DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to a filing filed on September 30th, 2024. Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on December 11th, 2024 has been acknowledged. This application is a continuation patent application and claims priority benefit, with regard to all common subject matter, of earlier-filed U.S. Patent Application No. 17/479,513, filed September 20, 2021, entitled “COMPUTER PROGRAM, METHOD, AND SYSTEM FOR FACILITATING COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN A USER AND A VENDOR,” ("the '513 Application"). The '513 Application is a continuation patent application and claims priority benefit, with regard to all common subject matter, of earlier-filed U.S. Patent Application No. 16/555,646, filed August 29, 2019, now U.S. Patent No. 11,127,058, issued September 21, 2021, entitled "COMPUTER PROGRAM, METHOD, AND SYSTEM FOR FACILITATING COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN A USER AND A VENDOR" ("the '058 Patent"). The '058 Patent is a continuation patent application and claims priority benefit, with regard to all common subject matter, of earlier-filed U.S. Patent Application No. 14/257,617 filed April 21, 2014, entitled "COMPUTER PROGRAM, METHOD, AND SYSTEM FOR FACILITATING COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN A USER AND A VENDOR," now U.S. Patent No. 10,402,878, issued September 3, 2019, ("the '878 Patent"). The above-referenced patents and patent application are hereby incorporated by reference into the present application in their entirety.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 1042878. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim 1 is anticipated by the conflicting patented claim 1 as shown in the table below. The difference between the instant examined claim and the conflicting patented claim is that the conflicting patented claim is narrower in scope and falls within the scope of the examined claim. Thus, the species or sub-genus claimed in the conflicting patent anticipates the examined claimed genus. Therefore, a patent to the examined claim genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP §804(II)(B)(1).
For reference, the following table matches the narrower limitations of method claim 1 of the patented parent application no. 14,257,617 (Pat. 1,042,878) with the similar limitations of method claim 1 of current child Application No. 18/902,046:
Claim 1 of Patented Application 1,042,878
Claim 1 of Application 18/902, 046
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium with an executable program stored thereon for presenting a user interface for facilitating commercial transactions, wherein the program instructs a processing element to perform the steps of:
presenting, in the user interface, by an administrator and to a user, a set of vendors, wherein each vendor of said set of vendors provides a good or service, wherein the user desires to obtain a cost of the good or service provided by each vendor;
A secure computerized method of obtaining a cost from a plurality of vendors, comprising:
prompting, via the user interface, the user for an authorization to access each vendor of said set of vendors to obtain the cost of the good or service provided by each vendor;
receiving a request to obtain the cost of a good or a service from each vendor of the plurality of vendors on behalf of a user;
receiving, via the user interface, by the administrator and from the user, authorization to access each vendor of said set of vendors on behalf of the user, wherein the user has a preexisting user account for each vendor of said set of vendors, and the preexisting user account is associated with identification information uniquely identifying the preexisting user account;
sending, by the administrator and to each vendor of said set of vendors, the authorization provided by the user;
sending, by the administrator and to each vendor of said set of vendors, a request to provide the identification information associated with the preexisting user account;
transmitting a selectable link to verify that the user is human;
receiving, from at least a portion of said set of vendors, the identification information for the respective preexisting user account;
accessing, by the administrator and for each vendor for which identification information was received for the respective preexisting user account, a vendor database associated with the vendor using the identification information for the preexisting user account;
obtaining, by the administrator and from the vendor database, the cost of the good or service provided by the vendor, wherein the user's identification information for the preexisting user account uniquely identifies the user during the step of obtaining, by the administrator and from the vendor database, the cost of the good or service provided by the vendor;
measuring a response time and an input rate of a user input to verify that the user input is produced by a human;
upon receiving a selection of the selectable link, performing a measurement of an input rate of the user or a response time of the user to access a website provided by the selection of the selectable link;
and presenting, via the user interface, by the administrator and to the user, the obtained cost of the good or service provided by each vendor, wherein the user is presented the obtained cost of the good or service without having to provide to the administrator or the vendor the user's identification information associated with the user's preexisting user account.
responsive to determining that the user is human, contacting the plurality of vendors and obtaining the cost of the good or the service from each vendor;
and presenting, to the user by the website, the cost of the good or the service for each vendor of the plurality of vendors.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 is/are drawn to method (i.e., a process), and claims 8-20 is/are drawn to computer readable media (i.e., a manufacture). (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Claim 1: A secure computerized method of obtaining a cost from a plurality of vendors, comprising:
receiving a request to obtain the cost of a good or a service from each vendor of the plurality of vendors on behalf of a user;
transmitting a selectable link to verify that the user is human;
upon receiving a selection of the selectable link, performing a measurement of an input rate of the user or a response time of the user to access a website provided by the selection of the selectable link;
determining that the user is human based on the measurement of the input rate or the response time to access the website;
responsive to determining that the user is human, contacting the plurality of vendors and obtaining the cost of the good or the service from each vendor;
and presenting, to the user by the website, the cost of the good or the service for each vendor of the plurality of vendors.
Claim 15: One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, perform a method of obtaining a cost from a plurality of vendors, the method comprising:
receiving a request to obtain the cost of a good or a service from each vendor of the plurality of vendors on behalf of a user;
transmitting a selectable link to verify that the user is human;
upon receiving a selection of the selectable link, performing a measurement of an input rate of the user or a response time of the user to access a website provided by the selection of the selectable link;
determining that the user is human based on the measurement of the input rate or the response time to access the website;
responsive to determining that the user is human, contacting the plurality of vendors and providing each vendor of the plurality of vendors with an account identifier identifying a preexisting user account with each vendor, wherein the preexisting user account is associated with the user;
obtaining the cost of the good or the service from each vendor based on the preexisting user account;
and presenting, to the user by the website, the cost of the good or the service for each vendor of the plurality of vendors.
(Examiner notes: The underlined claim terms above are interpreted as additional elements beyond the abstract idea and are further analyzed under Step 2A - Prong Two)
Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the independent claims is/are directed to the abstract idea of intermediating and aggregating commercial information between a user and multiple vendors, including requesting price information, verifying user eligibility, obtaining vendor-specific cost data, and presenting the obtained cost information to the user. The claims recite collecting information (receiving a request for costs), analyzing information (determining whether the user is human and associating the user with vendor accounts), and presenting information (displaying vendor costs to the user), which are mental processes and methods of organizing human activity, specifically fundamental economic practices related to price comparison and commercial transactions. Obtaining pricing from multiple vendors on behalf of a user and presenting the pricing results constitutes intermediated settlement and information exchange. Such steps can be performed conceptually by a human using conventional communication method and therefore falls under method of organizing human activity and mental processes, which is in the abstract idea category, which the courts have repeatedly held to be abstract ideas. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, the claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea falling within the judicial exception category of “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “Mental Processes”. From applicant’s specification, the claimed invention is implemented to “The processing element 16 may implement operating systems, and may be capable of executing the computer program, which is also generally known as instructions, commands, software code, executables, applications (“apps”), and the like. The processing element 16 may include processors, microprocessors, microcontrollers, field programmable gate arrays, and the like, or combinations thereof.” (see 0048 of instant specification). The claims recite a method of organizing human activity, specifically facilitating commercial transactions by collecting and aggregating cost information from a plurality of vendors on behalf of a user. The claims recite steps of receiving a pricing request, verifying a user, obtaining pricing information from vendors, and presenting the pricing information to the user. These steps constitute collecting, analyzing, and displaying information related to a commercial transaction and reflect a method of organizing human activity, namely price comparison and vendor interaction. The Examiner notes that although the claim limitations are summarized, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim and all of the claim elements individually, as a whole, and in ordered combination.
The dependent claims are directed to variations of the abstract idea of claims 2-3, 9-10, 12, 16, and 17 are directed to an abstract idea of managing and verifying user associations with a plurality of vendors for the purpose of obtaining and presenting commercial cost information. These claims recite verifying a relationship between a user and vendors through preexisting user accounts, account identifiers, authentication credentials, or anonymized user numbers, and enabling access to vendor electronic resources based on such identifiers without disclosing user identity information. The claims involve collecting and analyzing account-related information to determine authorization or eligibility and presenting vendor-specific cost information to the user. Such limitations constitute methods of organizing human activity and fundamental economic practices, including authorization, credential management, and intermediated information exchange, which can be performed conceptually by a human intermediary using conventional recordkeeping and communication techniques, and therefore fall within a judicial exception to patent-eligible subject matter. Claims 4 and 18 are directed to an abstract idea of intermediating commercial interactions between a user and a plurality of vendors through a proxy or omnibus account. These claims recite creating an omnibus account on behalf of the user that associates user information with multiple vendors and using identification indicia associated with the omnibus account to obtain cost information from the vendors. The claims involve organizing and managing account relationships, associating user information with vendor systems, and obtaining and presenting pricing information, which constitute methods of organizing human activity and fundamental economic practices related to transaction facilitation and account management. Claims 5, 13, and 19 are directed to an abstract idea of expanding commercial price aggregation to additional vendors. These claims recite identifying one or more vendors with whom the user does not have a preexisting relationship, contacting the new vendors to obtain pricing information, and presenting the obtained pricing information to the user. The claims involve collecting and presenting commercial information and coordinating vendor interactions, which are fundamental economic practices and methods of organizing human activity related to price comparison and market participation. Claims 6 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea of retrieving commercial pricing information from vendor data sources. These claims recite accessing vendor databases to determine pricing, including by scraping electronic resources or communicating with vendor-provided application programming interfaces. The claims involve obtaining information from identified sources and using the obtained information for presentation to a user, which constitutes collecting and analyzing information in the context of a commercial transaction. Claims 7 and 20 are directed to an abstract idea of determining pricing based on user-specific criteria. These claims recite associating a user with one or more parameters, such as location, volume of business, or product type, and determining the cost of goods or services based on those parameters. The claims involve analyzing information using predefined criteria to determine pricing outcomes and presenting the results, which are mental processes and fundamental economic practices related to pricing and eligibility determination. Such activities can be performed conceptually by a human using conventional evaluation and decision-making techniques and therefore fall within a judicial exception to patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. §101, using conventional communication and recordkeeping techniques. As such, the claims are directed to an abstract idea involving certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes, which falls within a judicial exception under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Independent claim(s) 8 and 15 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claims 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Step 2A - Prong Two: In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using a computerized, processor, selectable link, etc. (Claims 1, 8, and 15) is/are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Similarly, the limitations of using a computerized, processor, selectable link, etc. (Claims 1, 8, and 15, and dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20) are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional limitations beyond the abstract idea identified above, serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to computerized environments (e.g., receive, transmit, determine, present, etc. steps performed by a computerized, processor, selectable link, etc.). This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The recited additional element(s) steps of transmitting a selectable link, measuring an input rate or response time to verify that a user is human, contacting vendors to obtain cost information, and presenting the obtained cost information to the user merely describe pre-solution and post-solution activities associated with the abstract idea of intermediating and aggregating commercial pricing information. Verifying that the user is human is a data-gathering step that occurs prior to performing the abstract idea; while contacting vendors and presenting pricing results constitute post-solution activity that simply applies the abstract idea by retrieving and displaying information. Such steps are conventional data acquisition, authentication, and output functions that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea itself. Likewise, the recited computerized method performs these steps in a generic manner, without specifying any particularized hardware structure, unconventional operation, or technological improvement, which constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity without adding any technical improvement (Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15), additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e., they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the identified additional elements in independent Claims 1, 8, and 15, and dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The recited additional element(s) of transmitting a selectable link, measuring an input rate or response time to verify that a user is human, contacting vendors to obtain cost information, and presenting the obtained cost information to the user merely describe pre-solution and post-solution activities associated with the abstract idea of intermediating and aggregating commercial pricing information (Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15), additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea), i.e. these steps merely perform the steps of verifying that the user is human i.e. data-gathering step that occurs prior to performing the abstract idea; while contacting vendors and presenting pricing results constitute post-solution activity that simply applies the abstract idea by retrieving and displaying information which is similar to “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information), “Storing and retrieving information in memory”, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; “Presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price”, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, Determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here) (See MPEP 2106.05(d) (II)).
This conclusion is based on a factual determination. Applicant’s own disclosure at paragraph [0055] acknowledges that “receiving, from at least a portion of said set of vendors, the identification information for the respective preexisting user account; accessing, by the administrator and for each vendor for which identification information was received for the respective preexisting user account, a vendor database associated with the vendor using the identification information for the preexisting user account; obtaining, by the administrator and from the vendor database, the cost of the good or service provided by the vendor, wherein the user’s identification information for the preexisting user account uniquely identifies the user during the step of obtaining, by the administrator and from the vendor database, the cost of the good or service provided by the vendor, such that the obtained cost of the good or service is based on an identity of the user; and presenting, by the administrator and to the user, the obtained cost of the good or service provided by each vendor, wherein the user is presented the obtained cost of the good or service without having to provide to the administrator or the vendor the user’s identification information associated with the user’s preexisting user account”. This additional element therefore do not ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or/and append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity) and/or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
The dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective independent claims is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e., they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
Specifically, claims 2-3, 9-10, 12, 16, and 17 recite additional elements directed to verifying an association between a user and a plurality of vendors using preexisting user accounts, account identifiers, authentication credentials, or anonymized user numbers, and enabling access to vendor electronic resources based on such identifiers. Claims 4 and 18 recite creating and utilizing an omnibus account to associate user information with multiple vendors. Claims 5, 13, and 19 recite contacting one or more new vendors to obtain pricing information where no prior user relationship exists. Claims 6 and 11 recite accessing vendor databases using scraping techniques or application programming interfaces. Claims 7 and 20 recite determining pricing based on user parameters such as location, transaction volume, or product type. These additional elements merely employ well-understood, routine, and conventional techniques for account verification, proxy account management, vendor communication, database access, and pricing determination, as commonly used in electronic commerce, authentication, and information aggregation systems, and therefore do not add an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
When viewed as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 merely instruct to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components to collect, store, represent, and display information. The claims do not recite any unconventional arrangement of elements, nor do they effect an improvement to computer functionality or another technical field and therefore fail to integrate the abstract concept into a practical application and it is recited at a high level of generality and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claims 1-20 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
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 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 of this title, 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.
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 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. 20060111986 (“Yorke”) in view U.S. Pat. 7516220 (“Stiert”).
As per claims 1 and 8, Yorke discloses, secure computerized method of obtaining a cost from a plurality of vendors, comprising: receiving a request to obtain the cost of a good or a service from each vendor of the plurality of vendors on behalf of a user (Examiner interprets receiving a request as receiving product or service information from a buyer system for retrieval of pricing information from multiple sellers or service providers through a central system acting on behalf of the user) (“provide a system and method that allow for collection of available and sellable goods or services in a real-time or near real-time environment from a network of retail or a chain of retail stores, wholesalers, distributors, or service providers. The collective database is made available to the general public via a network or communications system (e.g., the world wide web, an intranet, a respective virtual private network (VPN), or any other form of electronic transfer) for purchase utilizing best price available for both parties”) (0023);
responsive to determining that the user is human, contacting the plurality of vendors and obtaining the cost of the good or the service from each vendor (Examiner interprets contacting the plurality of vendors as accessing seller systems and receiving updated pricing and inventory information from multiple vendors via a central system in response to a user request) (“central system 104 can receive or access changes in product status from a manufacturer and alert seller system(s) 102 of this change. For example, the information can be gathered from third party system 110 or via other means. In various examples, this information can relate to make and model number changes, new generations being released, defective product recalls, changes in suggested retail prices, termination of product lines, etc. This will allow seller system 102 to update the product information accordingly. In one example, the change in status of the product information can come from one or more seller systems 102. For example, in the pawn industry a change of status will be classified as a sale, a buy, a pawn, a layaway, a change in description, a change of pricing or a change of the number of a specific inventory quantity. Any inventory change in POS software 228 at each seller system 102 is updated to the database automatically available online so that the inventory is updated in near real-time or real-time.”) (0037, 0036);
and presenting, to the user by the website, the cost of the good or the service for each vendor of the plurality of vendors (Examiner interprets presenting the cost as displaying pricing information derived from multiple vendors to a buyer via a web-based interface) (“central system 104 compares the current selling prices to prices for either newly added products in database 224 or all similar products in database 224, and generates a list of which products meet a threshold profit margin established by each sub-set buyer system 106. This list is then forward to the individual sub-set buyer systems 106”) (0066).
Yorke specifically doesn’t disclose, transmitting a selectable link to verify that the user is human; upon receiving a selection of the selectable link, performing a measurement of an input rate of the user or a response time of the user to access a website provided by the selection of the selectable link; determining that the user is human based on the measurement of the input rate or the response time to access the website, however Stiert discloses, transmitting a selectable link to verify that the user is human (Examiner interprets transmitting a selectable link as providing a web-based interaction or task requiring user input to determine whether the requester is human) (“robot-access of a web-based interface may be detected by utilizing a minimum expected human response time (MEHRT). The MEHRT is an indicator of the minimum time utilized by humans to complete a pre-determined task. Because robots commonly act and process information faster than humans, they may be identified by comparing the time it takes a user to complete a predetermined task with the MEHRT”) (Col. 2 Ln. 5-13);
upon receiving a selection of the selectable link, performing a measurement of an input rate of the user or a response time of the user to access a website provided by the selection of the selectable link (Examiner interprets performing a measurement as logging and measuring the elapsed time between presentation of a web-based prompt and completion of a user task) (“method 100 may be well-suited for interfaces which are not trivial and include tasks with a completion time that enables a clear definition of a robot/human time threshold. Such a threshold may be between 30 and 60 seconds … ascertaining a MEHRT to complete a pre-determined task, as described above with respect to step 102. At step 604, a user may be prompted to complete the predetermined task in response to user-access of a web-based interface, as described above with respect to step 104. As discussed above, the user may be prompted to complete an online form or any other type of task. At step 606, the time the prompt is made may be logged, as described above, for example, with respect to FIG. 2”) (Col. 6 Ln. 1-34);
determining that the user is human based on the measurement of the input rate or the response time to access the website (Examiner interprets determining that the user is human as comparing measured response time against a human threshold to classify the user as human or robot) (“Using the session ID, the begin timestamp is retrieved from the log or database and compared with the end timestamp to determine the elapsed time in step 318. The elapsed time is compared against the MEHRT in step 320 to determine if the user is a robot or human. The MEHRT in this scenario may be hard-coded into guestbook.pl. If a human, the guestbook database is updated in step 322 with the contents of the post and a "your post has been submitted" response is displayed to the user”) (Col. 7 Ln. 28-37).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for receiving a request to obtain the cost of a good or a service from each vendor of the plurality of vendors on behalf of a user, responsive to determining that the user is human, contacting the plurality of vendors and obtaining the cost of the good or the service from each vendor; and presenting, to the user by the website, the cost of the good or the service for each vendor of the plurality of vendors, as taught by Yorke, transmitting a selectable link to verify that the user is human; upon receiving a selection of the selectable link, performing a measurement of an input rate of the user or a response time of the user to access a website provided by the selection of the selectable link; determining that the user is human based on the measurement of the input rate or the response time to access the website, as taught by Stiert for the purpose to incorporate a human-verification timing mechanism in order to prevent automated or abusive access to vendor pricing resources thus allowing vendor pricing queries only from verified human users.
As per claims 15, Yorke discloses, perform a method of obtaining a cost from a plurality of vendors, the method comprising: receiving a request to obtain the cost of a good or a service from each vendor of the plurality of vendors on behalf of a user (Examiner interprets receiving a request as receiving product or service information from a buyer system for retrieval of pricing information from multiple sellers or service providers through a central system acting on behalf of the user) (“provide a system and method that allow for collection of available and sellable goods or services in a real-time or near real-time environment from a network of retail or a chain of retail stores, wholesalers, distributors, or service providers. The collective database is made available to the general public via a network or communications system (e.g., the world wide web, an intranet, a respective virtual private network (VPN), or any other form of electronic transfer) for purchase utilizing best price available for both parties”) (0023);
responsive to determining that the user is human, contacting the plurality of vendors (Examiner interprets contacting the plurality of vendors as accessing seller systems and receiving updated pricing and inventory information from multiple vendors via a central system in response to a user request) (“central system 104 can receive or access changes in product status from a manufacturer and alert seller system(s) 102 of this change. For example, the information can be gathered from third party system 110 or via other means. In various examples, this information can relate to make and model number changes, new generations being released, defective product recalls, changes in suggested retail prices, termination of product lines, etc. This will allow seller system 102 to update the product information accordingly. In one example, the change in status of the product information can come from one or more seller systems 102. For example, in the pawn industry a change of status will be classified as a sale, a buy, a pawn, a layaway, a change in description, a change of pricing or a change of the number of a specific inventory quantity. Any inventory change in POS software 228 at each seller system 102 is updated to the database automatically available online so that the inventory is updated in near real-time or real-time.”) (0037, 0036) and providing each vendor of the plurality of vendors with an account identifier identifying a preexisting user account with each vendor, wherein the preexisting user account is associated with the user (Examiner interprets account identifier identifying a preexisting user account as a centrally managed identifier e.g. user ID, identification data, or unique code, used by the central system to correlate buyer and seller systems without directly revealing personal identity information) (“identification information includes the product information and unique ID code associated with this information, which allows each seller system 102 to remain anonymous with respect to each buyer system 106. Thus, in this example, only central system 104 will know both an identity of a seller and a buyer until a transaction is complete”) (0033, 0050, 0073);
obtaining the cost of the good or the service from each vendor based on the preexisting user account indicia (Examiner interprets obtaining cost based on the preexisting user account as retrieving vendor-specific pricing information using stored identification data and historical or account-related pricing parameters) (“once central system 104 receives the product information from seller system 102, central system 104 automatically compares an asking price in the product information against other asking prices and/or previously sold prices in database 224 and generates a communication to seller system 102 including one or more suggestions (see FIG. 4 below). For example, central system 104 can determine a probability of success of sale for various prices of the product in the product information based on historical data in database 224 and/or memory 226 and send this information to seller system 102. Seller system 102 can then ignore or use this data to adjust/update the product information. In various examples, the historical data can be national data, regional data, or location specific data”) (0036-0037, 0030);
and presenting, to the user by the website, the cost of the good or the service for each vendor of the plurality of vendors (Examiner interprets presenting the cost as displaying pricing information derived from multiple vendors to a buyer via a web-based interface) (“central system 104 compares the current selling prices to prices for either newly added products in database 224 or all similar products in database 224, and generates a list of which products meet a threshold profit margin established by each sub-set buyer system 106. This list is then forward to the individual sub-set buyer systems 106”) (0066).
Yorke specifically doesn’t disclose, transmitting a selectable link to verify that the user is human; upon receiving a selection of the selectable link, performing a measurement of an input rate of the user or a response time of the user to access a website provided by the selection of the selectable link; determining that the user is human based on the measurement of the input rate or the response time to access the website, however Stiert discloses, transmitting a selectable link to verify that the user is human (Examiner interprets transmitting a selectable link as providing a web-based interaction or task requiring user input to determine whether the requester is human) (“robot-access of a web-based interface may be detected by utilizing a minimum expected human response time (MEHRT). The MEHRT is an indicator of the minimum time utilized by humans to complete a pre-determined task. Because robots commonly act and process information faster than humans, they may be identified by comparing the time it takes a user to complete a predetermined task with the MEHRT”) (Col. 2 Ln. 5-13);
upon receiving a selection of the selectable link, performing a measurement of an input rate of the user or a response time of the user to access a website provided by the selection of the selectable link (Examiner interprets performing a measurement as logging and measuring the elapsed time between presentation of a web-based prompt and completion of a user task) (“method 100 may be well-suited for interfaces which are not trivial and include tasks with a completion time that enables a clear definition of a robot/human time threshold. Such a threshold may be between 30 and 60 seconds … ascertaining a MEHRT to complete a pre-determined task, as described above with respect to step 102. At step 604, a user may be prompted to complete the predetermined task in response to user-access of a web-based interface, as described above with respect to step 104. As discussed above, the user may be prompted to complete an online form or any other type of task. At step 606, the time the prompt is made may be logged, as described above, for example, with respect to FIG. 2”) (Col. 6 Ln. 1-34);
determining that the user is human based on the measurement of the input rate or the response time to access the website (Examiner interprets determining that the user is human as comparing measured response time against a human threshold to classify the user as human or robot) (“Using the session ID, the begin timestamp is retrieved from the log or database and compared with the end timestamp to determine the elapsed time in step 318. The elapsed time is compared against the MEHRT in step 320 to determine if the user is a robot or human. The MEHRT in this scenario may be hard-coded into guestbook.pl. If a human, the guestbook database is updated in step 322 with the contents of the post and a "your post has been submitted" response is displayed to the user”) (Col. 7 Ln. 28-37).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for receiving a request to obtain the cost of a good or a service from each vendor of the plurality of vendors on behalf of a user, responsive to determining that the user is human, contacting the plurality of vendors and obtaining the cost of the good or the service from each vendor; and presenting, to the user by the website, the cost of the good or the service for each vendor of the plurality of vendors, as taught by Yorke, transmitting a selectable link to verify that the user is human; upon receiving a selection of the selectable link, performing a measurement of an input rate of the user or a response time of the user to access a website provided by the selection of the selectable link; determining that the user is human based on the measurement of the input rate or the response time to access the website, as taught by Stiert for the purpose to incorporate a human-verification timing mechanism in order to prevent automated or abusive access to vendor pricing resources thus allowing vendor pricing queries only from verified human users.
As per claims 2, Yorke discloses, further comprising verifying an association of the user with the plurality of vendors by a preexisting user account (Examiner interprets verifying an association as correlating buyer actions with seller systems via identifiers managed by the central system) (“the product is correlated to a seller using a central system. In step 508, the buyer's price is transmitted to the seller anonymously, e.g., via email, instant messaging, cell phone call or text messaging, or otherwise over a network (hereinafter, only email is discussed for brevity). For example, it can be an anonymous transaction because only user names, user ids, etc. are displayed in any communication between a seller and a buyer. In step 510, a determination is made whether the seller accepts the buyer's price …” and “this method describes time period measuring, storage, and comparing to determine ratings of buyers and sellers. This method can be performed using system 100, for example. In step 1002, a negotiation is initiated, e.g., a buyer chooses a product and initiates communicates an acceptable price to the seller to purchase the product) (0050, 0073).
As per claims 3, Yorke discloses, wherein the association of the user with the plurality of vendors is verified without providing, to the plurality of vendors, identification information associated with the preexisting user account (Examiner interprets without providing identification as maintaining anonymity between buyers and sellers through intermediary identifiers) (“identification information includes the product information and unique ID code associated with this information, which allows each seller system 102 to remain anonymous with respect to each buyer system 106. Thus, in this example, only central system 104 will know both an identity of a seller and a buyer until a transaction is complete”) (0033, 0050).
As per claims 4 and 18, Yorke discloses, creating an omnibus account on behalf of the user, wherein the omnibus account comprises an identification indicia and associates user information indicative of the user with the plurality of vendors (Examiner interprets omnibus account as a centralized identification mechanism that mediates transactions between users and multiple vendors) (“identification information includes the product information and unique ID code associated with this information, which allows each seller system 102 to remain anonymous with respect to each buyer system 106. Thus, in this example, only central system 104 will know both an identity of a seller and a buyer until a transaction is complete”) (0033, 0050);
and obtaining the cost of the good or the service from each of the plurality of vendors using the identification indicia (Examiner interprets using the identification indicia as correlating pricing and inventory information across sellers through centralized identifiers) (“once central system 104 receives the product information from seller system 102, central system 104 automatically compares an asking price in the product information against other asking prices and/or previously sold prices in database 224 and generates a communication to seller system 102 including one or more suggestions (see FIG. 4 below). For example, central system 104 can determine a probability of success of sale for various prices of the product in the product information based on historical data in database 224 and/or memory 226 and send this information to seller system 102. Seller system 102 can then ignore or use this data to adjust/update the product information. In various examples, the historical data can be national data, regional data, or location specific data”) (0036-0037).
As per claims 5, 14, and 19, Yorke discloses, wherein the request comprises one or more new vendors of which the user is not a preexisting member, wherein the secure computerized method further comprises: contacting the one or more new vendors to determine the cost of the good or the service from the one or more new vendors (Examiner interprets “new vendors” as substitute sellers identified and contacted dynamically when an original vendor is unavailable) (“a list of substitute sellers is analyzed to determine a best substitute seller. For example, this can be based on a seller having a most similar item and/or on a seller having a highest rating (see FIG. 10 below) and a substantially similar item, as is discussed below. Once a best substitute seller is determined by the central system, in step 532 the buyer's offer is sent to the substitute seller”) (0053-0054);
and presenting, to the user, the cost of the good or the service from each vendor of the one or more new vendors (Examiner interprets Yorke’s substitute sellers correspond to the claimed “one or more new vendors”, Yorke’s transmission of the buyer’s offer to the substitute seller corresponds to contacting the one or more new vendors, and Yorke’s communication of availability status or substitute options to the buyer corresponds to presenting the cost of the good or service from the substitute vendors to the user) (“determined based on the product information initially forward from a seller system 102 to a central system 104. For example, the buyer may have initiated the transaction to purchase a green and blue game machine, and not just a game machine, and for some reason the buyer only wanted the green and blue game machine. If yes (i.e., the product is unique), in step 524 a message is sent, e.g., via email, to the buyer that the product is no longer available … the central system determines if a substitute seller having an equivalent product for sale exists. If no, in step 528 a message is sent to the buyer that the product is no longer available. If yes at step 526, in step 530 a list of substitute sellers is analyzed to determine a best substitute seller. For example, this can be based on a seller having a most similar item and/or on a seller having a highest rating (see FIG. 10 below) and a substantially similar item, as is discussed below. Once a best substitute seller is determined by the central system, in step 532 the buyer's offer is sent to the substitute seller”) (0053-0054).
As per claims 6, Yorke discloses, further comprising accessing a vendor database by either scraping electronic resources associated with the plurality of vendors or by communicating with application programming interface administered by each vendor (Examiner interprets accessing a vendor database as synchronizing seller inventory and pricing data via an application programming interface) (“Then POS software 228, under control of controller 214, gathers and analyzes available inventory for sale based on the product information. The product information is transmitted via network 108 to central system 104. In one example, this is based on an application program interface (API) of a particular central system 104 that is in POS software 228 or associated with POS software 228 in each seller system 102. This API automatically links and/or synchronizes POS software to central system 104 to automatically transmit, receive, and/or synchronize data between the two. In one example, as described above, the API automatically links a seller system 102 to a specific central system 104 associated with its industry and/or to one or more central systems associated with its products” and “The API by itself does nothing, but when implemented by POS software 228 it allows the basic functions needed to have seller system 102 send its inventory to central system 104 automatically. It can provide a method to update those items online as their information changes at the store level. It can provide a means of alerting the store that an offer has been made on a piece of merchandise listed, and even can allow for direct negotiations with a web user from within POS software 228, if desired by a seller system 102”) (0029 and 0043).
As per claims 7 and 20, Yorke discloses, wherein the user is associated with at least one user parameter, wherein the cost of the good or the service is based on the at least one user parameter, and wherein the at least one user parameter is selected from a group consisting of: a location of the user, a volume of business the user conducts with the plurality of vendors, and a type of product the user obtains from each vendor (Examiner interprets user parameters as location-specific, historical, or transactional metrics influencing pricing) (“once central system 104 receives the product information from seller system 102, central system 104 automatically compares an asking price in the product information against other asking prices and/or previously sold prices in database 224 and generates a communication to seller system 102 including one or more suggestions (see FIG. 4 below). For example, central system 104 can determine a probability of success of sale for various prices of the product in the product information based on historical data in database 224 and/or memory 226 and send this information to seller system 102. Seller system 102 can then ignore or use this data to adjust/update the product information. In various examples, the historical data can be national data, regional data, or location specific data. In one case, the pricing metric can be automatically given to seller system 102 by central system 104, while in another case the pricing metrics are required to be requested specifically by seller system 102 … a change of pricing or a change of the number of a specific inventory quantity. Any inventory change in POS software 228 at each seller system 102 is updated to the database automatically available online so that the inventory is updated in near real-time or real-time”) (0036-0037).
As per claims 9, Yorke discloses, wherein the method further comprises verifying an association of the user with the plurality of vendors by a preexisting user account, wherein the preexisting user account was created by the user (Examiner interprets verifying an association as correlating buyer actions with seller systems via identifiers managed by the central system) (“the product is correlated to a seller using a central system. In step 508, the buyer's price is transmitted to the seller anonymously, e.g., via email, instant messaging, cell phone call or text messaging, or otherwise over a network (hereinafter, only email is discussed for brevity). For example, it can be an anonymous transaction because only user names, user ids, etc. are displayed in any communication between a seller and a buyer. In step 510, a determination is made whether the seller accepts the buyer's price …” and “this method describes time period measuring, storage, and comparing to determine ratings of buyers and sellers. This method can be performed using system 100, for example. In step 1002, a negotiation is initiated, e.g., a buyer chooses a product and initiates communicates an acceptable price to the seller to purchase the product) (0050, 0073).
As per claims 10 and 17, Yorke discloses, wherein the preexisting user account is associated with an account identifier, wherein the account identifier for the preexisting user account enables the user to directly access an electronic resource associated with each vendor (Examiner interprets without providing identification as maintaining anonymity between buyers and sellers through intermediary identifiers) (“identification information includes the product information and unique ID code associated with this information, which allows each seller system 102 to remain anonymous with respect to each buyer system 106. Thus, in this example, only central system 104 will know both an identity of a seller and a buyer until a transaction is complete … central system 104 can generate a list of one or more categories based on historical data regarding previous categories assigned certain industries or products stored in memory 226 or database 224, e.g., a generator is used in Florida during hurricane season or in the mountains by campers and hikers, as entered by previous seller systems 102. Then, the user can choose which category to list their products or services”) (0033-0035, 0050).
As per claims 11, Yorke discloses, wherein the method further comprises accessing a vendor database of each vendor to determine the cost of the good or the service (Examiner interprets new vendors as substitute sellers identified and contacted dynamically when an original vendor is unavailable) (“determined based on the product information initially forward from a seller system 102 to a central system 104. For example, the buyer may have initiated the transaction to purchase a green and blue game machine, and not just a game machine, and for some reason the buyer only wanted the green and blue game machine. If yes (i.e., the product is unique), in step 524 a message is sent, e.g., via email, to the buyer that the product is no longer available … the central system determines if a substitute seller having an equivalent product for sale exists. If no, in step 528 a message is sent to the buyer that the product is no longer available. If yes at step 526, in step 530 a list of substitute sellers is analyzed to determine a best substitute seller. For example, this can be based on a seller having a most similar item and/or on a seller having a highest rating (see FIG. 10 below) and a substantially similar item, as is discussed below. Once a best substitute seller is determined by the central system, in step 532 the buyer's offer is sent to the substitute seller”) (0053-0054).
As per claims 12, Yorke discloses, wherein the vendor database is accessed by either scraping electronic resources associated with the plurality of vendors or by communicating with an application programming interface administered by each vendor (Examiner interprets accessing a vendor database as retrieving vendor pricing and inventory data from seller systems through a software interface that enables automated data exchange between vendor systems and a central system. Further scraping electronic resources or communicating with API, Yorke discloses API-based communication for accessing vendor databases) (“Then POS software 228, under control of controller 214, gathers and analyzes available inventory for sale based on the product information. The product information is transmitted via network 108 to central system 104. In one example, this is based on an application program interface (API) of a particular central system 104 that is in POS software 228 or associated with POS software 228 in each seller system 102. This API automatically links and/or synchronizes POS software to central system 104 to automatically transmit, receive, and/or synchronize data between the two. In one example, as described above, the API automatically links a seller system 102 to a specific central system 104 associated with its industry and/or to one or more central systems associated with its products” and “The API by itself does nothing, but when implemented by POS software 228 it allows the basic functions needed to have seller system 102 send its inventory to central system 104 automatically. It can provide a method to update those items online as their information changes at the store level”) (0029 and 0043).
As per claims 13, Yorke discloses, wherein the user has a preexisting user account with each vendor of the plurality of vendors (Examiner interprets preexisting user account as an established buyer or seller relationship represented by stored identifiers, credentials, or user data within vendor systems prior to a transaction) (“seller system 102 can be for a seller of products and/or services, and memory 216 can include software, firmware, or the like (hereinafter referred to as software), for example point-of-sale (POS) software 228 with many different platforms” and “each seller system 102 to central system 104 is based on entering a correct user name and password given to authorized seller systems 102. In another example, username/passwords are required with every access to the API. There is no logging on and logging off, per se. Each API function call requires a valid username/password that has permission to access information in a given store) (0028, 0041), wherein the method further comprises utilizing a user number associated with the user to verify the preexisting user account with each vendor to obtain the cost of the good or the service (Examiner interprets user number as a system-assigned identifier (e.g., user ID, buyer ID, or unique code) used by the central system to correlate user actions with vendor systems for purposes of retrieving pricing information) (“identification information includes the product information and unique ID code associated with this information, which allows each seller system 102 to remain anonymous with respect to each buyer system 106. Thus, in this example, only central system 104 will know both an identity of a seller and a buyer until a transaction is complete” and “the product is correlated to a seller using a central system. In step 508, the buyer's price is transmitted to the seller anonymously, e.g., via email, instant messaging, cell phone call or text messaging, or otherwise over a network (hereinafter, only email is discussed for brevity). For example, it can be an anonymous transaction because only user names, user ids, etc. are displayed in any communication between a seller and a buyer”) (0033 and 0050), and wherein the user number is not associated with an identity of the user (Examiner interprets not associated with an identity as maintaining anonymity of the user with respect to vendors by using abstracted identifiers rather than personally identifiable information) (“identification information includes the product information and unique ID code associated with this information, which allows each seller system 102 to remain anonymous with respect to each buyer system 106. Thus, in this example, only central system 104 will know both an identity of a seller and a buyer until a transaction is complete” and “the buyer's price is transmitted to the seller anonymously, e.g., via email, instant messaging, cell phone call or text messaging, or otherwise over a network (hereinafter, only email is discussed for brevity). For example, it can be an anonymous transaction because only user names, user ids, etc. are displayed in any communication between a seller and a buyer”) (0033 and 0050).
As per claims 16, Yorke discloses, wherein the account identifier is an authentication credential for the user (Examiner interprets account identifier as a credential used to authenticate and authorize access to a system, including a username, password, user ID, or unique code required to access vendor or seller systems) (“identification information includes the product information and unique ID code associated with this information, which allows each seller system 102 to remain anonymous with respect to each buyer system 106. Thus, in this example, only central system 104 will know both an identity of a seller and a buyer until a transaction is complete” and “each seller system 102 to central system 104 is based on entering a correct user name and password given to authorized seller systems 102. In another example, username/passwords are required with every access to the API. There is no logging on and logging off, per se. Each API function call requires a valid username/password that has permission to access information in a given store) (0033, 0041, 0050).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US. Pat. 8175930 (“Ourega”).
Ourega outlines a system featuring a data medium, product selector, shipping info collector, shipping parameter collector, shipping option calculator, shipping selector, shipping notification module, and transaction module. The product selector allows buyers to choose a product. The info collector gathers shipping service details from carriers. The parameter collector defines shipping specifics. The option calculator computes available services. The shipping selector picks a carrier's service. The notification module sends a request to the carrier, and the transaction module relays the carrier's response to the buyer.
26. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GAUTAM UBALE whose telephone number is (571)272-9861. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:00 AM- 6:30 PM PST.
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.
/GAUTAM UBALE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689