DETAILED ACTION
***Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
***Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment and remarks filed April 30, 2026, are responsive to the office action mailed February 3, 2026. Claims 2-9 and 11-22 were previously pending. Claims 2, 4-5, 8-9, 11, 13-15, and 17-18 have been amended, claim 10 has been cancelled, and claim 22 is new. Claims 2-9 and 11-22 are therefore currently pending and considered in this office action.
***Pertaining to Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
The previous version of claims 2-9 and 11-22 (by way of independent claims 2, 11, and 17) included the recitation “wherein the display of the balance includes multiple display elements corresponding to the multiple payment funding sources.” Based on the construction given to this element during consideration of the previous office action, it was determined that the “display of the balance” had not been described as including “multiple display elements corresponding to the multiple payment funding sources” in any prior-filed application relied upon for support in this application.
During the interview of April 29, 2026, between examiner and applicant’s representative Gareth M. Sampson (Reg. No. 52,191), it was determined that this issue arose due to a variation in terminology between the disclosure and the claims, with examiner interpreting “funding sources” as remote payment sources such as a bank or credit card. Applicant, as confirmed by the amendment filed April 30, 2026, and the remarks filed April 30, 2026, referring to published specification ¶0065, intends for this recitation to be understood as funding types, or “types of sources,” i.e.,
“balance amount 430 of an account associated with or available to the user to facilitate payment of items for sale in a marketplace, such as the e-commerce site visible in FIG. 4. The balance amount 430 may include aspects such as a website credit, incentive or funds 435 associated with the e-commerce site. The balance amount 430 may include information about points 440, coupons 445, a payment service provider account 450, or the value of prior sales 455 made by the user at a specific time or during an identified time range, for example.”
Based on this intended interpretation and applicant’s confirmation thereof, priority is confirmed as the filing date of the original priority application, October 22, 2013.
***Response to Arguments
***Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC § 101 in the previous office action
Applicant's arguments filed April 30, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 2-9 and 11-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
“Applicant submits that the claim is directed to the technical field of servicing transactions involving independently operating services”. Remarks p.11. As noted in the rejection, field of use restrictions alone do not create eligible subject matter. Applicant argues the “pending claims solve a technical problem of improving user experience in the internet commercial environment.” Ibid. Solving a technical problem could improve user experience, but improving user experience alone is not a technical problem. Applicant proceeds to list additional elements and some of the results of unidentified technical operations, but fails to connect any them and does not explain how any of the additional elements integrate the intended results into a practical application. The stated results alone are abstract and applicant fails to identify any operations performed by the devices leading to the results. In this case the results are merely informational elements displayed on a device. This is insufficient to establish any sort of integration into a practical application. Mere manipulation and display of data by tangentially recited devices may establish field of use but it does not establish eligibility.
Applicant argues the recited abstract features “impose meaningful limits” on the “broad alleged idea.” Remarks p.13. This appears to be an argument directed to the relative breadth of the claims, but breadth is not a stand-alone test for eligible subject matter. Abstract subject matter is often broadly claimed, but subject matter can be narrowly claimed and still be abstract. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
***Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC § 103 in the previous office action
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks filed April 30, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 2-9 and 11-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. A revised rationale for the rejection is necessitated by the amendment. Claims 2-9 and 11-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vallery et al. (Paper No. 20260109; Pub. No. US 2014/0046794 A1) in view of Nuzzi et al. (Paper No. 20260109; Pub. No.: US 2014/0081859 A1) and further in view of VERHAEGHE (Paper No. 20260109; Pub. No.: US 2014/0249916 A1).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., “utilization of actual payment funds available through multiple payment funding sources for making a transaction at an online marketplace”) is 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). Examiner elaborates that there is no utilization claimed, only a recitation of amounts available. Even the intended use “to be utilized” only appears in dependent claims, but regardless, claiming amounts with the potential “to be utilized” is not the same as utilizing them.
Applicant argues “Nuzzi has no teaching or suggestion for the tracking or utilization of actual payment funds available through multiple payment funding sources.” Examiner responds that this is not what is claimed. The combination of Vallery in view of Nuzzi discloses what is claimed as explained at length in the detailed rationale for the rejection.
***Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-9 and 11-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (step 2A), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (step 2B). Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 189 L. Ed. 2d 296, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4303, 110 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1976, 82 U.S.L.W. 4508, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 870, 2014 WL 2765283 (U.S. 2014); MPEP 2106.
