmation will be sent to the consumer at step 730. The association of an extended warranty with a purchase may also trigger further actions [i.e. performing the action] including, but not limited to, preparation for claims, the setting up of a consumer account, the billing of the e-commerce store, order execution with a warranty provider, and the tracking of the extended warranty and any manufacturer warranty” [0035] and “in addition to being implemented on a variety of hardware platforms, the warranty management system may also be implemented on a variety of software platforms [i.e. by the integration platform]” [0029] and Fig. 5 displays the item (i.e. the TV) and the offer for a two year extended warranty including the offer for loss and theft protection being added to the cart [i.e. associated with the transaction and an associated protection plan]).
Ward does not explicitly disclose the set of protection plan offers to display in the live website.
Haynes further teaches online transactions (i.e. abstract) including the known technique of the set of protection plan offers to display in the live website (Haynes, see at least: “FIG. 9 is a schematic diagram showing details of item queue 114 following user selection of the "more options" line item 126. When the user selects this line item 126, a list of additional options is presented to the user. The list of other options is limitless and may include, without limitation, gift options, extended warranty options [i.e. the set of protection plan offers to display in the live website]” Col. 7 Ln. 27-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Ward with Haynes for the reasons identified with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Ward in view of Haynes teaches the method of claim 1. Ward further discloses:
-wherein the integration platform includes an offers management system comprising a set connected platforms, the computer-implemented method further comprising: provide operating, by the one or more processors of the integration platform, the offers management system that includes a set of connected platforms to manage aspects of the set of protection plan offers (Ward, see at least: “An offer engine 148 supported by the server 122 [i.e. provide operating, by the one or more processors of the integration platform, the offers management system] cross-references the database 144 to determine an appropriate warranty to offer to a consumer based on the goods and services being purchased [i.e. that includes a set of connected platforms to manage aspects of the set of protection plan offers]” [0031] and “in addition to being implemented on a variety of hardware platforms, the warranty management system [i.e. wherein the integration platform] may also be implemented on a variety of software platforms [i.e. includes an offers management system comprising a set connected platforms, , the computer-implemented method further comprising: provide operating, by the one or more processors of the integration platform, the offers management system that includes a set of connected platforms]” [0029] and Fig. 4 displays the item (i.e. the TV) and the offer for a two year extended warranty including an offer for loss and theft protection).
Regarding claim 5, Ward in view of Haynes teaches the method of claim 1. Ward further discloses:
-wherein the protection plan offer is chosen according to rules based on at least one of offer price, merchant, product type, term length, coverage type, service type, region, and subregion (Ward, see at least: “The offer engine 148 offers a warranty based on [i.e. wherein the product protection plan offer is chosen according to] the categorization of the goods and services being purchased. The warranty offer may be based on a price range [i.e. rules based on at least one of offer price] or selling price of the goods and services being purchased. The offer engine may provide details related to the term and coverage as shown in FIGS. 4 to 6” [0033]).
Ward does not explicitly disclose the set of protection plan offers.
Haynes, however, teaches online transactions (i.e. abstract) including the known technique of the set of product protection plan offers (Haynes, see at least: “FIG. 9 is a schematic diagram showing details of item queue 114 following user selection of the "more options" line item 126. When the user selects this line item 126, a list of additional options is presented to the user. The list of other options is limitless and may include, without limitation, gift options, extended warranty options [i.e. the set of product protection plan offers]” Col. 7 Ln. 27-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Ward with Haynes for the reasons identified with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Ward in view of Haynes teaches the method of claim 1. Ward further discloses:
-wherein the protection plan offer is provided natively at the live website associated with the merchant (Ward, see at least: “Warranty stock keeping units (SKUs) are loaded onto the e-commerce store website at step 320 and a computer program in the form of JavaScript® code is inserted into the e-commerce store website at step 330. The JavaScript® code triggers the offer engine 148 on the server 122 to offer a warranty when a consumer clicks an icon, for example, ADD TO CART, to purchase goods or services at step 340. In other examples however the JavaScript® code could be developed with code for the e-commerce store and pull data from the server 122. The warranty offer appears on the e-commerce store website [i.e. wherein the protection plan offer is provided natively at the live website associated with the merchant], as shown in FIG. 4, despite the warranty offer being made by a third party warranty provider and not a merchant operating the e-commerce store” [0032] and Fig. 4).
Ward does not explicitly disclose the set of protection plan offers.
Haynes, however, teaches online transactions (i.e. abstract) including the known technique of the set of product protection plan offers (Haynes, see at least: “FIG. 9 is a schematic diagram showing details of item queue 114 following user selection of the "more options" line item 126. When the user selects this line item 126, a list of additional options is presented to the user. The list of other options is limitless and may include, without limitation, gift options, extended warranty options [i.e. the set of product protection plan offers]” Col. 7 Ln. 27-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Ward with Haynes for the reasons identified with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, Ward discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
-providing an integration platform, comprising an interface engine and one or more processors programmed with computer instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors (Ward, see at least: “in addition to being implemented on a variety of hardware platforms, the warranty management system may also be implemented on a variety of software platforms [i.e. providing an integration platform, comprising an interface engine and one or more processors programmed with computer instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors], i.e. the operating system used may vary between processors” [0029]), causes the integration platform to perform the steps of:
-receiving, at the integration platform, a selection of a first item of one or more selectable items associated with a merchant (Ward, see at least: “The offer engine 148 offers a warranty based on the categorization of the goods and services being purchased [i.e. receiving, at the integration platform, a selection of a first item]. The warranty offer may be based on a price range or selling price of the goods and services being purchased. The offer engine may provide details related to the term and coverage as shown in FIGS. 4 to 6. The offer engine may further provide text to encourage the consumer to purchase a warranty. An example of such text is shown in FIG. 4 and is visibly displayed on a webpage for the consumer to read” [0033] and Fig. 4 displays a page with a TV selected from the E-store [i.e. a selection of a first item of one or more selectable items associated with a merchant]);
-dynamically determining relevant offers that are mapped to respective items of the selectable items based on one or more criteria, wherein the dynamically relevant offers are displayed, by the interface engine of the integration platform, in a live website associated with the merchant (Ward, see at least: “The goods and services offered by the e-commerce store are categorized by the categorization engine 146 at step 310 or may alternatively be categorized in real time [i.e. dynamically]. Warranty stock keeping units (SKUs) are loaded onto the e-commerce store website at step 320 and a computer program in the form of JavaScript® code is inserted into the e-commerce store website at step 330. The JavaScript® code triggers the offer engine 148 on the server 122 to offer a warranty when a consumer clicks an icon, for example, ADD TO CART, to purchase goods or services at step 340. In other examples however the JavaScript® code could be developed with code for the e-commerce store and pull data from the server 122. The warranty offer appears on the e-commerce store website [i.e. wherein the dynamically relevant offers are displayed, by the interface engine of the integration platform, in a live website associated with the merchant], as shown in FIG. 4, despite the warranty offer being made by a third party warranty provider and not a merchant operating the e-commerce store” [0032] and “The offer engine 148 may offer a warranty based on analysis of consumer purchasing habits based on data related to previous purchases, data collected on e-commerce websites, aggregate data on consumer behaviour, and consumer demographics [i.e. determining relevant offers that are mapped to respective items of the selectable items based on one or more criteria]” [0034]);
-displaying, by the interface engine, an interactive interface object associated with the first item, wherein the interactive interface object is configured to be selected by a customer on a computer user interface (Ward, see at least: “The goods and services offered by the e-commerce store are categorized by the categorization engine 146 at step 310 or may alternatively be categorized in real time. Warranty stock keeping units (SKUs) are loaded onto the e-commerce store website at step 320 and a computer program in the form of JavaScript® code is inserted into the e-commerce store website at step 330. The JavaScript® code triggers the offer engine 148 on the server 122 to offer a warranty when a consumer clicks an icon, for example, ADD TO CART, to purchase goods or services at step 340 [i.e. displaying, by the interface engine, an interactive interface object associated with the first item, wherein the interactive interface object is configured to be selected by a customer on a computer user interface]. In other examples however the JavaScript® code could be developed with code for the e-commerce store and pull data from the server 122. The warranty offer appears on the e-commerce store website, as shown in FIG. 4, despite the warranty offer being made by a third party warranty provider and not a merchant operating the e-commerce store” [0032]); and
-in response to determining that the customer has selected an interactive interface object on the live website associated with a product, displays the dynamically relevant offers that are mapped to the first item and are selectable via a second interactive interface object (Ward, see at least: “Warranty stock keeping units (SKUs) are loaded onto the e-commerce store website at step 320 and a computer program in the form of JavaScript® code is inserted into the e-commerce store website at step 330. The JavaScript® code triggers the offer engine 148 on the server 122 to offer a warranty [i.e. displays the dynamically relevant offers that are mapped to the first item] when a consumer clicks an icon, for example, ADD TO CART [i.e. in response to determining that the customer has selected an interactive interface object on the live website associated with a product], to purchase goods or services at step 340 … The warranty offer appears on the e-commerce store website, as shown in FIG. 4, despite the warranty offer being made by a third party warranty provider and not a merchant operating the e-commerce store. If the consumer accepts the warranty offer [i.e. and are selectable via a second interactive interface object] then the warranty SKU is inserted into the consumer's cart” [0032] and “The offer engine 148 may base analytics on consumer based recommendations, order based recommendations, and product-warranty pair based recommendations. Furthermore, in addition to offering a warranty, the offer engine 148 may offer additional goods and services [i.e. displays the dynamically relevant offer]” [0034]).
Ward does not explicitly disclose, in response to determining that the customer has selected an interactive interface object on the live website associated with a product, overlaying a modal window over the live website, wherein the modal window displays the dynamically relevant offers that are mapped to the first item and are selectable via a second interactive interface object displayed in the modal window.
Haynes, however, teaches online transactions (i.e. abstract) including the known technique of, in response to determining that a customer has selected an interactive interface object on the live website associated with a product, overlaying a modal window over the live website, wherein the modal window displays the relevant offers that are mapped to the first item and are selectable via a second interactive interface object displayed in the modal window (Haynes, see at least: “the user hovers a pointer over the purchase interface 128 [i.e. in response to determining that a customer has selected an interactive interface object on the live website associated with a product], which causes a purchase preview 206 to be presented. In the illustrated example, the purchase preview 206 is presented in place of the item queue 114. However, in other examples, the purchase preview 206 could be instead presented in a separate window, in a separate frame, overlaid over the item queue or a portion of the item detail page [i.e. overlaying a modal window over the live website]” Col. 4 Ln. 61-67 and “FIG. 9 is a schematic diagram showing details of item queue 114 following user selection of the "more options" line item 126. When the user selects this line item 126, a list of additional options is presented to the user. The list of other options is limitless and may include, without limitation, gift options, extended warranty options [i.e. wherein the modal window displays the relevant offers that are mapped to the first item and are selectable via a second interactive interface object displayed in the modal window], accessories, recent orders, and help, to name just a few” Col. 7 Ln. 27-33). This known technique is applicable to the method of Ward as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to online transactions.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of in response to determining that a customer has selected an interactive interface object on the live website associated with a product, overlaying a modal window over the live website, wherein the modal window displays the relevant offers that are mapped to the first item and are selectable via a second interactive interface object displayed in the modal window, as taught by Haynes, to the teachings of Ward would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modification of in response to determining that a customer has selected an interactive interface object on the live website associated with a product, overlaying a modal window over the live website, wherein the modal window displays the relevant offers that are mapped to the first item and are selectable via a second interactive interface object displayed in the modal window, as taught by Haynes, into the method of Ward would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would provide simpler and faster online shopping (Haynes, Col. 2 Ln. 54-57).
Regarding claim 22, Ward in view of Haynes teaches the method of claim 21. Ward further discloses:
Ward does not explicitly disclose a modal window over the live website displaying a subset of a set of protection plan offers that are mapped to the first item and are selectable via a second interface object displayed in the modal window.
Haynes, however, teaches online transactions (i.e. abstract) including the known technique of a modal window over the live website displaying a subset of a set of protection plan offers that are mapped to the first item and are selectable via a second interface object displayed in the modal window (Haynes, see at least: “the user hovers a pointer over the purchase interface 128, which causes a purchase preview 206 to be presented. In the illustrated example, the purchase preview 206 is presented in place of the item queue 114. However, in other examples, the purchase preview 206 could be instead presented in a separate window, in a separate frame, overlaid over the item queue or a portion of the item detail page [i.e. wherein a modal window over the live website]” Col. 4 Ln. 61-67 and “FIG. 9 is a schematic diagram showing details of item queue 114 following user selection of the "more options" line item 126. When the user selects this line item 126, a list of additional options is presented to the user. The list of other options is limitless and may include, without limitation, gift options, extended warranty options [i.e. displays a subset of a set of protection plan offers that are mapped to the first item and are selectable via a second interface object displayed in the modal window], accessories, recent orders, and help, to name just a few” Col. 7 Ln. 27-33 and Fig. 9 displays the option associated with adding extended warranty options [i.e. displays a subset of a set of protection plan offers that are mapped to the first item and are selectable via a second interface object displayed in the modal window]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Ward with Haynes for the reasons identified with respect to claim 21.
Regarding claim 28, Ward in view of Haynes teaches the method of claim 21. Ward further discloses:
-customizing text in protection plan offers, shipping options, and information pages at a network document of the merchant (Ward, see at least: “The offer engine 148 may offer a warranty based on analysis of consumer purchasing habits based on data related to previous purchases, data collected on e-commerce websites, aggregate data on consumer behaviour, and consumer demographics [i.e. customizing text in protection plan offers and shipping options]” [0034] and “The offer engine 148 may send a merchant text to use to encourage the consumer to purchase a warranty [i.e. customizing text in protection plan offers] or additional goods and services. The text provided is determined using A/B testing to determine text that successfully encourages the consumer to purchase the warranty or additional goods and services. The merchant may be provided with text in the form of phrases that are ranked based on rates of success for encouraging the consumer to purchase the warranty or additional goods and service” [0037] and “The merchant may then select the text to use [i.e. customizing text in information pages at a network document of the merchant] based on the ranking and perceived needs of the consumer” [0040] and Fig. 5 displays the item (i.e. the TV) and the offer for a two year extended warranty including the offer for loss and theft protection [i.e. customizing text in shipping options] being added to the cart; Interpreted in light of [0017] of Applicant’s Spec).
Claims 4, 9, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward, in view of Haynes, in further view of Breed et al. (US 2011/0225047 A1), hereinafter Breed.
Regarding claim 4, Ward in view of Haynes teaches the method of claim 3. Ward further discloses:
-wherein the offers management system includes rules, an offers API, a content management system, and an offer rendering (Ward, see at least: “An offer engine 148 supported by the server 122 [i.e. wherein the offers management system includes] cross-references the database 144 to determine an appropriate warranty to offer [i.e. a content management system] to a consumer based on the goods and services being purchased [i.e. rules]” [0031] and “The system may deploy cookies or other tracking tools to track consumer behaviour on e-commerce websites. This information can be analyzed to improve offers made to individual consumers by the offer engine 148 [i.e. wherein the offers management system includes] or provide aggregate data to improve general offers made by the offer engine 148. The offer engine is thereby able to learn to associate a specific warranty with a specific good or service [i.e. rules]” [0034] and “Warranty stock keeping units (SKUs) are loaded onto the e-commerce store website at step 320 and a computer program in the form of JavaScript® code is inserted into the e-commerce store website at step 330. The JavaScript® code triggers the offer engine 148 [i.e. wherein the offers management system includes] on the server 122 to offer a warranty when a consumer clicks an icon [i.e. an offer rendering system], for example, ADD TO CART, to purchase goods or services at step 340” [0032] and “The offer engine [i.e. wherein the offers management system includes an offer rendering] may also offer a warranty or additional goods and services on a call center display, on remarketing advertisements on social media, direct to consumers by email, and on an application programming interface (API) [i.e. an offers API]” [0042]).
Ward does not explicitly disclose the offers management system includes an offers management administrative module.
Haynes further teaches online transactions (i.e. abstract) including the known technique of the offers management system including an offers management administrative module (Haynes, see at least: “The queue manager 1420 may also include one or more other applications or modules to perform a variety of other administrative functions as necessary or desired [i.e. the offers management system includes an offers management administrative module]” Col. 12 Ln. 62-64 and “the queue manager 1420 populates queues of items from previous purchase requests along with appropriate transaction information on item detail pages, search pages, or other pages” Col. 10 Ln. 56-59). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Ward with Haynes for the reasons identified with respect to claim 3.
Ward in view of Haynes does not explicitly teach the offers management system including a rules system and lead tokens.
Breed, however, teaches providing advertisements for warranties to consumers (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of an offers management system including a rules system and lead tokens (Breed, see at least: “The various functions of the IIC server 108 [i.e. offers management system includes] (as executed by the aforementioned applications 126, 128) can also be masked or controlled by a “business rules engine” [i.e. a rules system]or other logical wrapper or layer as described subsequently herein” [0076] and “the term "network" refers generally to data or communications networks regardless of type, including without limitation, LANs, WANs, intranets, internets, the Internet, cable systems, telecommunications networks, satellite networks, and Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), or collections or combinations thereof, whether based on wired, wireless, or matter wave modalities. Such networks may utilize literally any physical architectures and topologies (e.g. ATM, IEEE-802.3, X.25, Token Ring [i.e. lead token]” [0045] and “FIG. 4a illustrates the lead generation method relating specifically to the one or more warranty providers [i.e. wherein the offers management system includes lead tokens], as these are provided with the extracted information (step 404 of FIG. 4)” [0115] Examiner notes that using a token ring as a communication network means that the generated leads would be communicated as tokens [i.e. lead token]). This known technique is applicable to the method of Ward in view of Haynes as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing advertisements for warranties to consumers.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of an offers management system including a rules system and lead tokens, as taught by Breed, to the teachings of Ward in view of Haynes would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modification of an offers management system including a rules system and lead tokens, as taught by Breed, into the method of Ward in view of Haynes would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would provide efficient, time-sensitive, integrated, and cost-effective way to providing information to a consumer regarding a possible purchase or sale of an item (Breed, [0014]).
Regarding claim 9, Ward in view of Haynes teaches the method of claim 1. Ward further discloses:
-wherein the transaction does not include purchase of a protection plan (Ward, see at least: “If the consumer declines the warranty offer [i.e. wherein the transaction does not include purchase of a protection plan] then the consumer proceeds to check out as usual at step 360 in FIG. 3” [0032]), and
-performing an action associated with the transaction and the protection plan (Ward, see at least: “If the consumer declines the warranty offer then the consumer proceeds to check out as usual at step 360 in FIG. 3” [0032] and “The offer engine 148 may offer a warranty based on analysis of consumer purchasing habits based on data related to previous purchases [i.e. performing an action associated with the transaction and the protection plan], data collected on e-commerce websites, aggregate data on consumer behaviour, and consumer demographics. The offer engine 148 may base analytics on consumer based recommendations, order based recommendations, and product-warranty pair based recommendations” [0034] Examiner notes the action is analyzing the consumer decline of the warranty offer for future offer recommendations).
Ward in view of Haynes does not explicitly teach the performing of the action comprising generating a lead token associated with the first item, the customer, and the protection plan.
Breed, however, teaches providing advertisements for warranties to consumers (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of performing an action associated with the transaction and the protection plan comprising: generating a lead token associated with the first item, the customer, and the protection plan (Breed, see at least: “the term "network" refers generally to data or communications networks regardless of type, including without limitation, LANs, WANs, intranets, internets, the Internet, cable systems, telecommunications networks, satellite networks, and Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), or collections or combinations thereof, whether based on wired, wireless, or matter wave modalities. Such networks may utilize literally any physical architectures and topologies (e.g. ATM, IEEE-802.3, X.25, token Ring [i.e. lead token]” [0045] and “FIG. 4a illustrates the lead generation method relating specifically to the one or more warranty providers [i.e. performing an action associated with the transaction and the protection plan comprising: generating a lead token associated with the first item, the customer, and the protection plan], as these are provided with the extracted information (step 404 of FIG. 4)” [0115] and “If a warranty does not currently exist (or other criteria are met as noted above), per step 412 of the method, the terms of available warranties are determined. The warranty terms may be uniform for an individual warranty provider, or may vary based on one or more criteria such as year, make, model, mileage of the vehicle, etc. They may also be requester-based; e.g., those with higher income, credit score, etc may be given a more favorable package or terms [i.e. associated with the first item, the customer, and the protection plan]. The terms of available warranties may be specific to the individual warranty providers and thus are not discussed in detail herein. The available warranty options are then provided to the IIC server 108 (step 414) for further evaluation (reference numeral D of FIGS. 4 and 4a)” [0116] Examiner notes that using a token ring as a communication network means that the generated leads would be communicated as tokens [i.e. lead token]). This known technique is applicable to the method of Ward in view of Haynes as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing advertisements for warranties to consumers.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of performing an action associated with the transaction and the protection plan comprising: generating a lead token associated with the first item, the customer, and the protection plan, as taught by Breed, to the teachings of Ward in view of Haynes would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modification of performing an action associated with the transaction and the protection plan comprising: generating a lead token associated with the first item, the customer, and the protection plan, as taught by Breed, into the method of Ward in view of Haynes would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would provide efficient, time-sensitive, integrated, and cost-effective way to providing information to a consumer regarding a possible purchase or sale of an item (Breed, [0014]).
Regarding claim 26, Ward in view of Haynes teaches the method of claim 21.
Ward in view of Haynes does not explicitly teach generating a lead token associated with the first item, the customer, and a set of protection plan offers.
Breed, however, teaches providing advertisements for warranties to consumers (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of generating a lead token associated with the first item, the customer, and a set of protection plan offers (Breed, see at least: “the term "network" refers generally to data or communications networks regardless of type, including without limitation, LANs, WANs, intranets, internets, the Internet, cable systems, telecommunications networks, satellite networks, and Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), or collections or combinations thereof, whether based on wired, wireless, or matter wave modalities. Such networks may utilize literally any physical architectures and topologies (e.g. ATM, IEEE-802.3, X.25, token Ring [i.e. lead token]” [0045] and “FIG. 4a illustrates the lead generation method relating specifically to the one or more warranty providers [i.e. generating a lead token associated with the first item, the customer, and a set of protection plan offers], as these are provided with the extracted information (step 404 of FIG. 4)” [0115] and “If a warranty does not currently exist (or other criteria are met as noted above), per step 412 of the method, the terms of available warranties are determined. The warranty terms may be uniform for an individual warranty provider, or may vary based on one or more criteria such as year, make, model, mileage of the vehicle, etc. They may also be requester-based; e.g., those with higher income, credit score, etc may be given a more favorable package or terms [i.e. associated with the first item, the customer, and the protection plan]. The terms of available warranties may be specific to the individual warranty providers and thus are not discussed in detail herein. The available warranty options are then provided to the IIC server 108 (step 414) for further evaluation (reference numeral D of FIGS. 4 and 4a)” [0116] Examiner notes that using a token ring as a communication network means that the generated leads would be communicated as tokens [i.e. lead token]). This known technique is applicable to the method of Ward in view of Haynes as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing advertisements for warranties to consumers.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of generating a lead token associated with the first item, the customer, and a set of protection plan offers, as taught by Breed, to the teachings of Ward in view of Haynes would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modification of generating a lead token associated with the first item, the customer, and a set of protection plan offers, as taught by Breed, into the method of Ward in view of Haynes would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would provide efficient, time-sensitive, integrated, and cost-effective way to providing information to a consumer regarding a possible purchase or sale of an item (Breed, [0014]).
Claims 7 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward, in view of Haynes, in further view of Thomson et al. (US 2003/0061104 A1), hereinafter Thomson.
Regarding claim 7, Ward in view of Haynes teaches the method of claim 1. Ward further discloses:
-wherein the transaction includes purchase of a protection plan (Ward, see at least: “If the consumer accepts the warranty offer then the warranty SKU is inserted into the consumer's cart [i.e. wherein the transaction includes purchase of a protection plan], as shown in FIG. 5, before the consumer proceeds to check out at step 350 in FIG. 3” [0032] and “The mainframe computer 124 of the e-commerce store provides consumer information and purchase information to the server 122 at step 710. The purchase information is scanned to identify purchases associated with an extended warranty at step 720 [i.e. wherein the transaction includes purchase of a protection plan]” [0035] and Fig. 5 displays the item (i.e. the TV) and the offer for a two year extended warranty including the offer for loss and theft protection being added to the cart), and
-performing an action associated with the transaction and the protection plan (Ward, see at least: “If a purchase is associated with an extended warranty [i.e. associated with the transaction and the protection plan] then a confirmation will be sent to the consumer at step 730. The association of an extended warranty with a purchase may also trigger further actions [i.e. performing an action] including, but not limited to, preparation for claims, the setting up of a consumer account, the billing of the e-commerce store, order execution with a warranty provider, and the tracking of the extended warranty and any manufacturer warranty” [0035]) comprises:
-preparing claims associated with the item, the customer, and the protection plan (Ward, see at least: “If a purchase is associated with an extended warranty [i.e. associated with the item, the customer, and the protection plan] then a confirmation will be sent to the consumer at step 730. The association of an extended warranty with a purchase may also trigger further actions including, but not limited to, preparation for claims, the setting up of a consumer account [i.e. preparing claims], the billing of the e-commerce store, order execution with a warranty provider, and the tracking of the extended warranty and any manufacturer warranty” [0035]).
Ward in view of Haynes does not explicitly teach generating a service contract associated with the first item, the customer, and the protection plan.
Thomson, however, teaches an electronic warranty administrator (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of generating a service contract associated with the first item, the customer, and the protection plan (Thomson, see at least: “a customer 154 purchases a comprehensive household warranty [i.e. associated with the protection plan]. A warranty administrator 158 collects data from customer 154… the warranty administrator 158 utilizes an algorithm to calculate a service contract price [i.e. performing the action comprising generating a service contract] for each customer based on, as a non-exclusive list, (1) product reliability, (2) repair costs, (3) consumer data [i.e. associated with the customer], (4) total value of goods in household, (5) age of product [i.e. associated with the first item], (6)type and amount of usage, and (7) warranty status” [0121]). This known technique is applicable to the method of Ward in view of Haynes as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to an electronic warranty administrator.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of generating a service contract associated with the first item, the customer, and the protection plan, as taught by Thomson, to the teachings of Ward in view of Haynes would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modification of generating a service contract associated with the first item, the customer, and the protection plan, as taught by Thomson, into the method of Ward in view of Haynes would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would provide global customer service and promote brand loyalty (Thomson, [0017]).
Regarding claim 23, Ward in view of Haynes teaches the method of claim 21. Ward further discloses:
Ward in view of Haynes does not explicitly teach, in response to receiving an order and an invoice for the order that contains a service, creating a service contract for the order.
Thomson, however, teaches an electronic warranty administrator (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of, in response to receiving an order and an invoice for the order that contains a service, creating a service contract for the order (Thomas, see at least: “a customer 154 purchases a comprehensive household warranty [i.e. in response to receiving an order]. A warranty administrator 158 collects data from customer 154 via on-site collection or, as a non-exclusive list, (1)customer input via an integrated network of computers, (2)telephone, or (3)mail. In a further embodiment, the warranty administrator 158 utilizes an algorithm to calculate a service contract price [i.e. the order that contains a service, creating a service contract for the order] for each customer based on, as a non-exclusive list, (1) product reliability, (2) repair costs, (3) consumer data, (4) total value of goods in household, (5) age of product, (6)type and amount of usage, and (7) warranty status” [121] and “the customer and product data is automatically sent to the first database at the point of sale. Such customer data includes … invoice number [i.e. in response to receiving an invoice for the order]” [0022]). This known technique is applicable to the method of Ward in view of Haynes as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to an electronic warranty administrator.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of, in response to receiving an order and an invoice for the order that contains a service, creating a service contract for the order, as taught by Thomson, to the teachings of Ward in view of Haynes would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modification of, in response to receiving an order and an invoice for the order that contains a service, creating a service contract for the order, as taught by Thomson, into the method of Ward in view of Haynes would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would provide global customer service and promote brand loyalty (Thomson, [0017]).
Claims 8 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward, in view of Haynes, in further view of Gallego et al. (US 2013/0013517 A1), hereinafter Gallego.
Regarding claim 8, Ward in view of Haynes teaches the method of claim 1. Ward further discloses:
-wherein the transaction includes purchase of a protection plan (Ward, see at least: “The mainframe computer 124 of the e-commerce store provides consumer information and purchase information to the server 122 at step 710. The purchase information is scanned to identify purchases associated with an extended warranty at step 720 [i.e. wherein the transaction includes purchase of a protection plan]” [0035]), and
-performing an action associated with the transaction and the protection plan (Ward, see at least: “If a purchase is associated with an extended warranty [i.e. associated with the transaction and the protection plan] then a confirmation will be sent to the consumer at step 730. The association of an extended warranty with a purchase may also trigger further actions [i.e. performing an action] including, but not limited to, preparation for claims, the setting up of a consumer account, the billing of the e-commerce store, order execution with a warranty provider, and the tracking of the extended warranty and any manufacturer warranty” [0035]).
Ward in view of Haynes does not explicitly teach performing the action comprising: generating a refund associated with the first item, the customer, and the protection plan.
Gallego, however, teaches making an extended warranty coverage (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of performing the action associated with the transaction and the protection plan comprising: generating a refund associated with the first item, the customer, and the protection plan (Gallego, see at least: “A flexible duration extended warranty can be purchased by a customer at the time of a hardware purchase, with the option of canceling the warranty coverage at any time. A flexible duration extended warranty can also be adapted to warranties that can be purchased after the hardware purchase. This flexible duration extended warranty service can be billed up front, and the customer can receive a prorated refund [i.e. performing the action associated with the transaction and the protection plan comprising: generating a refund associated with the first item, the customer, and the protection plan] if the customer cancels before the end of the warranty term” [0008]). This known technique is applicable to the method of Ward in view of Haynes as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to making an extended warranty coverage.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of performing the action associated with the transaction and the protection plan comprising: generating a refund associated with the first item, the customer, and the protection plan, as taught by Gallego, to the teachings of Ward in view of Haynes would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modification of performing the action associated with the transaction and the protection plan comprising: generating a refund associated with the first item, the customer, and the protection plan, as taught by Gallego, into the method of Ward in view of Haynes would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would allow customers to cancel an extended warranty without penalty (Gallego, [0009]).
Regarding claim 25, Ward in view of Haynes teaches the method of claim 21.
Ward in view of Haynes does not explicitly teach generating a refund associated with the first item, the customer, and a protection plan.
Gallego, however, teaches making an extended warranty coverage (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of generating a refund associated with the first item, the customer, and a protection plan (Gallego, see at least: “A flexible duration extended warranty can be purchased by a customer at the time of a hardware purchase, with the option of canceling the warranty coverage at any time. A flexible duration extended warranty can also be adapted to warranties that can be purchased after the hardware purchase. This flexible duration extended warranty service can be billed up front, and the customer can receive a prorated refund [i.e. generating a refund associated with the first item, the customer, and a protection plan] if the customer cancels before the end of the warranty term” [0008]). This known technique is applicable to the method of Ward in view of Haynes as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to making an extended warranty coverage.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of generating a refund associated with the first item, the customer, and a protection plan, as taught by Gallego, to the teachings of Ward in view of Haynes would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modification of generating a refund associated with the first item, the customer, and a protection plan, as taught by Gallego, into the method of Ward in view of Haynes would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would allow customers to cancel an extended warranty without penalty (Gallego, [0009]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward, in view of Haynes, in further view of Tanksali et al. (US 2018/0268418 A1), hereinafter Tanksali.
Regarding claim 24, Ward in view of Haynes teaches the method of claim 21. Ward further discloses:
-storing the data structure in at least one data store of the integration platform (Ward, see at least: “There is a database 144 on the server 122 [i.e. storing the data structure in at least one data store of the integration platform]. The database 144 contains a list of goods and services offered by a merchant which are categorized by a categorization engine 146” [0031] and “There may be a database on the second processor which contains the goods and services available for purchase by the consumer and the warranty associated with each of the goods and services available for purchase by the consumer [i.e. storing the data structure in at least one data store of the integration platform]” [0008]); and
-providing the product reference identifier, by an orders API or a contracts API of the integration platform (Ward, see at least: “In addition to making offers on a retailer website (i.e. an e-commerce store) and at the point-of-sale (POS) at a brick and mortar store, the offer engine 148 may offer a warranty or additional goods and services at the website of a warranty provider. The offer engine may also offer a warranty or additional goods and services … on an application programming interface (API) [i.e. by an orders API or a contracts API of the integration platform]” [0042] and Fig. 9 describes the API as “Warranty offer capability, general quotes or product specific [i.e. providing the product reference identifier], mobile apps, other third party tools).
Ward in view of Haynes does not explicitly teach creating, by the integration platform, a data structure including a product reference identifier and a protection plan identifier associated with a service contract and automatically registering a protection plan that corresponds to the protection plan identifier on behalf of the customer; and providing the product reference identifier and the protection plan identifier to perform an action associated with the transaction.
Tanksali, however, teaches warranty transactions (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of creating, by the integration platform, a data structure including a product reference identifier and a protection plan identifier associated with a service contract and automatically registering a protection plan that corresponds to the protection plan identifier on behalf of the customer (Tanksali, see at least: “warranty vault system 150 may assign a warranty ID to the warranty enriched transaction data, such as, for example, a numerical identifier, an alphanumerical identifier, and/or the like. Warranty vault system 150 may store the warranty enriched transaction data in a warranty vault database 155 [i.e. creating, by the integration platform, a data structure]. Warranty vault database 155 may store the warranty enriched transaction data using any suitable technique described herein or known in the art. For example, warranty vault database 155 may store the warranty enriched transaction data based on the warranty ID [i.e. including protection plan identifier associated with the service contract], merchant ID, the user account, and/or the like. Warranty vault database 155 may also group the warranty enriched transaction data based on merchant ID, user account, and/or the like” [0028] and “The transaction information may comprise transaction-related data such … a product attribute (e.g., a product code, a product description, etc.) [i.e. including a product reference identifier]” [0025] and “Electronic warranty enriched transaction data provided by merchants may be automatically associated with the corresponding transaction, and transmitted after the sale, or after authorization of the transaction, without user intervention [i.e. and automatically registering a protection plan that corresponds to the protection plan identifier on behalf of the customer]” [abstract]); and
the known technique of providing the product reference identifier and the protection plan identifier to perform an action associated with the transaction (Tanksali, see at least: “merchant system 120 may also interact with warranty vault system 150 to update the warranty enriched transaction data. For example, a merchant may desire to update and/or cancel a warranty in response to a transaction account owner buying an extended warranty, returning the originally purchased item, using the warranty, a change in the warranty requirements (e.g., the warranty partially expiring for part of a product [i.e. providing the product reference identifier], etc.), and/or the like. In that regard, merchant system 120 may transmit a warranty update request to warranty vault system 150. The warranty update request [i.e. to perform an action associated with the transaction] may comprise data such as the merchant ID, the warranty ID [i.e. providing the protection plan identifier], data indicating the requested update (e.g., extend the warranty by 2 years, cancel the warranty, etc., update the warranty requirements [i.e. providing the product reference identifier], update the warranty restrictions, etc.), and/or the like” [0029]). These known techniques are applicable to the method of Ward in view of Haynes as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to warranty transactions.
It would have been recognized that applying the known techniques of creating, by the integration platform, a data structure including a product reference identifier and a protection plan identifier associated with a service contract and automatically registering a protection plan that corresponds to the protection plan identifier on behalf of the customer; and providing the product reference identifier and the protection plan identifier to perform an action associated with the transaction, as taught by Tanksali, to the teachings of Ward in view of Haynes would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modifications of creating, by the integration platform, a data structure including a product reference identifier and a protection plan identifier associated with a service contract and automatically registering a protection plan that corresponds to the protection plan identifier on behalf of the customer; and providing the product reference identifier and the protection plan identifier to perform an action associated with the transaction as taught by Tanksali, into the method of Ward in view of Haynes would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would automatically associate warranty enriched transaction data with a corresponding transaction without user intervention (Tanksali, abstract).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward, in view of Haynes, in further view of Elliott et al. (US 2020/0074999 A1), hereinafter Elliott.
Regarding claim 27, Ward in view of Haynes teaches the method of claim 21.
Ward in view of Haynes does not explicitly teach, in response to receiving a query, providing answers to the query corresponding with a pre-determined decision tree of questions and inputs based on protection plans, merchant information, and product information.
Elliott, however, teaches selling insurance products (i.e. [0121], including the known technique of, in response to receiving a query, providing answers to the query corresponding with a pre-determined decision tree of questions and inputs based on protection plans, merchant information, and product information (Elliott, see at least: “Let us consider an example in which an insurance company wants to deploy a chatbot to handle questions about their best-selling insurance product [i.e. based on protection plans, merchant information, and product information]” [0121] and “With the query server 250 operational on the insurer's website, questions can now be asked [i.e. in response to receiving a query] of the network graph. When a consumer types a question about insurance [i.e. based on protection plans] , the query is routed to the query server 250 that then looks up the closest nodes [i.e. providing answers to the query corresponding with a pre-determined decision tree of questions and inputs]. If those close nodes are associated with a particular answer (directly, or through kriging weight), then the query server returns that particular answer to the consumer” [0126]). This known technique is applicable to the method of Ward in view of Haynes as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to selling insurance products.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of in response to receiving a query, providing answers to the query corresponding with a pre-determined decision tree of questions and inputs based on protection plans, merchant information, and product information, as taught by Elliott, to the teachings of Ward in view of Haynes would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modification of in response to receiving a query, providing answers to the query corresponding with a pre-determined decision tree of questions and inputs based on protection plans, merchant information, and product information, as taught by Elliott, into the method of Ward in view of Haynes would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would allow determine a best response (Elliott, [0018]).
Subject Matter Allowable Over the Art
In the present application, claims 10-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under Double Patenting set forth in this Office action. The following is the Examiner's statement of reasons of allowance:
Regarding 35 U.S.C. §101, claims 1-20 when looked at as a whole, are eligible over 101 as the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application under Prong Two of Step 2A. Specifically, the recitations of the integration platform separate from the website displays the set of protection plan offers and that customer selection of an interactive interface object on a website to add the item to a virtual shopping cart or to process a transaction involving the item from the virtual shopping cart triggering a modal window to display a subset of the set of protection plan offers that are selectable via a second interactive interface object that is displayed in the modal window 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.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. §103, upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the totality of the evidence, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the applicant’s invention.
Claims 10-20 are allowable under 35 USC § 103 as follows:
Claims 10-20 are allowable for the reasons detailed in the “Allowable Subject Matter” section of the Non-Final Office Action dated 01/05/2026.
The most relevant prior art made of record includes Painter et al. (US 2018/0204281 A1), Dubey et al. (US 2018/0225673 A1), and Tanksali et al. (US 2018/0268418 A1).
The most relevant NPL are:
NPL SquareTrade (i.e. reference U cited 12/12/2025 and 06/11/2026 in PTO-892) teaches providing the option to purchase product protection plans during checkout, but does not teach or suggest alone or in combination the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103
Applicant argues that Neither Ward nor Haynes, nor any other cited art, considered alone or in combination, teach or suggest Applicant's claimed limitations. For example, Ward's flow describes that JavaScript code "triggers the offer engine ... to offer a warranty when a consumer clicks an icon, for example, ... ADD TO CART" (Ward, ,J0032), but Ward does not disclose the claimed "in response to determining that the customer has selected an interactive interface object on the live website to: adding the item to a virtual shopping cart or to process a transaction." As the Examiner acknowledged, Ward itself does not disclose "the set of protection plan offers being display in the live website; and in response to determining that the customer has selected an interactive interface object on the live website overlaying a modal window over the live website, wherein the modal window displays a subset of the set of protection plan offers that are mapped to the item and are selectable via a second interactive interface object displayed in the modal window." Haynes does not cure the deficiencies of Ward. For example, the Office Action relies on Haynes to disclose "the purchase preview 206 could be instead presented in a separate window, in a separate frame, overlaid over the item queue or a portion of the item detail page" (Haynes, col. 4, II. 61-67), and "When the user selects [the] 'more options' line item 126, a list of additional options is presented ... may include ... extended warranty options" (Haynes, col. 7, II. 27-33). Haynes' "extended warranty options" appear only after a separate, optional user action to select the "more options" line item. In other words, Haynes' warranty list does not appear automatically in response to 'Add-to-Cart' or transaction processing. Further, Haynes' disclosure describes a list of "additional options" (including "extended warranty options"), not a modal overlay. As shown in FIG. 9, it appears to be a new screen. In contrast, Applicant's claim 1 requires that the system "add the item to a virtual shopping cart or to process a transaction involving the item from the virtual shopping cart" in response to "determining that the customer has selected an interactive interface object on the live website." The claim further requires overlaying "a modal window over the live website, wherein the modal window displays a subset of the set of protect plan offers that are mapped to the item and are selectable via a second interface object displayed in the modal window." The cited portions of Haynes in FIG. 9 and accompanying description explicitly show a new screen being displayed in response to a separate, optional user action. Accordingly, Haynes fails to cure Ward's deficiencies because it discloses, at most, an optional "more options" flow that presents a new screen rather than automatically overlaying a modal window displaying mapped protection-plan offers in response to an add-to-cart or transaction-processing interaction (Remarks, pages 16-18).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite that the subset of the set of protection plan offers are displayed in response to determining that a customer has selected an interactive interface object on the live website to: adding the first item to a virtual shopping cart or to process a transaction involving the first item from the virtual shopping cart; the interactive interface object is for adding the first item to a virtual shopping cart or to process a transaction involving the first item from the virtual shopping cart. Ward discloses that, when a consumer clicks on an ADD TO CART icon [i.e. in response to determining that the customer has selected an interactive interface object on the live website to: adding the first item to a virtual shopping cart or to process a transaction involving the first item from the virtual shopping cart], it triggers the offer engine of the server of a third part warranty provider to determine and offer warranties that are then displayed in the interface to the consumer for selection [i.e. displaying a subset of the set of protection plan offers that are mapped to the first item and are selectable via a second interactive interface object displayed] (see Ward, [0032]). Haynes modifies the way in which the subset of the set of protection plan offers and second interactive interface object are displayed in Ward to be displayed by overlaying a modal window over the live website. Specifically, Haynes teaches, in response to selecting ‘buy now’ button 128, overlaying an item queue frame [i.e. overlay a modal window] that displays options including an option to select extended warranties (see Haynes, Col. 4 Ln. 61-67, Col. 7 Ln. 27-33, Fig. 2, and Fig. 9). Accordingly, the combination of Ward in view of Haynes teach the recited claims.
Applicant further argues that neither Ward nor Haynes, nor any other cited art, considered alone or in combination, teach or suggest Applicant's claimed limitations. Claims 10, 19, and 21 include similar matter and are likewise also patentable over the cited references. Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 22-28 are also patentable over the cited references by virtue of their dependency off of claims 1, 10, 19, and 21, respectively and/or by virtue of their respective limitations (Remarks, page 18).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed in response to the arguments above, the cited references teach claim 1, and similarly, the cited references teach independent claim 21 and dependent claims 2-9 and 22-28 are taught by the cited references. As previously detailed in the Non-Final Rejection dated 01/05/2026, claims 10-20 are allowable over the art.
Applicant further argues that, regarding claim 3, that neither Ward nor Haynes, nor any other cited art, considered alone or in combination, teach or suggest Applicant's claimed limitations. For example, the Office Action cites to paragraphs [0029] and [0031] to purportedly disclose "a set of connected platforms to manage aspects of the set of protection offers." In contrast, Applicant's limitation provides "an offer management system" that includes "a set of connected platforms to manage aspects of the set of protection plan offers over the lifecycle of the protection plan" This includes "automated processing and adjudication of protection plan claims." Ward does not include any disclosure that teaches or suggests "automated processing and adjudication of protection plan claims." The cited portion of Ward is not "automated processing and adjudication" of claims. An offer engine 142 that "cross-references the database 144 to determine an appropriate warranty offer to a consumer based on the goods and services being purchased" is not automated adjudication of protection plan claims. None of the other cited references cure this deficiency (Remarks, page 19).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "automated processing and adjudication of protection plan claims") are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the cited references teach claim 3.
Applicant further argues that, regarding claim 7, Thomson does not teach "generating the service contract associated with the item, the customer, and the protection plan." For example, the cited portion of Thomson provides the following: "a customer ... purchases a ... comprehensive household warranty ... A warranty administrator ... collects data ... [and] utilizes an algorithm to calculate a service contract price ... based on ... (1) customer input via an integrated network of computers, (2) telephone, or (3) mail." (Thomson, [0121]). Thus, Thomson describes a "warranty administrator" system that "collects data" and uses "an algorithm to calculate a service contract price." This is not functionally equivalent to Applicant's claim limitation, which requires "generating the service contract associated with the item, the customer, and the protection plan" in the context of Applicant's integration platform architecture (Remarks, page 19).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. A purchased warranty includes a service contract and the data collected is used to generate the terms of the contract [i.e. generating the service contract], such as the service contract price. The data collected to generate the terms of the service contract further includes consumer data [i.e. associated with the customer], an age of product [i.e. associated with the item], and a warranty status [i.e. associated with the protection plan] (see Thomson, [0121]). Accordingly, the cited references teach claim 7.
Applicant further argues that, regarding claim 7, incorporating Thomson would require substantial architectural and operational changes to both Ward and Haynes. For example, a person of ordinary skill would lack a reasoned motivation to incorporate Thomson into Ward and Haynes because the systems are aimed at different technical problems. More specifically, Thomson's disclosures are directed to post-sale warranty and repair administration, while Ward and Haynes address front end purchase facilitation. Furthermore, Thomson repeatedly criticizes conventional extended warranties as being administered by third parties that exclude manufacturers from repairs. To combine Thomson with Ward's third party extended warranty structures would undermine Ward's purpose and require substantial architectural and operational redesign. Such a redesign would undermine Haynes's streamlined purchase objective and exceed routine implementation choices (Remarks, page 20).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Initially, Examiner points out that, similar to the systems of Ward and Haynes, Thomson provides an option for a customer to select a product warranty as the customer is purchasing a product on a website (see at least Fig. 1 of Thomson); Thomson is not merely directed to post-sale warranty and repair administration as purported by Applicant, no substantial architectural and operational changes would be required, and Ward & Haynes’ purposes would not be undermined. Additionally, the teachings of Thomson are applicable to Ward in view of Haynes as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to an electronic warranty administrator and the combination would result in an improved method that would provide global customer service and promote brand loyalty (Thomson, [0017]). Accordingly, it would be obvious to combine Ward in view of Haynes with Thomson.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Bhatt et al. (US 11,037,169 B1) teaches a warranty and service management system.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLE E WEINER whose telephone number is (571)272-9007. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Maria-Teresa (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.
/ARIELLE E WEINER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights