DETAILED ACTION
Claims 22-41 are pending in this application. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 22-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 22-41, under Step 1, the claims recite a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Under Step 2A claims 22-41 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 22 as representative, claim 22 recites: A method comprising: receiving a single search request, which has a plurality of search inputs; identifying a plurality of search inputs from the single search request, wherein each of the plurality of search inputs comprises one or more of a product or a product category; executing a product search for each of the plurality of search inputs to identify a plurality of product results, wherein the plurality of product results comprises one or more product results for each of the plurality of search inputs, and wherein executing the product search for each of the plurality of search inputs comprises transmitting and receiving data over a network interface; and communicating with one or more product databases to retrieve inventory data for at least a portion of the plurality of product results; and providing at least a portion of the plurality of product results to an application; wherein one or more product results are simultaneously displayed on a user interface associated with the application.
The above limitations set forth a procedure for organizing human activity, such as by performing commercial interactions including marketing activity and business relations. This is because the claim recites the steps performed in order to identify related products (Specification ¶0018). Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) the claim recites an abstract idea because the claim recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 22 recites additional elements, including a network interface, one or more product databases, and a user interface.
These additional elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 22 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) 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.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 22 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 22 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment. MPEP 2106.05.
In view of the above, representative claim 22 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claims 23-39 recite limitations which are similarly directed to and elaborate on the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 22. Thus, each of claims 23-39 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, claims 23-39 do not set forth further additional elements. Considered both individually and as a whole, claims 23-39 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Lastly, under step 2B, dependent claims 23-39 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and specified at a high level of generality.
Claims 40-41 are parallel, i.e. recite similar concepts and elements, to claim 22, analyzed above, and the same rationale is applied.
In view of the above, claims 22-41 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 22-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kale et al., US PG Pub 2018/0108066 A1 (hereafter “Kale”), cited by applicant, in view of Mock et al., US PG Pub 2002/0161757 A1 (hereafter “Mock”), cited applicant.
Kale teaches a method comprising:
identifying a plurality of search inputs from the single search request, wherein each of the plurality of search inputs comprises one or more of a product or a product category (¶¶0044-0051);
executing a product search for each of the plurality of search inputs to identify a plurality of product results, wherein the plurality of product results comprises one or more product results for each of the plurality of search inputs, and wherein executing the product search for each of the plurality of search inputs comprises transmitting and receiving data over a network interface (¶¶0053-0056 and 0103-0107); and
communicating with one or more product databases to retrieve inventory data for at least a portion of the plurality of product results (¶¶0046 and 0083-0085); and
providing at least a portion of the plurality of product results to an application; wherein one or more product results are simultaneously displayed on a user interface associated with the application (¶¶0034-0038, 0053, and 0078).
Kale does not teach receiving a single search request, which has a plurality of search inputs. Mock teaches simultaneous searching across multiple data sets including the known technique receiving a single search request, which has a plurality of search inputs (¶¶0151-0164). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kale, to include a single search request with a plurality of inputs as taught by Mock, in order to “provide for cataloging and implementation solutions,” as suggested by Mock (¶0012).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Mock, the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 23, Kale in view of Mock teaches the method of claim 22, wherein the application comprises one or more of: a computer application running on a computing device; a mobile application running on a mobile computing device; or a web-based application accessible by way of a web browser (Kale ¶0052).
Regarding claim 24, Kale in view of Mock teaches the method of claim 22, wherein identifying the plurality of search inputs comprises: storing profile information for a user comprising one or more of: order history information, transaction information, demographic information, or location information (Kale ¶¶0051-0056); providing the profile information to a neural network (Kale ¶¶0059-0063); and receiving predicted search inputs for the user from the neural network, wherein the predicted search inputs indicate probable desirable search topics for the user based on the profile information for the user and stored information for a plurality of other users (Kale ¶¶0095-0104).
Regarding claim 25, Kale in view of Mock teaches the method of claim 22, wherein identifying the plurality of search inputs comprises predicting at least a portion of the plurality of search inputs based on one or more of a searching history for a user or a purchasing history for the user (Kale ¶0110).
Regarding claim 26, Kale in view of Mock teaches the method of claim 22, wherein communicating with the one or more product databases comprises communicating by way of an Application Program Interface (API) to retrieve current inventory data for at least a portion of the plurality of product results, and wherein the current inventory data comprises a geographical location for currently available inventory (Kale ¶¶0036-0046).
Regarding claim 27, Kale in view of Mock teaches the method of claim 22, further comprising receiving sensor data from a Global Positioning System (GPS) of a mobile computing device, wherein the sensor data indicates a current location of a user (Kale ¶0075).
Regarding claim 28, Kale in view of Mock teaches the method of claim 26, wherein the current inventory data comprises a geographical location for currently available inventory; and wherein the method further comprises identifying local inventory for at least a portion of the one or more product results for each search input, wherein the local inventory is within a geographic threshold to the current location of the user (Kale ¶¶0061-0083).
Regarding claim 29, Kale in view of Mock teaches the method of claim 27, further comprising adding at least a portion of the local inventory to a virtual shopping cart rendered on the user interface while continuing to display at least a portion of the one or more product results (Kale ¶¶0061-0083 and 0093).
Regarding claim 30, Kale in view of Mock teaches the method of claim 22, wherein identifying the plurality of search inputs comprises predicting at least one of the plurality of search inputs based on a profession of a user interacting with the user interface (Kale ¶¶0047-0049).
Regarding claim 31, Kale in view of Mock teaches the method of claim 22, wherein identifying the plurality of search inputs comprises predicting at least one of the plurality of search inputs based on a demographic data for a user interacting with the user interface (Kale ¶¶0047-0049).
Regarding claim 32, Kale in view of Mock teaches the method of claim 22, wherein identifying the plurality of search inputs comprises predicting at least one of the plurality of search inputs based on environmental data comprising one or more of current weather patterns, current average temperature, or predicted precipitation (Kale ¶¶0083-0084).
Regarding claim 33, Kale in view of Mock teaches the method of claim 22, wherein identifying the plurality of search inputs comprises predicting at least one of the plurality of search inputs based on one or more of a current season, a current sunrise time, or a current sunset time (Kale ¶¶0075-0079).
Regarding claim 34, Kale in view of Mock teaches the method of claim 22, further comprising receiving a product selection from a user interacting with the user interface (Kale ¶¶0047-0049).
Regarding claim 35, Kale in view of Mock teaches the method of claim 34, further comprising identifying, based on the current inventory data, local inventory for the product selection that is available within a geographic proximity threshold to a current location for the user (Kale ¶0103).
Regarding claim 36, Kale in view of Mock teaches the method of claim 34, further comprising identifying, based on the current inventory data, local inventory for the product selection that is available within a geographic proximity threshold to an address associated with the user (Kale ¶¶0075 and 0082-0084).
Regarding claim 37, Kale in view of Mock teaches the method of claim 22, wherein identifying the plurality of search inputs comprises receiving at least one of the plurality of search inputs by way of the user interface (Kale ¶¶0068-0070).
Regarding claim 38, Kale in view of Mock teaches the method of claim 36, wherein the at least one of the plurality of search inputs comprises one or more of a search bar input, a search key input, or a selection of a product category suggestion (Kale ¶¶0035-0046).
Regarding claim 39, Kale in view of Mock teaches the method of claim 22, further comprising communicating with the one or more product providers to retrieve current pricing data for at least a portion of the plurality of product results (Kale ¶¶0119-0124).
Regarding claims 40-41, all of the limitations in claims 40-41 are closely parallel to the limitations of method claims 22-39, analyzed above, and are rejected on the same bases.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 22-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,182,843. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims anticipate the claims of the instant application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Harris, US PG Pub 2011/0029406 A1, teaches a system and method for placing a product order via a communications network.
Greenfield et al., US PG Pub 2014/0249885 A1, teaches a system and method for customized search results based on a shopping history of a user, retailer identifications, and items being promoted by retailers.
Non-patent literature Kircher, Philipp teaches efficiency of simultaneous search.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-5549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688