Step 1:
In the instant case claims 2-9 and 22 are directed to a machine, claims 11-16 are directed to a process, and claims 17-21 are directed to a manufacture. All claims are therefore within statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03, Eligibility Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
These claims also recite, inter alia,
“tracking, by a shopping assistant module …associated with a payment service provider…, a plurality of items in a shopping window displayed on a user interface during a browsing session for the user…, the shopping window being associated with the payment service provider …, wherein the tracking includes determining whether items are selected and added to the shopping window from a marketplace by the user and whether items are selected for removal from the shopping window by the user during the browsing session, wherein the marketplace operates as … separate and distinct from the payment service provider …; causing a display in the shopping window of a balance amount on an account available to the user for the marketplace, wherein the balance amount on the account for the marketplace is determined, at least in part, according to multiple types of sources that are available to the user for facilitating payment on transactions with the marketplace, wherein the multiple sources are accessible through the payment service provider …, and wherein the display of the balance amount includes display of individual balance elements showing information related to amounts available from individual sources available to the user for facilitating payment on the transactions with the marketplace; receiving, at the shopping assistant module, indications of selections of one or more items in the shopping window for purchase by the user; determining a revised balance on the account available to the user pending a purchase of the items selected in the shopping window by the user; and causing a display of the revised balance on the account in the shopping window pending the purchase of the items selected in the shopping window by the user.” Claim 11.
With recited additional elements reserved for consideration under step 2A prong two, a careful analysis of the remaining limitations above, each on its own and all together combined, results in the conclusion that each on its own recites an abstract idea and in combination they simply recite a more detailed abstract idea. The recited abstract idea falls within the grouping of abstract ideas described as certain methods of organizing human activity, for example fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial interactions (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors). See MPEP 2106.04(a); Eligibility Step 2A1. The claims must therefore be analyzed under the second prong of Eligibility Step 2 (Step 2A2; MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
In order to address prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step2A2) we must identify whether there are any additional elements beyond the abstract ideas and determine whether those additional elements (if there are any) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step 2A2. The additional elements in the present claims are one or more hardware processors, two networked computer systems, and a device having a user interface. Claims 2-9 and 17-22 also recite a non-transitory memory. These additional elements have been considered individually, in combination, and altogether as a whole together with the functions they perform, e.g., the second networked computer system (marketplace) is a data source, the device having a user interface serves as a display and input node standing in for the role of a user in the claims, and the one or more processors is “operating as” the first networked computer system that is broadly and generally recited as performing all steps in terms of the intended results of functionally nonspecific activities. These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim is otherwise entirely a recitation of abstract ideas. The substantive process is recited only by descriptions of abstract intended results of the steps without indicating any particular functional acts performed by any device or structural element to perform the steps or otherwise obtain the intended results. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of any computer or other technology or technical field, they do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, they do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing, and they fail to apply or use the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05.
If the disclosure describes any improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field this improvement would need to be identifiable as the subject matter appearing in the claims. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. The disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim limitations can integrate a judicial exception into a practical application by implementing the judicial exception with or using it in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. A general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception by use of generic computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2014); MPEP 2106.05(b),(f). There are no particular machines or manufactures identified in the present claims. Claimed elements that are not abstract are identified broadly and generally as applying the method, and the method itself is described only by way of the intended functional results of unidentified activities, without reference to any particular functional acts or specific functions performed by any particularly identified machines, and without reference to its use in conjunction with any particular item of manufacture.
The claims do not affect the transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article. A new or different function or use can be evidence that an article has been transformed. Purely mental processes in which data, thoughts, impressions, or human based actions are "changed" are not considered a transformation. MPEP 2106.05(c).
The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in any other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. As a result the claim as a whole appears to be a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. MPEP 2106.05(e),(h).
The additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Although the additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application the claims could still be eligible if they recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more” than the judicial exception). MPEP 2106.05, Eligibility Step 2B.
These claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of the claims are mere props supporting instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims invoke computers or other machinery merely as tools to perform an abstract process. Simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2); see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9721, 115 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”). The claims fail to present a technical solution to a technical problem created by the use of the surrounding technology. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. See Ret. Capital Access Mgmt. Co. v. U.S. Bancorp, 611 Fed. Appx. 1007, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14351 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“It may be very clever; it may be very useful in a commercial context, but they are still abstract ideas,” said Circuit Judge Alan Lourie.). MPEP 2106.05(h).
Finally, it is reiterated that the remaining dependent claims 3-9, 12-16, and 18-22, do not contribute any additional elements other than those already discussed and do not add "significantly more" to establish eligibility because they merely recite additional abstract ideas that further identify, manipulate, and display, data used in implementing the abstract idea. A more detailed abstract idea is still abstract. PricePlay.com, Inc. v. AOL Adver., Inc., 627 Fed. Appx. 925, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 611, 2016 WL 80002 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2016) (in addressing a bundle of abstract ideas stacked together during oral argument, U.S. Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore said, "All of these ideas are abstract…. It’s like you want a patent because you combined two abstract ideas and say two is better than one.").
All of the above leads to the conclusion that additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the claimed subject matter into significantly more than an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05; Eligibility Step 2B. As a result the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because they recite an abstract idea without being directed to a practical application, and they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05, supra..
The preceding analysis applies to all statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, claims 2-9 and 11-22 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 USC 101 based upon the same analysis.
***Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-9 and 11-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vallery et al. (Paper No. 20260109; Pub. No. US 2014/0046794 A1) in view of Nuzzi et al. (Paper No. 20260109; Pub. No.: US 2014/0081859 A1) and further in view of VERHAEGHE (Paper No. 20260109; Pub. No.: US 2014/0249916 A1).
Vallery teaches a shopping assistant that tracks items added and removed from a shopping window, and further discloses, regarding
Claim 2. A system comprising: a non-transitory memory (see at least Vallery ¶0024); and one or more hardware processors (see at least Vallery fig.9, ¶0024) associated with a payment service provider being operated as a networked computer system, the hardware processors being coupled to the non-transitory memory and configured to read instructions from the non-transitory memory to cause the system to perform operations comprising: ● tracking, by a shopping assistant module implemented by at least one of the hardware processors, a plurality of items in a shopping window displayed on a user interface of a device during a browsing session for a user via the device, the shopping window being associated with the payment service provider computer system, wherein the tracking includes determining items added to the shopping window from a marketplace by the user and items removed from the shopping window by the user during the browsing session, wherein the marketplace is being operated as a networked computer system that is separate and distinct from the payment service provider computer system (see at least Vallery fig.3, ¶0016 "tracks which items a user "drops" into the payment service provider shopping window, which items the user buys from the shopping window, and which items the user deletes from the shopping window without purchasing," ¶¶0050-0052 “Merchant device 340 may be maintained, for example, by a merchant or seller offering various items, products and/or services through an online site or app. … Merchant device 340 may also include a marketplace application 350 which may be configured to serve information over network 360 to browser 315 of user device 310 and/or payment provider server 370. … [0051] Merchant device 340 may also include a checkout application …. Checkout application 355 may be configured to accept payment information from or on behalf of user 305 through payment service provider server 370 over network 360. … [0052] Payment provider server 370 may be maintained, for example, by an online service provider which may provide payment between user 305 and the operator of merchant device 340. In this regard, payment provider server 370 includes one or more payment applications 375 which may be configured to interact with user device 310 and merchant server 340 over network,” i.e., this describes that the marketplace and payment service provider are separate computer systems communicating over a network.);
● receiving, at the shopping assistant module, an indication of a selection of one or more items in the shopping window for purchase by the user (see at least Vallery ¶0015 “shopping assistant feature is provided that allows a user to use a selection tool (e.g., a mouse or track pad) to select an item identifier (e.g., an image of the item) from a native shopping site, drag it into the a payment service provider (e.g., PayPal) shopping window, and drop the item identifier in the window, constituting a selection for later purchase. … user can later review … and select which items to purchase”).
Vallery teaches all of the above as noted and discloses a) spending accounts, b) a marketplace with merchants, c) updating accounts based on the prospective purchase, and d) causing a display in the shopping window of a balance on an account available to the user for the marketplace, and Vallery further discloses
● causing a display in the shopping window of a balance amount on an account available to the user for the marketplace, and multiple types of sources that are available to the user for facilitating payment on transactions with the marketplace (see at least Vallery ¶0051 “Checkout application 355 may also be configured to accept one or more different funding sources for payment,” ¶0086 “deals for that item across the web, including any coupons that can be applied. Deals may be color-coded to help visualize best deals,” ¶0119 “display an indication that the user has a loyalty card, coupon, or other incentive associated with the merchant or item. Details of the incentive may be provided with the item. Items in which there is an associated incentive and which are placed in the shopping cart for checkout may automatically show the incentive with the item. The user can select to use the incentive from the cart or checkout process. The shopping cart may show a default funding source for the user (e.g., selected by the user or a payment provider), which the user can change as desired. The user may also have the option of using multiple payment sources for one or more items, e.g., paying for one item with multiple funding sources and/or paying for the total with multiple funding sources” ¶0223 “Elements of the digital wallet that can be surfaced through the Shopping Assistant may include but are not limited to: Store Loyalty Cards or Loyalty Card Programs and Reward Points Application and Tracking, Store Coupons or General Offers, and PayPal Funding Sources,” ¶0224 “relevant reward points and loyalty card offers are shown as applicable to items that are found and presented via the Shopping Assistant. For example: …. Through use of the Shopping Assistant, I drag a pair of shoes into the browser extension to track them, and the deal scout finds that the pair of shoes I'm looking for is available at DSW, where I am a loyalty card holder. … As a result, DSW is able to return information back through the shopping assistant regarding points or loyalty card programs that are applicable,” ¶0225 “a coupon or general offer to the user. This is manifest to the user via the Shopping Assistant, and is visible on individual items that appear in the user's Shopping Assistant storefront. In addition, when a loyalty card has related coupons available for application on purchase of a given item, coupons or offers of this type are presented to the customer via the individual item on the user's Shopping Assistant storefront”. Please note: Examiner’s position is that each of these funding sources would necessarily be displayed together with funds available through that source in order for the prior art to function for its intended purpose and that said display is therefore inherent).
Vallery does not however explicitly disclose causing a display in the shopping window of a balance amount on an account available to the user for the marketplace, wherein the balance amount on the account for the marketplace is determined, at least in part, according to multiple types of sources that are available to the user for facilitating payment on transactions with the marketplace.
Nuzzi also teaches a) spending accounts, b) a marketplace with merchants, c) updating accounts based on the prospective purchase, and d) causing a display in the shopping window of a balance on an account available to the user for the marketplace, and further discloses
● causing a display in the shopping window of a balance amount on an account available to the user for the marketplace, wherein the balance amount on the account for the marketplace is determined, at least in part, according to multiple types of sources that are available to the user for facilitating payment on transactions with the marketplace, wherein the multiple sources are accessible through the payment service provider computer system, and wherein the display of the balance amount includes display of individual balance elements showing information related to amounts available from individual sources available to the user for facilitating payment on the transactions with the marketplace (see at least Nuzzi fig.2A (Display financial strength numerically), ¶¶0007-0009 “associating one or more financial indicators with one or more accounts of a user…. [0008] … icons displayed on a user device and that may indicate current financial strength with regard to the one or more accounts … . financial indicators may be provided at the time of a payment request to indicate the financial strength of the user with regard to one or more payment accounts and/or spending budgets, along with how the payment request might effect that financial strength. [0009] … one or more accounts … referencing one or more financial indicators,” ¶0027 “Financial indicators may also be associated with … one or more accounts,” ¶¶0030-0032 “a financial indicator may be set up … to customize the properties of financial indicators and associate any number of accounts, spending budgets, or other financial entities of the user with the financial indicator …. [0031] … an apply account selector 208a along with an account input 208b that the user may use to select one or more accounts to associated with the financial indicator, … user may use to select one or more products (e.g., that the user is selling) to associate with the financial indicator. [0032] … user may select to have the financial indicator displayed visually or graphically, a numerical display selector 216 that the user may select to have the financial indicator display numerically,” ¶0040 “financial indicator on the application icon 302a illustrated in FIG. 3a may be associated with a plurality of payment accounts, and the financial strength bars 304a, 304b, 304c, etc. as illustrated would indicate to the user that those payment accounts are at a "full" account balance”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (for pre-AIA applications) or filing (for applications filed under the AIA ) to modify the method of Vallery to include causing a display in the shopping window of a balance amount on an account available to the user for the marketplace, wherein the balance amount on the account for the marketplace is determined, at least in part, according to multiple types of sources that are available to the user for facilitating payment on transactions with the marketplace, wherein the multiple sources are accessible through the payment service provider computer system, and wherein the display of the balance amount includes display of individual balance elements showing information related to amounts available from individual sources available to the user for facilitating payment on the transactions with the marketplace, as taught by Nuzzi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would result in an improvement. This is because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features even from a variety of technical fields into methods and systems implemented using similar technological structures (i.e., generic computer and/or network hardware such as processors, servers, etc.). In this case the areas of technical endeavor are nonetheless similar and overlapping.
Applicant has not disclosed that the added feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose beyond the performance of the functions they performed separately and since each element and its function are shown in the prior art the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. It would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the feature from Nuzzi in the method of Vallery. Furthermore the combination solved no long felt need. Incorporating cumulative known features is additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so increases commercial use of a method by attracting users that previously might have chosen between one of the previously known methods.
Vallery in view of Nuzzi teaches all of the above and teaches, a) transmitting, by the shopping assistant module, a request for information on at least one item removed from the shopping window, b) determining, based on information received in response to the request for information and the balance on the account available to the user, an alternate item to the at least one item removed from the shopping window, and c) causing a display of the alternate item to the user in the shopping window, but does not explicitly disclose updating the balance on the account available to the user displayed in the shopping window in response to the selection of the items for purchase in the shopping window.
VERHAEGHE also teaches a) transmitting, by the shopping assistant module, a request for information on at least one item removed from the shopping window, b) determining, based on information received in response to the request for information and the balance on the account available to the user, an alternate item to the at least one item removed from the shopping window, and c) causing a display of the alternate item to the user in the shopping window, and further discloses
● updating the balance on the account available to the user displayed in the shopping window in response to the selection of the items for purchase in the shopping window (see at least VERHAEGHE ¶0038 "Aggregator 103 may be configured to transmit the current difference between the budget data and the total price for display on the account holder's mobile device 106. So, in the previous example, if the account holder had created a budget of $150 for the shopping trip, aggregator 103 would determine that account holder has $45 remaining to spend ($150-$105)," ¶0093 "aggregator may continuously compare this information each time the shopping basket is updated whenever an item is added or removed. The aggregator may inform User A how much user A has remaining for his shopping trip by subtracting the total price from the budget data. … The mobile budget application may display User A's budget for the shopping trip, the total price of all the items in his shopping basket, and the current amount over or under budget”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (for pre-AIA applications) or filing (for applications filed under the AIA ) to modify the method of Vallery in view of Nuzzi to include updating the balance on the account available to the user displayed in the shopping window in response to the selection of the items for purchase in the shopping window, as taught by VERHAEGHE since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would result in an improvement. This is because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features even from a variety of technical fields into methods and systems implemented using similar technological structures (i.e., generic computer and/or network hardware such as processors, servers, etc.). In this case the areas of technical endeavor are nonetheless similar and overlapping.
Applicant has not disclosed that the added feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose beyond the performance of the functions they performed separately and since each element and its function are shown in the prior art the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. It would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the feature from VERHAEGHE in the method of Vallery in view of Nuzzi. Furthermore the combination solved no long felt need. Incorporating cumulative known features is additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so increases commercial use of a method by attracting users that previously might have chosen between one of the previously known methods.
Vallery in view of Nuzzi and further in view of VERHAEGHE teaches, regarding
Claim 3. The system of claim 2, wherein updating the balance on the account available to the user displayed in the shopping window includes removing funds necessary to purchase the items selected for purchase by the user from the balance on the account available to the user (see at least VERHAEGHE ¶0038 "Aggregator 103 may be configured to transmit the current difference between the budget data and the total price for display on the account holder's mobile device 106. So, in the previous example, if the account holder had created a budget of $150 for the shopping trip, aggregator 103 would determine that account holder has $45 remaining to spend ($150-$105)," ¶0093 "aggregator may continuously compare this information each time the shopping basket is updated whenever an item is added or removed. The aggregator may inform User A how much user A has remaining for his shopping trip by subtracting the total price from the budget data”).
Claim 4. The system of claim 2, wherein the operations further comprise: ● receiving, at the shopping assistant module, a request to complete a purchase of the selection of the items for purchase in the shopping window (see at least Vallery figs. 3, 5, 6, ¶0034 “buyer (also referred to as a second user) can express interest in or indicate a desire to purchase or barter such goods or services, and a transaction (such as a trade) may be completed”); and ● causing a display in the shopping window of a prompt for the user to select the individual sources to be utilized in completing the purchase (see at least Vallery ¶0083 “Once ready for purchase, the user may see a pre-populated screen of a … funding source, which the user can edit,” ¶0119 “The shopping cart may show a default funding source for the user (e.g., selected by the user or a payment provider), which the user can change as desired,” ¶0226 “When a customer moves to purchase an item they have previously collected via the Shopping Assistant, the funding sources that are present in the user's Pay Pal wallet are available for use and selection”).
Claim 5. The system of claim 4, wherein the prompt for the user includes a prompt for the user to select the individual balance elements corresponding to the user's selection of the individual sources to be utilized in completing the purchase (see at least Vallery ¶0083 “user may see a pre-populated screen of a … funding source, which the user can edit,” ¶0119 “The shopping cart may show a default funding source for the user (e.g., selected by the user or a payment provider), which the user can change as desired,” ¶0226 “funding sources that are present in the user's Pay Pal wallet are available for use and selection”).Claim 6. The system of claim 2, wherein the operations further comprise: ● transmitting, by the shopping assistant module, a request for information on at least one item removed from the shopping window (see at least Vallery abstract "user may be prompted to indicate a reason for the request to remove," figs. 5B, 6); ● determining, based on information received in response to the request for information and the balance on the account available to the user for the marketplace, an alternate item on the marketplace to the at least one item removed from the shopping window (see at least Vallery ¶0016 "if an item was too expensive, the shopping assistant feature may replace the item with a less expensive alternative," ¶0064 "if the user provides an indication that the "Exotic Skin Earrings" from Website 1 are being removed because they are too expensive, then a replacement item in the form of identical or similar, yet less expensive, earrings"); and ● causing a display of the alternate item to the user in the shopping window (see at least Vallery abstract "replacement item for the first item may be determined based on the indication of the reason for the request to remove the first item," ¶0016 "shopping assistant feature is provided that tracks which items a user ... deletes from the shopping window .... The shopping assistant feature may then automatically select a replacement item .... the shopping assistant feature may replace the item with a less expensive alternative”).Claim 7. The system of claim 6, wherein the operations further comprise: ● causing a display in the shopping window of the updated balance on the account available to the user for the marketplace based on selection of the alternate item for purchase (see at least VERHAEGHE ¶0042 “Aggregator 103 may compare the total price of the one or more alternative shopping baskets with the budget data, to find the closest or best match,” ¶0096 “User A may choose a proposed shopping basket to replace the current shopping basket in user A's mobile budget application. An aggregator (e.g., aggregator 103) may update the total price information accordingly”).
Claim 8. The system of claim 2, wherein at least one source in the multiple sources is an account for the user associated with the payment service provider (see at least Vallery figs. 3-4, ¶0053 “Payment provider server 370 may also maintain a plurality of user accounts 380, each of which may include account information 385 associated with individual users. For example, account information 385 may include private financial information of users … or other financial information which may be used to facilitate online transactions by user”).
Claim 9. The system of claim 8, wherein at least one additional source in the multiple sources is at least one of the following sources: ● a credit associated with the marketplace, points for use in the marketplace, coupons for use in the marketplace, or a value of a prior sale of an item by the user (see at least Vallery ¶0029 “payment applications 122 may allow users to accumulate value (e.g., in a commercial currency, such as the U.S. dollar, or a proprietary currency, such as "points") in accounts, and then later to redeem the accumulated value for products or items”. Please note: the claim language consisting of a series of optional or alternative limitations separated by “or” does not result in further limitation beyond a single alternative because beyond the presence of any single alternative it merely represents contingencies that are not required. Applicant is reminded that optional or conditional elements do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted. See e.g. MPEP §2111.04 "Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure."; and In re Johnston, 435 F.3d 1381,77 USPQ2d 1788, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("As a matter of linguistic precision, optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted.")).
Claim 22. The system of claim 2, where the amounts available displayed by the individual balance elements are displayed according to types of financial aspects associated with the individual sources that contribute to facilitating payment on the transactions with the marketplace (see at least Vallery ¶0051 “Checkout application 355 may also be configured to accept one or more different funding sources for payment,” ¶0086 “deals for that item across the web, including any coupons that can be applied. Deals may be color-coded to help visualize best deals,” ¶0119 “display an indication that the user has a loyalty card, coupon, or other incentive associated with the merchant or item. Details of the incentive may be provided with the item. Items in which there is an associated incentive and which are placed in the shopping cart for checkout may automatically show the incentive with the item. The user can select to use the incentive from the cart or checkout process. The shopping cart may show a default funding source for the user (e.g., selected by the user or a payment provider), which the user can change as desired. The user may also have the option of using multiple payment sources for one or more items, e.g., paying for one item with multiple funding sources and/or paying for the total with multiple funding sources” ¶0223 “Elements of the digital wallet that can be surfaced through the Shopping Assistant may include but are not limited to: Store Loyalty Cards or Loyalty Card Programs and Reward Points Application and Tracking, Store Coupons or General Offers, and PayPal Funding Sources,” ¶0224 “relevant reward points and loyalty card offers are shown as applicable to items that are found and presented via the Shopping Assistant. For example: …. Through use of the Shopping Assistant, I drag a pair of shoes into the browser extension to track them, and the deal scout finds that the pair of shoes I'm looking for is available at DSW, where I am a loyalty card holder. … As a result, DSW is able to return information back through the shopping assistant regarding points or loyalty card programs that are applicable,” ¶0225 “a coupon or general offer to the user. This is manifest to the user via the Shopping Assistant, and is visible on individual items that appear in the user's Shopping Assistant storefront. In addition, when a loyalty card has related coupons available for application on purchase of a given item, coupons or offers of this type are presented to the customer via the individual item on the user's Shopping Assistant storefront”).
Pertaining to method claims 11-16
Rejection of claims 11-16 is based on the same rationale noted above with regard to claims 2-9. Pertaining to variations in the claims, Vallery in view of Nuzzi and further in view of VERHAEGHE also teaches, regarding
Claim 11. A method comprising:
● determining a revised balance on the account available to the user pending a purchase of the items selected in the shopping window by the user (see at least VERHAEGHE ¶0038 "Aggregator 103 may be configured to transmit the current difference between the budget data and the total price for display on the account holder's mobile device 106. So, in the previous example, if the account holder had created a budget of $150 for the shopping trip, aggregator 103 would determine that account holder has $45 remaining to spend ($150-$105)," ¶0093 "aggregator may continuously compare this information each time the shopping basket is updated whenever an item is added or removed. The aggregator may inform User A how much user A has remaining for his shopping trip by subtracting the total price from the budget data. … The mobile budget application may display User A's budget for the shopping trip, the total price of all the items in his shopping basket, and the current amount over or under budget”); and ● causing a display of the revised balance on the account in the shopping window pending the purchase of the items selected in the shopping window by the user (see at least VERHAEGHE ¶0038 "Aggregator 103 may be configured to transmit the current difference between the budget data and the total price for display on the account holder's mobile device 106. So, in the previous example, if the account holder had created a budget of $150 for the shopping trip, aggregator 103 would determine that account holder has $45 remaining to spend ($150-$105)," ¶0093 "aggregator may continuously compare this information each time the shopping basket is updated whenever an item is added or removed. The aggregator may inform User A how much user A has remaining for his shopping trip by subtracting the total price from the budget data. … The mobile budget application may display User A's budget for the shopping trip, the total price of all the items in his shopping basket, and the current amount over or under budget”).Claim 12. The method of claim 11, further comprising: ● receiving, at the shopping assistant module, an indication by the user to complete the purchase of the items selected in the shopping window (see at least Vallery figs. 3, 5, 6, ¶0034 “buyer (also referred to as a second user) can express interest in or indicate a desire to purchase or barter such goods or services, and a transaction (such as a trade) may be completed”); and ● upon the purchase of the items being completed, updating the display of the account balance to the revised balance (see at least VERHAEGHE ¶0092 “an aggregator (e.g., aggregator 103) may continuously update the total price for the shopping basket,” ¶0093 “aggregator may continuously compare this information each time the shopping basket is updated whenever an item is added or removed. The aggregator may inform User A how much user A has remaining for his shopping trip by subtracting the total price from the budget data,” ¶0097 “user could input one or more commands to "check out" the shopping basket, and the mobile payment account would be automatically charged for the value of the items in the shopping basket”).
Claim 13. The method of claim 12, further comprising: ● causing, in response to the indication by the user to complete the purchase, a prompt in the display for the user to select the individual sources to be utilized in completing the purchase based on selection of the individual balance elements that correspond to the individual sources to be utilized in completing the purchase (see at least Vallery ¶0083 “Once ready for purchase, the user may see a pre-populated screen of a … funding source, which the user can edit,” ¶0119 “The shopping cart may show a default funding source for the user (e.g., selected by the user or a payment provider), which the user can change as desired,” ¶0226 “When a customer moves to purchase an item they have previously collected via the Shopping Assistant, the funding sources that are present in the user's Pay Pal wallet are available for use and selection”).
Claim 14. The method of claim 13, wherein the prompt includes allowing the user to select multiple of the individual sources for purchase of the selected items in the shopping window (see at least Vallery ¶0083 “Once ready for purchase, the user may see a pre-populated screen of a … funding source, which the user can edit,” ¶0119 “The shopping cart may show a default funding source for the user (e.g., selected by the user or a payment provider), which the user can change as desired,” ¶0226 “When a customer moves to purchase an item they have previously collected via the Shopping Assistant, the funding sources that are present in the user's Pay Pal wallet are available for use and selection”).
Claim 15. The method of claim 14, wherein the prompt includes allowing the user to select aspects of the individual sources to apply to the purchase of the selected items in the shopping window (see at least Vallery ¶0083 “Once ready for purchase, the user may see a pre-populated screen of a … funding source, which the user can edit,” ¶0119 “The shopping cart may show a default funding source for the user (e.g., selected by the user or a payment provider), which the user can change as desired,” ¶0226 “When a customer moves to purchase an item they have previously collected via the Shopping Assistant, the funding sources that are present in the user's Pay Pal wallet are available for use and selection”).Claim 16. The method of claim 11, further comprising updating the revised balance on the account in the shopping window in response to deselection of at least one of the items in the shopping window for purchase by the user (see at least VERHAEGHE ¶0093 "An aggregator (e.g., aggregator 103) may compare the total price to the budget data. The aggregator may continuously compare this information each time the shopping basket is updated whenever an item is added or removed. The aggregator may inform User A how much user A has remaining for his shopping trip by subtracting the total price from the budget data. The aggregator (e.g., aggregator 103) may present this information on User A's mobile device using the mobile budget application. The mobile budget application may display User A's budget for the shopping trip, the total price of all the items in his shopping basket, and the current amount over or under budget”).
Pertaining to non-transitory machine-readable medium claims 17-21
Rejection of claims 17-21 is based on the same rationale noted above. In addition Vallery in view of Nuzzi and further in view of VERHAEGHE teaches, regarding
Claim 17. A non-transitory machine-readable medium having stored thereon machine-readable instructions executable to cause the machine to perform operations comprising: ● implementing a shopping assistant module by one or more hardware processors associated with a payment service provider operating as a networked computer system (see at least Vallery fig.9, ¶0024); ● assessing, by the shopping assistant module, items added into a shopping window displayed on a user interface of a device during a browsing session for a user via the device, wherein the items are added from a marketplace by the user, and wherein the marketplace is being operated as a networked computer system that is separate and distinct from the payment service provider computer system (see at least Vallery fig.3, ¶0016 "tracks which items a user "drops" into the payment service provider shopping window, which items the user buys from the shopping window, and which items the user deletes from the shopping window without purchasing," ¶¶0050-0052 “Merchant device 340 may be maintained, for example, by a merchant or seller offering various items, products and/or services through an online site or app. … Merchant device 340 may also include a marketplace application 350 which may be configured to serve information over network 360 to browser 315 of user device 310 and/or payment provider server 370. … [0051] Merchant device 340 may also include a checkout application …. Checkout application 355 may be configured to accept payment information from or on behalf of user 305 through payment service provider server 370 over network 360. … [0052] Payment provider server 370 may be maintained, for example, by an online service provider which may provide payment between user 305 and the operator of merchant device 340. In this regard, payment provider server 370 includes one or more payment applications 375 which may be configured to interact with user device 310 and merchant server 340 over network,” i.e., this describes that the marketplace and payment service provider are separate computer systems communicating over a network); ● assessing, by the shopping assistant module, items removed from the shopping window by the user during the browsing session (see at least Vallery fig.3, ¶0016 "tracks which items a user "drops" into the payment service provider shopping window, which items the user buys from the shopping window, and which items the user deletes from the shopping window without purchasing").
Claim 20. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 19, wherein determining the alternate item to the at least one item removed from the shopping window includes limiting a search for the alternate item to items in the marketplace that have a price less than the balance on the account available to the user for the marketplace (see at least Vallery ¶0016 "if an item was too expensive, the shopping assistant feature may replace the item with a less expensive alternative," ¶0064 "if the user provides an indication that the "Exotic Skin Earrings" from Website 1 are being removed because they are too expensive, then a replacement item in the form of identical or similar, yet less expensive, earrings," ¶¶0125-0128 describing that "the shopping assistant module 212 may use custom algorithms that predict ... preferences.... Inputs to the algorithms may include, but are not limited to Payment Service Account Balance.").
Claim 21. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 17, the operations further comprising suggesting, in response to the updated account balance being negative, one or more items for removal from the selection of the items for purchase in the shopping window, wherein removal of the one or more items is determined to revise the account balance to be positive (see at least VERHAEGHE ¶0093 "An aggregator (e.g., aggregator 103) may compare the total price to the budget data. The aggregator may continuously compare this information each time the shopping basket is updated whenever an item is added or removed. The aggregator may inform User A how much user A has remaining for his shopping trip by subtracting the total price from the budget data. The aggregator (e.g., aggregator 103) may present this information on User A's mobile device using the mobile budget application. The mobile budget application may display User A's budget for the shopping trip, the total price of all the items in his shopping basket, and the current amount over or under budget").
***Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
● White, (Pub. No.: US 2013/0282542 A1): teaches displaying cumulative total and budgeted total of all expenses for a designated task or category.
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 ADAM LEVINE whose telephone number is (571)272-8122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am-7:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571.272.6764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADAM L LEVINE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 July 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights