DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Office action is in response to communications filed on May 19th, 2026. Claim 1, 8, 13, and 15 is/are amended. 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. 10402878. 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. 10,402,878) with the similar limitations of method claim 1 of current child Application No. 18/902,046:
Claim 1 of Patented Application 10,402,878
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, by a user interface, 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;
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;
transmitting a selectable link to verify an identity of the user;
upon receiving a selection of the selectable link, verifying the identity of the user;
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;
performing a measurement, by the user interface, of an input rate of the user or a response time of the user;
determining that the user is human based on the measurement of the input rate or the response time;
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, 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.
and presenting, to the user by the user interface, 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, by a user interface, 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 an identity of the user;
upon receiving a selection of the selectable link, verifying the identity of the user;
performing a measurement, by the user interface, of an input rate of the user or a response time of the user;
determining that the user is human based on the measurement of the input rate or the response time;
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 user interface, the cost of the good or the service for each vendor of the plurality of vendors.
Claim 8: 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, by a user interface of a website, 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 an identity of the user;
upon receiving a selection of the selectable link, verifying the identity of the user based on stored identity data;
performing a measurement, by the user interface, of an input rate of the user or a response time of the user;
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 based on a user account of each vendor, wherein the user account does not include identification information of the user;
and presenting, to the user by the user interface provided by the website, the cost of the good or the service for each vendor of the plurality of vendors, wherein the cost of the good or the service is based on the user account.
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, by a user interface, 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 an identity of the user;
upon receiving a selection of the selectable link, verifying the identity of the user;
performing a measurement, by the user interface, of an input rate of the user or a response time of the user;
determining that the user is human based on the measurement of the input rate or the response time;
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 user interface, 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 1, 8, and 15 recite administering an intermediated commercial price inquiry between a user and a plurality of vendors, including receiving a user’s request for vendor pricing, verifying the requester, obtaining vendor-specific pricing information, and presenting the vendor pricing results to the user. Claim 8 further recites managing vendor specific user accounts and obtaining account based pricing while withholding user-identification information from the vendor accounts. Claim 15 further recites providing each vendor with an identifier for a preexisting account associated with the user and obtaining pricing based on that account. These limitations fall within the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity, particularly commercial interactions, sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. The identity, human status, account, and credential limitations govern who may participate in the commercial price inquiry and what vendor account benefits apply; the vendor contacting, cost obtainment, and presentation limitations carry out the commercial price comparison. Such steps can be performed conceptually by a human using conventional communication method and therefore falls under method of organizing human activity, 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”. 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 verifying or managing user-vendor account relationships, credentials, account identifiers, or pseudonymous user numbers. 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. Claims 4 and 18 are directed to an abstract idea of managing an omnibus account associating the user with multiple vendors. 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. Claims 5, 14, and 19 are directed to an abstract idea of expanding the commercial price inquiry to vendors with which the user lacks a preexisting relationship. 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, 11, and 12 are directed to an abstract idea of obtaining vendor pricing data from databases, electronic resources, scraping, or vendor administered interfaces, 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 prices based on user-specific commercial criteria such as location, transaction volume, or product type. 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, 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, user interface, 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, receiving a selection of the link, obtaining or using identity information following selection of the link, and measuring an input rate or response time are, to the extent they are treated as additional elements beyond the recited commercial interaction, pre-solution data-gathering and access screening activity. These limitations collect information used to determine whether the commercial price inquiry process will be permitted to proceed. Further, the limitation of presenting the respective vendor costs to the user is post-solution output activity. It reports the results of the commercial price inquiry after the vendor-specific costs have been obtained. Merely outputting the commercial results through a user interface does not impose a meaningful technological limit on the underlying commercial interaction (Independent Claims 1, 10, and 19, 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, receiving a selection of the link, obtaining or using identity information following selection of the link, and measuring an input rate or response time are, to the extent they are treated as additional elements beyond the recited commercial interaction, pre-solution data-gathering and access screening activity. These limitations collect information used to determine whether the commercial price inquiry process will be permitted to proceed. The claims recite the results of transmitting and selecting a link, verifying identity, measuring response behavior, and determining human status, but do not require a particular hyperlink validation protocol, cryptographic process, timing architecture, bot detection data structure, network security configuration, or other specific technological implementation. Further, the limitation of presenting the respective vendor costs to the user is post-solution output activity. It reports the results of the commercial price inquiry after the vendor-specific costs have been obtained. Merely outputting the commercial results through a user interface does not impose a meaningful technological limit on the underlying commercial interaction (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 1-2, 4-7 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. 20100306080 (“Trandal”) in view U.S. Pub. 20140317689 (“Mogush”) in further view of U.S. Pat. 7516220 (“Stiert”).
As per claims 1, Trandal discloses, secure computerized method of obtaining a cost from a plurality of vendors, comprising (Examiner interprets that Trandal discloses the computerized multi-vendor cost-obtainment method; Trandal discloses a computerized Shopping Assistant system for comparing merchant pricing. The Shopping Assistant has access to merchant pricing databases, queries local merchant databases, receives pricing results, and displays associated merchant costs i.e. Trandal describes a computerized Shopping Assistant system that receives user requests, accesses merchant-pricing databases, queries merchant databases or servers, receives merchant-pricing results, and presents merchant-specific costs through a web-based user interface) (0126, 0281-0283):
receiving, by a user interface, 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 the Shopping Assistant web page, controls, browser, or widget constitute the claimed user interface. The user’s selection of an item or shopping-list control constitutes a request to obtain costs. The SA server performs the price retrieval on behalf of the user from multiple merchants; “The SA server 800 receives the user request”; the Shopping Assistant has access to one or more merchant-pricing databases and queries local merchant databases for pricing of the user-selected item. ¶¶0211–0212 similarly disclose the user selecting the “On to Step 2” control, the SA server receiving the request, determining current prices at all merchants frequented by the user, and displaying expected total costs; The Shopping Assistant web page, browser interface, displayed controls, and/or client widget constitute the claimed user interface. The user’s selection of an item, shopping list, search control, or “On to Step 2” control constitutes a request to obtain cost information. The Shopping Assistant server performs the merchant-pricing retrieval on behalf of the user. The reference’s disclosure of determining prices at “all of the merchants frequented by the user” and querying “local merchant databases” corresponds to obtaining cost information from the recited plurality of vendors) (“The SA server 800 receives the user request. In this example, the SA system 1000 has access to one or more merchant pricing databases. The SA server 800 queries the local merchant 1100 databases for the pricing of the item "Surf Sunscreen" 31300 selected by the user, see FIG. 31 …”) (0281-0283, 0211-0212);
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 notes that the underlined limitation is disclosed by another prior art. Examiner notes that Trandal ¶0126: the Shopping Assistant may directly access merchant databases containing merchant items, pricing, and availability; it may pull merchant servers to retrieve item pricing. Trandal ¶¶0281–0282: in response to the user request, the server queries local merchant databases and receives pricing and availability results; Directly accessing or querying the respective merchant databases or merchant servers constitutes contacting the plurality of vendors. The pricing results returned by those databases or servers constitute obtaining the cost of the good or service from each vendor. In the proposed combination, these merchant-query operations are performed as the normal processing permitted after Stiert determines that the requester is human.) (0126, 0281-0283);
and presenting, to the user by the user interface, the cost of the good or the service for each vendor of the plurality of vendors (Examiner interprets that Trandal’s browser-displayed merchant list and separate merchant shopping lists constitute presentation by the claimed user interface. The item prices and expected total cost associated with each separately identified merchant satisfy presentation of the cost for each vendor of the plurality of vendors) (“The SA system 1000 displays the list of merchants and the associated expected costs 32400. The SA system optionally preselects the lowest cost merchant 32410, see FIG. 32. Optionally, out of stock items are flagged with a note 32300 in the displayed list, see FIG. 32.”) (0283, 0216).
Trandal specifically doesn’t disclose, transmitting a selectable link to verify an identity of the user, upon receiving a selection of the selectable link, verifying the identity of the user, however Mogush discloses, transmitting a selectable link to verify an identity of the user (Examiner interprets that Mogush’s emailed unique hyperlink constitutes the claimed selectable link. The identity verification hyperlink of Mogush ¶ 0033; not the separate email address validation hyperlink of Mogush ¶ 0031; is relied upon for this limitation. Mogush expressly states that the purpose of the follow-up hyperlink is to verify the user’s identity) (0033-0036);
upon receiving a selection of the selectable link, verifying the identity of the user (Examiner interprets that Mogush discloses the required sequence: transmission of link [Wingdings font/0xE0] user selects link [Wingdings font/0xE0] secure identity verification process [Wingdings font/0xE0] identity verified. Verification is based on consumer record information known to the true user; upon timely clicking the hyperlink, the user is redirected to a secured verification webpage and supplies legal name, residential address, and partial Social Security number. ¶¶0034–0036: the system retrieves information from consumer-record databases, asks questions based on that stored information, and deems the user’s identity verified after an acceptable number of correct answers i.e. verifies more than mere possession of an email account. The consumer record questions determine whether the person selecting the link is the person represented by the supplied identity information) (0033-0036).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for obtaining a cost from a plurality of vendors, receiving, by a user interface, 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, 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 user interface, the cost of the good or the service for each vendor of the plurality of vendors, as taught by Trandal, transmitting a selectable link to verify an identity of the user, upon receiving a selection of the selectable link, verifying the identity of the user, as taught by Mogush for the purpose to reduce unauthorized or fraudulent use of user accounts and merchant-specific pricing information, confirm that the requester is the person associated with the Shopping Assistant account, and provide vendors with greater assurance that requests involving their resources originate from a verified user.
Trandal specifically doesn’t disclose, performing a measurement, by the user interface, of an input rate of the user or a response time of the user, determining that the user is human based on the measurement of the input rate or the response time, responsive to determining that the user is human, however Stiert discloses, performing a measurement, by the user interface, of an input rate of the user or a response time of the user (Examiner interprets The phrase “by the user interface” encompasses a measurement performed as part of the computer system’s implementation and management of the user-interface session. In Stiert, the server supporting the web interface presents the task, records timestamps associated with the interface session, and calculates the response time. Thus, Stiert’s timestamp-based elapsed-time calculation expressly constitutes measurement of the user’s response time by the system implementing the user interface; the web-based interface prompts the user to complete a predetermined task and calculates a user-response time as the difference between when the task is presented and completed. Stiert records a begin timestamp, an end timestamp, and a session ID, then subtracts the begin timestamp from the end timestamp) (“Returning to FIG. 1, after ascertaining a MEHRT to complete a pre-determined task, the method may proceed to step 104, in which a user is prompted to complete the pre-determined task in response to user-access of a web-based interface …”) (Col. 4 Ln. 46-61; Col. 5 Ln. 10-26, Figs. 1-2);
determining that the user is human based on the measurement of the input rate or the response time (Examiner interprets Stiert expressly bases its human determination on the measured response time. Mogush and Stiert perform separate and complementary verification functions: Mogush verifies the identity of the person, while Stiert determines whether the current interaction is being performed by a human rather than an automated 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. 5 Ln. 10-26, Figs. 1-2);
responsive to determining that the user is human (Examiner notes that after the response satisfies the MEHRT, the user is determined to be human and “normal processing may continue.” i.e. Trandal’s contacting of merchant servers and obtaining of merchant-pricing results constitutes the normal processing that continues after Stiert’s human determination. Stiert therefore supplies the claimed control relationship, not merely the separate fact of human detection, because continuation of the underlying transaction processing is conditioned on the successful human determination.) (Col. 5).
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 obtaining a cost from a plurality of vendors, receiving, by a user interface, 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, 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 user interface, the cost of the good or the service for each vendor of the plurality of vendors, as taught by Trandal, performing a measurement, by the user interface, of an input rate of the user or a response time of the user, determining that the user is human based on the measurement of the input rate or the response time, responsive to determining that the user is human, as taught by Stiert for the purpose to prevent automated or abusive querying, scraping, or consumption of merchant-pricing resources; reduce unnecessary load on the Shopping Assistant and merchant servers; and allow merchant-pricing queries to proceed when the interface interaction exhibits the response-time characteristics of a human user.
As per claims 15, Trandal discloses, 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 (Examiner interprets Trandal’s stored executable instructions, computer-readable memory, databases, and software installed on processor-based systems satisfy the recited non-transitory computer-readable-media implementation. Trandal’s Shopping Assistant performs the underlying multi-vendor cost obtainment method; that the disclosed functions are performed by executable code and instructions stored in computer-readable media and running on one or more processor-based systems. Trandal also discloses software programs downloaded from the server and installed on the user’s computer) (0085):
receiving, by a user interface, 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 Trandal’s Shopping Assistant website, browser-displayed web pages, controls, and widgets constitute the claimed website user interface. Selecting the product, shopping list, search function, or displayed control constitutes a request to obtain vendor pricing. The Shopping Assistant performs the request on behalf of the user across multiple merchants; Trandal ¶0281 teaches that the Shopping Assistant server receives the user request, has access to one or more merchant-pricing databases, and queries local merchant databases for pricing of the user-selected item. ¶¶0211–0212 teach that the user selects an interface control, the server receives the request, determines current prices at all merchants frequented by the user, and displays associated expected total costs) (0281, 0211-0212);
responsive to determining that the user is human, contacting the plurality of vendors (Examiner notes that the underlined limitation is disclosed by another prior art. Examiner notes that Trandal ¶0126: the Shopping Assistant may directly access merchant databases containing merchant items, pricing, and availability; it may pull merchant servers to retrieve item pricing. Trandal ¶¶0281–0282: in response to the user request, the server queries local merchant databases and receives pricing and availability results; Directly accessing or querying the respective merchant databases or merchant servers constitutes contacting the plurality of vendors. The pricing results returned by those databases or servers constitute obtaining the cost of the good or service from each vendor. In the proposed combination, these merchant-query operations are performed as the normal processing permitted after Stiert determines that the requester is human) (0126, 0281-0283) and providing each vendor of the plurality of vendors with an account identifier identifying a preexisting user account with each vendor (Examiner interprets that the loyalty, rewards, or membership account constitutes a preexisting user account with the respective vendor. The membership ID, subscriber identifier, telephone number, or account number constitutes the claimed account identifier. Supplying the identifier in a merchant-specific database query or electronically transmitted shopping request constitutes providing the identifier to the vendor. Because Trandal stores account information for multiple selected merchants and performs merchant-specific communications, the disclosed operation is applied to each selected vendor using the corresponding vendor-recognized identifier; Trandal ¶0300 teaches that the user provides the Shopping Assistant access to accounts at several local merchants and that the system uses the user’s merchant user ID or another identifier as an access key. Trandal ¶0306 teaches that the user selects one or more merchants and provides identifiers used by the merchants to access the user’s loyalty, rewards, or membership accounts. Trandal ¶0311 teaches that a merchant-database query includes a unique subscriber identifier, such as the user’s membership ID or telephone number, recognized by the merchant. Trandal also teaches electronically sending a merchant-specific shopping list to the merchant together with a merchant user identifier, such as the user’s merchant-membership ID or telephone number) (0300, 0305-0307, 0311), wherein the preexisting user account is associated with the user (The repeated description of the account as the user’s merchant account and of the identifier as the user’s membership ID establishes that the preexisting account is associated with the user. Unlike claim 8, claim 15 does not require the vendor account to omit the user’s identification information; Trandal ¶0300 expressly refers to the user’s accounts at several local merchants and to the user’s merchant user ID. ¶0306 identifies the relevant accounts as the user’s loyalty, rewards, or membership accounts. ¶0311identifies the query identifier as the user’s membership ID or telephone number recognized by the merchant) (0300, 0305-0307, 0311);
obtaining the cost of the good or the service from each vendor based on the preexisting user account (Examiner interprets that a “member price,” membership discount, loyalty discount, or rebate available because of the user’s vendor account is a cost based on the preexisting user account. Trandal’s use of the merchant-recognized identifier allows the merchant or Shopping Assistant to identify the applicable account and obtain or calculate the price available through that account; Trandal discloses that the user provides the Shopping Assistant access to her accounts at several local merchants using merchant-recognized identifiers (¶0300), including identifiers used by the merchants to access the user’s loyalty, rewards, or membership accounts (¶¶0306–0307). Trandal further discloses presenting item pricing and expected total costs for multiple merchants, wherein the displayed prices include member discounts and member rebates (¶0335). Trandal additionally teaches transmitting the user’s membership identifier to a merchant and automatically crediting the user with the corresponding membership discount (¶¶0341–0342). Therefore, the disclosed merchant-specific costs are based on the user’s preexisting loyalty, rewards, or membership account.) (0300, 0306-0307, 0335, and 0341-0342);
and presenting, to the user by the user interface, the cost of the good or the service for each vendor of the plurality of vendors (Examiner interprets that Trandal’s returned web pages, merchant lists, and merchant-specific shopping lists constitute presentation by the website user interface. Separate prices and expected costs associated with the identified merchants satisfy the requirement to present the cost for each vendor; Trandal ¶0283 teaches displaying a list of merchants and their associated expected costs. ¶0216 teaches displaying separate merchant shopping lists, item pricing, and expected total shopping costs at each merchant) (0216, 0283), wherein the cost of the good or the service is based on the user account (Examiner interprets that Trandal’s member price and membership discounts constitute costs determined based on the user’s merchant account. In the proposed modification, Fields’ anonymous SCID or token is used to recognize the applicable vendor account or membership status without disclosing the user’s identity, while still allowing the vendor to provide the account-specific price or discount i.e. Trandal ¶0367 teaches displaying the user’s current sale price, merchant retail price, and member price for items previously purchased through the associated merchant. Other Trandal embodiments display prices including merchant-membership discounts and rebates. Fields additionally teaches anonymous certification of group membership, such as AAA membership, which permits discounts at vendor sites and allows the vendor to determine access rights or cost without receiving identifying information) (0367).
Trandal specifically doesn’t disclose, transmitting a selectable link to verify an identity of the user and upon receiving a selection of the selectable link, verifying the identity of the user based on stored identity data, however Mogush discloses, transmitting a selectable link to verify an identity of the user (Examiner interprets Mogush’s unique emailed hyperlink constitutes a selectable link. The examiner relies on the identity-verification hyperlink of ¶0033, rather than the separate email-address-validation hyperlink disclosed earlier in Mogush i.e. Mogush ¶0033 teaches that, after validating the user’s email address, the computing system sends a follow-up email to the validated email address containing a unique hyperlink that the user must click to verify the user’s identity.) (0031-0033);
upon receiving a selection of the selectable link, verifying the identity of the user (Examiner interprets that Mogush discloses the claimed sequence: transmission of the link, selection of the link, initiation of a secure verification process, and verification that the requester possesses the asserted identity. The verification is more than merely confirming control of an email address because it uses consumer-record information known to the true user i.e. Mogush ¶0033 teaches that selection of the hyperlink redirects the user to a secured verification webpage. Mogush ¶¶0034–0036 teach obtaining the user’s legal name, address, and partial Social Security number; retrieving consumer-record information; asking verification questions based on that information; and deeming the identity verified when the required questions are answered correctly) (0033-0036).
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 Trandal, transmitting a selectable link to verify an identity of the user and upon receiving a selection of the selectable link, verifying the identity of the user based on stored identity data, as taught by Mogush for the purpose to reduce unauthorized or fraudulent use of user accounts and merchant-specific pricing information, confirm that the requester is the person associated with the Shopping Assistant account, and provide vendors with greater assurance that requests involving their resources originate from a verified user.
Trandal specifically doesn’t disclose, performing a measurement, by the user interface, of an input rate of the user or a response time of the user, verifying the identity of the user based on stored identity data, however Stiert discloses, performing a measurement, by the user interface, of an input rate of the user or a response time of the user (Examiner interprets the phrase “by the user interface” encompasses measurement by the server or processing system implementing the interface session. Stiert’s interface presents the task, records session timestamps, and calculates the elapsed response time i.e. Stiert, col. 4 and Fig. 1, teaches prompting the user to complete a predetermined task through a web-based interface and calculating the user-response time as the difference between when the task is presented and completed. Col. 5 and Fig. 2 teach recording begin and end timestamps associated with a session identifier and calculating the elapsed response time) (Col.4-5, Fig. 1);
determining that the user is human based on the measurement of the input rate or the response time (Examiner interprets that Stiert separately verifies that the present interaction is performed by a human rather than an automated process. Stiert expressly bases this determination on the measured response time; Stiert, col. 5 and Fig. 1, compares the measured response time with a minimum expected human response time, or MEHRT. A response time greater than or equal to the MEHRT results in a determination that the user is human; a shorter response results in a robot determination) (Col. 5, Fig. 1);
responsive to determining that the user is human (Examiner notes that after the response satisfies the MEHRT, the user is determined to be human and “normal processing may continue.” i.e. Trandal’s contacting of merchant servers and obtaining of merchant-pricing results constitutes the normal processing that continues after Stiert’s human determination. Stiert therefore supplies the claimed control relationship, not merely the separate fact of human detection, because continuation of the underlying transaction processing is conditioned on the successful human determination.) (Col. 5).
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 Trandal, performing a measurement, by the user interface, of an input rate of the user or a response time of the user, determining that the user is human based on the measurement of the input rate or the response time, responsive to determining that the user is human, as taught by Stiert for the purpose to prevent automated or abusive querying, scraping, or consumption of merchant-pricing resources; reduce unnecessary load on the Shopping Assistant and merchant servers; and allow merchant-pricing queries to proceed when the interface interaction exhibits the response-time characteristics of a human user.
As per claims 2, Trandal discloses, further comprising verifying an association of the user with the plurality of vendors by a preexisting user account (Examiner interprets the user’s loyalty, rewards, or membership account is a preexisting account with the respective vendor. Successful use of a merchant-recognized identifier to retrieve the user-specific purchase history confirms, and therefore verifies, the association between the user and that vendor. Repetition for the selected merchants verifies the association with the plurality of vendors; Trandal ¶0300 teaches that the user gives the Shopping Assistant access to her accounts at several local merchants and that the system accesses merchant purchase histories using the user’s merchant user ID or another identifier as an access key. ¶¶0306–0307 teach that the user supplies identifiers used by the merchants to access loyalty, rewards, or membership accounts and that the Shopping Assistant stores that merchant-account information. ¶¶0311–0312 teach querying the merchant database using a unique subscriber identifier recognized by the merchant and receiving the user’s item-purchase history in response) (0300, 0306-0307, 0311-0312).
As per claims 4 and 18, Trandal 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 Trandal’s single Shopping Assistant customer account is an omnibus account because it centrally stores and manages the user’s account information for several merchants. The merchant user IDs, membership IDs, telephone numbers, or account numbers are the claimed identification indicia because they associate the centrally maintained user account with the respective vendor accounts; Trandal ¶¶0303–0307 teach creating a customer account in the Shopping Assistant Database, presenting multiple merchants, receiving merchant-account identifiers, and storing the merchant-account information in the centralized Shopping Assistant Database) (0303-0307, 0311);
and obtaining the cost of the good or the service from each of the plurality of vendors using the identification indicia (Examiner interprets that Trandal teaches using each stored subscriber identifier in a query to the corresponding merchant database. Trandal further displays prices including membership discounts and rebates i.e. use of those indicia to access merchant information and obtain member pricing satisfies obtaining cost using the identification indicia) (0311, 0303-0307).
As per claims 5 and 19, Trandal 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 that a merchant from which the user has never purchased and for which no user account or purchase information has been entered is a “new vendor” under a reasonable interpretation i.e. Trandal ¶0158 displays local merchants and their fuel costs and expressly distinguishes merchants from which the user has not previously purchased and for which no user purchase information exists. ¶0162 teaches that, when the user has not frequented merchants at a selected location, the system uses merchant-pricing information, selects merchants at that location, determines the total cost, and displays the comparison) (0158-0162);
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 that querying the new merchant’s external database constitutes contacting the new vendor, and displaying the merchant and its associated cost satisfies presenting the cost from each new vendor querying external merchant databases, receiving pricing results, and displaying merchants with their associated expected costs i.e. Querying the new merchant’s external database constitutes contacting the new vendor, and displaying the merchant and its associated cost satisfies presenting the cost from each new vendor) (0275-0283).
As per claims 6, Trandal 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 Trandal ¶0121 teaches an interface to an external database or data store managed by a merchant and electronically accessing and querying that merchant database. ¶0131 teaches querying merchant databases and using a direct server to server notification interface i.e. its disclosed software interface to a merchant-managed external database, through which the Shopping Assistant electronically submits database queries and receives data, reasonably constitutes an application programming interface administered by the vendor) (0121 and 0131).
As per claims 7 and 20, Trandal 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 that Trandal ¶0129 teaches using GPS coordinates and user-profile location information when calculating optimal shopping lists and travel-related costs. ¶¶0246-0247 teach receiving a user-selected location, querying pricing information, and displaying the lowest prices at that location, subject to the user’s profile and available discounts i.e. user’s GPS coordinates, home address, city, ZIP code, or selected geographic location constitute the claimed location of the user. Trandal uses this parameter to select vendors and calculate or compare the costs available to the user.) (0129, 0246-0247).
As per claims 16, Trandal discloses, wherein the account identifier is an authentication credential for the user (Examiner interprets an identifier presented to a merchant to establish entitlement to access the user’s account constitutes an authentication credential under a broad but reasonable interpretation. Trandal’s merchant user ID, membership ID, or account number functions as an access key recognized by the merchant and authenticates the account to which the request relates i.e. Trandal ¶0300 teaches using the merchant user ID or another identifier as an access key to the user’s merchant information. ¶0306 teaches identifiers used by merchants to access the user’s loyalty, rewards, or membership accounts, including an account number. ¶0311teaches submitting a subscriber identifier recognized by the merchant in a merchant-database query) (0300, 0306, 0311).
As per claims 17, Trandal 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 that Trandal ¶0300 teaches a server-to-server interface that accesses user purchase history at several merchants using the merchant user ID or another identifier as an access key. ¶0121teaches electronically accessing and querying a merchant-managed database using a user identifier, such as a club or reward membership number. ¶0176 teaches a widget that authenticates into the Shopping Assistant website and displays purchase history retrieved from merchant sites or databases i.e. merchant database, merchant server, or merchant website is an electronic resource associated with the vendor. The merchant-recognized identifier operates as an access key that enables direct server-to-server retrieval of the user’s merchant information. “Enables the user” encompasses access performed by the Shopping Assistant on the user’s behalf using the user’s identifier.) (0300, 0121, 0176).
Claims 8-14 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. 20100306080 (“Trandal”) in view U.S. Pub. 20140317689 (“Mogush”) in further view of U.S. Pat. 7516220 (“Stiert”) in further view U.S. Pat. 7454356 (“Fields”).
As per claims 8, Trandal discloses, 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 (Examiner interprets Trandal’s stored executable instructions, computer-readable memory, databases, and software installed on processor-based systems satisfy the recited non-transitory computer-readable-media implementation. Trandal’s Shopping Assistant performs the underlying multi-vendor cost obtainment method; that the disclosed functions are performed by executable code and instructions stored in computer-readable media and running on one or more processor-based systems. Trandal also discloses software programs downloaded from the server and installed on the user’s computer) (0085):
receiving, by a user interface of a website, 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 Trandal’s Shopping Assistant website, browser-displayed web pages, controls, and widgets constitute the claimed website user interface. Selecting the product, shopping list, search function, or displayed control constitutes a request to obtain vendor pricing. The Shopping Assistant performs the request on behalf of the user across multiple merchants; Trandal ¶0281 teaches that the Shopping Assistant server receives the user request, has access to one or more merchant-pricing databases, and queries local merchant databases for pricing of the user-selected item. ¶¶0211–0212 teach that the user selects an interface control, the server receives the request, determines current prices at all merchants frequented by the user, and displays associated expected total costs) (0281, 0211-0212);
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 notes that the underlined limitation is disclosed by another prior art. Examiner notes that Trandal ¶0126: the Shopping Assistant may directly access merchant databases containing merchant items, pricing, and availability; it may pull merchant servers to retrieve item pricing. Trandal ¶¶0281–0282: in response to the user request, the server queries local merchant databases and receives pricing and availability results; Directly accessing or querying the respective merchant databases or merchant servers constitutes contacting the plurality of vendors. The pricing results returned by those databases or servers constitute obtaining the cost of the good or service from each vendor. In the proposed combination, these merchant-query operations are performed as the normal processing permitted after Stiert determines that the requester is human) (0126, 0281-0283) based on a user account of each vendor (Examiner interprets that Each loyalty, rewards, or membership account is a user account maintained or recognized by the respective vendor. The merchant-recognized account identifier permits the Shopping Assistant to access vendor-specific account information and obtain account-related pricing; Trandal ¶0300 teaches that the user gives the Shopping Assistant access to accounts at several local merchants and that the system uses the user’s merchant user ID or other identifier as an access key. ¶¶0305–0307 teach selecting merchants, supplying identifiers used by those merchants to access loyalty, rewards, or membership accounts, and storing the merchant-account information. ¶0311 teaches querying each merchant with a unique subscriber identifier recognized by that merchant) (0300, 0305-0307, 0311), wherein the user account does not include identification information of the user (Examiner notes that the underlined limitation is disclosed by another prior art);
and presenting, to the user by the user interface provided by the website, the cost of the good or the service for each vendor of the plurality of vendors (Examiner interprets that Trandal’s returned web pages, merchant lists, and merchant-specific shopping lists constitute presentation by the website user interface. Separate prices and expected costs associated with the identified merchants satisfy the requirement to present the cost for each vendor; Trandal ¶0283 teaches displaying a list of merchants and their associated expected costs. ¶0216 teaches displaying separate merchant shopping lists, item pricing, and expected total shopping costs at each merchant) (0216, 0283), wherein the cost of the good or the service is based on the user account (Examiner interprets that Trandal’s member price and membership discounts constitute costs determined based on the user’s merchant account. In the proposed modification, Fields’ anonymous SCID or token is used to recognize the applicable vendor account or membership status without disclosing the user’s identity, while still allowing the vendor to provide the account-specific price or discount i.e. Trandal ¶0367 teaches displaying the user’s current sale price, merchant retail price, and member price for items previously purchased through the associated merchant. Other Trandal embodiments display prices including merchant-membership discounts and rebates. Fields additionally teaches anonymous certification of group membership, such as AAA membership, which permits discounts at vendor sites and allows the vendor to determine access rights or cost without receiving identifying information) (0367).
Trandal specifically doesn’t disclose, transmitting a selectable link to verify an identity of the user and upon receiving a selection of the selectable link, verifying the identity of the user based on stored identity data, however Mogush discloses, transmitting a selectable link to verify an identity of the user (Examiner interprets Mogush’s emailed hyperlink is the claimed selectable link. The examiner relies on the identity-verification hyperlink of ¶0033, not merely the separate email-address-validation hyperlink of ¶0031; sending a follow-up email to the user’s validated email address containing a unique hyperlink that the user must click to verify the user’s identity) (0031-0033);
upon receiving a selection of the selectable link, verifying the identity of the user based on stored identity data (Examiner interprets that Mogush teaches the required sequence: transmitting the hyperlink, receiving its selection, initiating a secure verification session, comparing the user’s responses with stored consumer-record information, and verifying the asserted identity. The information maintained in the consumer-record databases constitutes the claimed stored identity data; Mogush ¶0033 teaches that selecting the hyperlink redirects the user to a secured verification webpage. ¶¶0034–0036 teach retrieving information from stored consumer-record databases, asking questions based on that information, and deeming the identity verified when the user correctly answers an acceptable number of questions) (0033-0036).
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 Trandal, transmitting a selectable link to verify an identity of the user and upon receiving a selection of the selectable link, verifying the identity of the user based on stored identity data, as taught by Mogush for the purpose to reduce unauthorized or fraudulent use of user accounts and merchant-specific pricing information, confirm that the requester is the person associated with the Shopping Assistant account, and provide vendors with greater assurance that requests involving their resources originate from a verified user.
Trandal specifically doesn’t disclose, performing a measurement, by the user interface, of an input rate of the user or a response time of the user, verifying the identity of the user based on stored identity data, however Stiert discloses, performing a measurement, by the user interface, of an input rate of the user or a response time of the user (Examiner interprets the phrase “by the user interface” encompasses measurement by the server or processing system implementing the interface session. Stiert’s interface presents the task, records session timestamps, and calculates the elapsed response time i.e. Stiert, col. 4 and Fig. 1, teaches prompting the user to complete a predetermined task through a web-based interface and calculating the user-response time as the difference between when the task is presented and completed. Col. 5 and Fig. 2 teach recording begin and end timestamps associated with a session identifier and calculating the elapsed response time) (Col.4-5, Fig. 1);
determining that the user is human based on the measurement of the input rate or the response time to access the website (Examiner interprets that Stiert separately verifies that the present interaction is performed by a human rather than an automated process. Stiert expressly bases this determination on the measured response time; Stiert, col. 5 and Fig. 1, compares the measured response time with a minimum expected human response time, or MEHRT. A response time greater than or equal to the MEHRT results in a determination that the user is human; a shorter response results in a robot determination) (Col. 5, Fig. 1);
responsive to determining that the user is human (Examiner notes that after the response satisfies the MEHRT, the user is determined to be human and “normal processing may continue.” i.e. Trandal’s contacting of merchant servers and obtaining of merchant-pricing results constitutes the normal processing that continues after Stiert’s human determination. Stiert therefore supplies the claimed control relationship, not merely the separate fact of human detection, because continuation of the underlying transaction processing is conditioned on the successful human determination.) (Col. 5).
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 Trandal, performing a measurement, by the user interface, of an input rate of the user or a response time of the user, determining that the user is human based on the measurement of the input rate or the response time, responsive to determining that the user is human, as taught by Stiert for the purpose to prevent automated or abusive querying, scraping, or consumption of merchant-pricing resources; reduce unnecessary load on the Shopping Assistant and merchant servers; and allow merchant-pricing queries to proceed when the interface interaction exhibits the response-time characteristics of a human user.
Trandal specifically doesn’t disclose, wherein the user account does not include identification information of the user, however Fields discloses, wherein the user account does not include identification information of the user (Examiner notes that the vendor-side record keyed to the SCID constitutes the claimed user account of the vendor. It permits the vendor to recognize and maintain user-specific account information without including the user’s identifying information. Although the billing agent may separately retain the user’s identifying information, the account or record available to the individual vendor is anonymous and does not identify the user; Fields teaches a site-specific customer identifier, or SCID, that uniquely identifies the user to a particular vendor while differing for each vendor. The vendor can maintain its own user-specific database and recognize the same returning customer while still not knowing who the customer is. Fields also teaches that a session token identifies a valid user session but contains no information identifying the user; On the another note, Fields does not independently supply Trandal’s plurality of conventional merchant accounts. Rather, Fields teaches that an anonymous user-specific identifier and verified account or affiliation status may be used by a vendor to determine the treatment or cost applicable to that user but discloses a vendor receiving and validating a user-session token. The vendor may use affiliation certification to determine whether the customer is a member of an organization for purposes of determining access rights or cost. The vendor requests affiliation confirmation for an organization offering a special deal and receives a response associated with the customer’s SCID.) (Col. 6 Ln. 38-55, Col. 8 Ln. 53-65, col. 9 Ln. 1-31, col. 5, Ln. 1-15).
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 Trandal, wherein the user account does not include identification information of the user, as taught by Fields for the purpose to preserve vendor-account recognition and member-pricing functions while reducing disclosure of personally identifying information to the vendors.
As per claims 9, Trandal 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 that Trandal ¶¶0306–0307 teach that the user selects one or more merchants, supplies identifiers used by the merchants to access the user’s loyalty, rewards, or membership accounts, selects a “register my local merchant” control, and causes the merchant-account information to be stored in the Shopping Assistant database. ¶¶0311–0312 teach querying a merchant database using a unique subscriber identifier recognized by the merchant and receiving the user’s merchant-specific purchase history i.e. Successful use of the merchant-recognized identifier and receipt of the corresponding user-specific purchase history verifies that the user is associated with the preexisting merchant account.) (0306-0307, 0311-0312).
As per claims 10, Trandal 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 that Trandal ¶0300 teaches a server-to-server interface that accesses user purchase history at several merchants using the merchant user ID or another identifier as an access key. ¶0121teaches electronically accessing and querying a merchant-managed database using a user identifier, such as a club or reward membership number. ¶0176 teaches a widget that authenticates into the Shopping Assistant website and displays purchase history retrieved from merchant sites or databases i.e. merchant database, merchant server, or merchant website is an electronic resource associated with the vendor. The merchant-recognized identifier operates as an access key that enables direct server-to-server retrieval of the user’s merchant information. “Enables the user” encompasses access performed by the Shopping Assistant on the user’s behalf using the user’s identifier.) (0300, 0121, 0176).
As per claims 11, Trandal 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 that Trandal ¶0281 teaches that the Shopping Assistant has access to one or more merchant-pricing databases and queries local merchant databases for pricing of the user-selected item. ¶0282 teaches receiving the pricing results and item availability from the merchant databases. ¶0283teaches displaying the merchants and associated expected costs. Trandal also determines current prices at all merchants frequented by the user and displays each merchant’s expected total cost i.e. each merchant-pricing database is a vendor database associated with the corresponding vendor. Querying the respective merchant databases to retrieve item pricing constitutes accessing a vendor database of each vendor to determine cost.) (0281-0283).
As per claims 12, Trandal 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 Trandal ¶0121 teaches an interface to an external database or data store managed by a merchant and electronically accessing and querying that merchant database. ¶0131 teaches querying merchant databases and using a direct server to server notification interface i.e. its disclosed software interface to a merchant-managed external database, through which the Shopping Assistant electronically submits database queries and receives data, reasonably constitutes an application programming interface administered by the vendor) (0121 and 0131).
As per claims 13, Trandal discloses, wherein the method further comprises utilizing a user number associated with the user to verify a preexisting user account with each vendor to obtain the cost of the good or the service, and wherein the user number is not associated with the identity of the user (Examiner notes that the underlined limitation is disclosed by another prior art. Examiner interprets that Trandal ¶¶0306–0307 teach merchant-account identifiers used to access the user’s loyalty, rewards, or membership accounts. ¶¶0311–0312 teach including a unique subscriber identifier, such as the user’s membership ID, in a merchant-database query and receiving the user-specific merchant history. Trandal further displays merchant-specific member prices and savings. ¶0367 identifies current sale price, retail price, member price, and user savings) (0306-0312, 0367).
Trandal specifically doesn’t disclose, to verify a preexisting user account with each vendor to obtain the cost of the good or the service, and wherein the user number is not associated with the identity of the user, however Fields discloses, to verify a preexisting user account with each vendor to obtain the cost of the good or the service, and wherein the user number is not associated with the identity of the user (Examiner notes that Fields teaches a site-specific customer identifier, or SCID, that uniquely identifies the user at a particular vendor site, differs among sites, allows the vendor to recognize and maintain information for the same user, and still prevents the vendor from knowing who the customer is. Fields, col. 6, ll. 38–55. Fields also teaches anonymously verifying membership status that qualifies the user for discounts at vendor sites) (Col. 6 Ln. 38-55, Col. 7, Ln. 1-15, Col. 5, Ln. 1-15).
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 Trandal, Examiner, as taught by Fields for the purpose to preserve vendor-account recognition and member-pricing functions while reducing disclosure of personally identifying information to the vendors.
As per claims 14, Trandal 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 that a merchant from which the user has never purchased and for which no user account or purchase information has been entered is a “new vendor” under a reasonable interpretation i.e. Trandal ¶0158 displays local merchants and their fuel costs and expressly distinguishes merchants from which the user has not previously purchased and for which no user purchase information exists. ¶0162 teaches that, when the user has not frequented merchants at a selected location, the system uses merchant-pricing information, selects merchants at that location, determines the total cost, and displays the comparison) (0158-0162);
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 that querying the new merchant’s external database constitutes contacting the new vendor, and displaying the merchant and its associated cost satisfies presenting the cost from each new vendor querying external merchant databases, receiving pricing results, and displaying merchants with their associated expected costs i.e. Querying the new merchant’s external database constitutes contacting the new vendor, and displaying the merchant and its associated cost satisfies presenting the cost from each new vendor) (0275-0283).
As per claims 3, Trandal specifically doesn’t disclose, 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, however Fields 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 notes that Fields’ vendor-specific SCID or anonymous token replaces the identifying merchant credential supplied to the vendor. Each vendor can confirm the user’s associated account or record without receiving the name, address, telephone number, or other identification information maintained by the intermediary or Billing Agent; Fields teaches a token identifying a valid user session that contains no information identifying the user, while still providing account-related capabilities. Fields also teaches a site-specific customer identifier, or SCID, that uniquely identifies the user at a particular vendor, differs at each vendor, permits the vendor to recognize the returning user and maintain user-specific information, yet allows the vendor to do so without knowing who the customer is.) (Col. 5, Ln. 1-15, Col. 6 Ln. 38-55, Col. 8 Ln. 53-65, col. 9 Ln. 1-31).
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 Trandal, 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, as taught by Fields for the purpose to preserve vendor-account recognition and member-pricing functions while reducing disclosure of personally identifying information to the vendors.
Response to Arguments
With regards to Double Patenting rejections:
The nonstatutory double-patenting rejection is maintained because the amended claims remain obvious variants of, and are not patentably distinct from, the claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,402,878.
With regards to § 101 rejections:
The arguments filed on May 19th, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C 101 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive/moot. The rejection is maintained and updated to address the amended claims.
Applicant states that, the claims are directed to an improved graphical user interface and a technical security barrier because the interface measures the user’s input rate or response time to determine whether the user is human. Applicant analogizes the claims to Trading Technologies, Core Wireless, and DDR Holdings. Remarks 8-10.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims, however, do not recite a specific graphical user interface structure, display arrangement, interface state, or improvement in the operation of a user interface. They merely recite a generic “user interface” that receives a pricing request, transmits a link, measures response behavior, contacts vendors, and displays vendor prices. The substance of the claims is therefore administering a verified, multi-vendor commercial price inquiry, including determining whether a requester is eligible to proceed, obtaining account-specific prices, and presenting the commercial results. The claimed identity verification and human determination govern access to the commercial transaction but do not change the fundamental character of the claimed process. The claims therefore recite a certain method of organizing human activity; specifically, a commercial interaction involving vendor relationships, account eligibility, price acquisition, and price presentation.
Applicant states that, measuring response time or input rate through the interface prevents spoofing and provides a higher level of security than the prior art. Remarks 10-11.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims, however, do not recite any specific task used to produce the measurement or a particular timestamp or session data structure, a technical identity verification protocol or any change in the functioning of the computer, interface, or network. Instead, the claims state the desired results, measuring an input rate or response time and determining that the user is human, at a functional level. Preventing unauthorized access is a beneficial result, but a claimed result does not itself establish an improvement to computer functionality. The claims use the computer and interface as tools to screen participation in the commercial pricing process rather than improving how computers, interfaces, networks, or bot-detection systems operate. The current MPEP requires consideration of the claim as a whole and any technological improvement described in the specification, but distinguishes between an actual improvement to computer capabilities and using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract process.
Applicant states that, claims include "significantly more" than the alleged abstract idea and that the ordered combination supplies an inventive concept under BASCOM because the interface functions as a security barrier. Remarks 11-12.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Unlike BASCOM, however, the claims do not recite a nonconventional arrangement of computer components, a particular network location at which a security function is performed, or a specific technical architecture that improves the operation of an existing system. The ordered combination merely performs the following sequence: receive a commercial pricing request [Wingdings font/0xE0] verify identity [Wingdings font/0xE0] measure response behavior [Wingdings font/0xE0] determine that the requester is human [Wingdings font/0xE0] contact vendors [Wingdings font/0xE0] obtain account-based prices [Wingdings font/0xE0] display the prices. Ordering generic computer functions around a commercial transaction does not provide significantly more than the commercial interaction itself. The claims do not identify any unconventional interaction among the processor, interface, selectable link, vendor databases, or network components. Applicant’s assertion that the claimed arrangement is not well-understood, routine, or conventional is conclusory. The response does not identify a claimed technical feature or arrangement that changes the normal operation of the computer or network. Further, novelty or non-obviousness of the commercial arrangement, even if established, would not by itself establish eligibility under §101. Further, Trading Technologies and Core Wireless involved specifically claimed graphical interface arrangements and particular manners of displaying or accessing information. The present claims do not define any comparable interface structure or display configuration. DDR Holdings involved a particular modification to conventional internet operation that generated a hybrid webpage having characteristics of two different sources. Here, the selectable link performs its ordinary function of allowing a user to select an electronic link and proceed to verification. The claims do not modify hyperlink operation, webpage generation, or internet architecture. Accordingly, the claims merely use conventional network and interface components in the environment of a multi-vendor commercial transaction rather than reciting a solution necessarily rooted in computer technology. Finally, the selectable link, identity verification, and response measurement steps are access screening and data gathering steps performed before the vendor pricing transaction proceeds. They obtain information used to decide whether the requester may continue to the commercial process. Presentation of the vendor costs is post-solution output reporting the results of that commercial process. The claims do not meaningfully limit how those operations are technologically performed. Transmitting a link, receiving its selection, measuring elapsed response behavior, and displaying results through a generic interface do not transform the underlying commercial price inquiry into an improvement to technology. The limitations of contacting vendors, providing or using vendor account identifiers, obtaining account based prices, and comparing vendor costs are part of the abstract commercial interaction itself rather than technological additional elements. Under MPEP §2106.05(g), nominal data gathering and result presentation do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application merely because they are performed electronically. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
With regards to § 103 rejections:
Applicant's arguments, see pages 15-20, filed May 19th, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C 102/103 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive/moots on new ground of rejection.
Thus, the dependent claims that depend from independent claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively are also moots.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US. Pat. 7792709 (“Trandal”).
Trandal outlines a system to create a more convenient, reliable, complete, and secure record keeping process for purchased items. In addition, embodiments of the present invention provide methods and systems to enable a service provider to offer price comparison services (or shopping assistance) that include searching, organizing, and storing purchase records and to assist consumer purchase decisions. In addition, internal and external databases/data stores are queried to link or further enhance the data/objects organized and stored related to consumer purchases. In addition, certain methods and systems described herein facilitate the creation of shopping lists which optionally include local price comparisons. In addition, certain methods and system described herein provide price alert notification services related to items typically purchased by a consumer.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights