DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the submission filed on 12/9/2024.
Claims 2-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 4-5, 7-10, 12-14, 16, 18-21, 25-26 and 28-30 of U.S. Patent No. 12165182. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the entire scope of the reference claims falls within the scope of the examined claims. See MPEP 804(II)(B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: the claims fall under statutory categories of processes and/or machines.
Claim 2:
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite: accessing a chat between users, analyzing content of chat, determining the chat involves a transaction, generating an invoice based on the analyzing, and providing the invoice. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions, including sales activities or behaviors and agreement in the form of contracts.
Step 2A Prong 2: Said judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements: an electronic platform, user devices, user-engageable element of a user interface on a display of a user device, and a computerized assistant, individually and in combination, merely use a computer (see MPEP 2106.05f.) The claims use these machines in their ordinary capacity for the purpose of applying the abstract idea(s). Therefore, these limitations are invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Then, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Said claims recite additional elements as listed above, which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as mentioned in Step 2A Prong 2, they use computers or other machinery to perform an abstract idea in such a way that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computers or other machinery. Mere instructions to apply an exception using computers or other machinery cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recites determining no image is in the chat, generating an image of the product, and attaching the image to the invoice. This is seen as part of the abstract idea of legal interactions. Claim 4 uses the internet to locate the image. This is seen as using computing technology in its ordinary capacity to perform the abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites the UI element is associated with a different entity than who provides the electronic platform. Claim 6 recites authenticating user credentials of the seller with the entity, accessing user account information, and populating the invoice with the information. Claim 7 recites analyzing text and graphics. Claim 11 recites the electronic platform is a social networking platform. Claim 12 recites storing the invoice in a database of an entity providing the computer assistant. These limitations are seen as using computing technology in its ordinary capacity.
Claim 8 recites determining a negotiation in the chat and filling out the invoice based on the negotiation. Claim 9 recites the graphics are images of items, and determining the transaction is of one item or the other, and generating an invoice accordingly. Claim 10 recites updating the second image to indicate the second item is not available. This is part of the abstract idea.
Claim 13:
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite: analysing content generated by users, determining based on analysis of content, that content comprises a transaction, populating a plurality of fields based on user input, and generating an invoice based on the fields. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions, including sales activities or behaviors and agreement in the form of contracts.
Step 2A Prong 2: Said judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements: a non-transitory memory with instructions, hardware processor to execute instructions, a user interface of a user device and a computer application, a transaction control icon of the UI, detecting engagement of the icon and causing a window in the UI comprising fillable fields regarding the transaction to be displayed, individually and in combination, merely use a computer (see MPEP 2106.05f.) The claims use these machines in their ordinary capacity for the purpose of applying the abstract idea(s). Therefore, these limitations are invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Then, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Said claims recite additional elements as listed above, which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as mentioned in Step 2A Prong 2, they use computers or other machinery to perform an abstract idea in such a way that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computers or other machinery. Mere instructions to apply an exception using computers or other machinery cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 recites populating by a computer more fields based on content analysis. Claim 15 recites an invoice in a UI. Claim 16 recites determining the content lacks a product image and generating an image. Claim 17 recites the computer application is a chat app provided by a first party, and the invoice generation is by a computer bot provided by a second party. These limitations are seen as using computing technology in its ordinary capacity to perform the abstract ideas.
Claim 18:
Step 2A Prong 1: the claims recite: retrieve content generated by users, analyzing text and image portions of the content, determining the content pertains to a sale of a good or service by analyzing the text, determining the good or service includes a first and second component that can be transacted separately by analyzing the image, and generating an invoice based on input received. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions, including sales activities or behaviors and agreement in the form of contracts.
Step 2A Prong 2: Said judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements: a non-transitory computer readable medium with instructions that are executable, a computer application display via a first user interface, detecting engagement of an icon in the first UI, launching a second UI based on the icon engagement that includes fields pertaining to parameters of the transaction, the second UI allowing the transaction to be directed to the first, second, or both components, and attaching the invoice or a link to the invoice to the first UI, individually and in combination, merely use a computer (see MPEP 2106.05f.) The claims use these machines in their ordinary capacity for the purpose of applying the abstract idea(s). Therefore, these limitations are invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Then, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Said claims recite additional elements as listed above, which are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as mentioned in Step 2A Prong 2, they use computers or other machinery to perform an abstract idea in such a way that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using computers or other machinery. Mere instructions to apply an exception using computers or other machinery cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 19 recites determining parameters of a transaction by analyzing text or image portions of the chat content and populating the fields accordingly. Claim 20 recites determining which component is available by text analysis and modifying the content indicating component availability. Claim 21 recites the computer application is a chat app of a social media network, and the icon is provided by a payment provided and is integrated as an extension into the chat app. These limitations are seen as using computing technology in its ordinary capacity to perform the abstract ideas.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that forms the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2, 5-8, 11-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ku (US 2016/0307249)
Claim 2. Ku teaches a method, comprising:
accessing an electronic chat between a first user and a second user of an electronic platform, wherein the electronic chat is conducted at least in part via a first user device of the first user and a second user device of the second user; (para. 39 showing access to messages)
analyzing a content of the electronic chat; (para. 141 system recognizes chat content)
determining, based on a result of the analyzing, that the electronic chat involves a prospective transaction between the first user and the second user; (Figure 1 teaches multiple people linked through a social networking app. Figures 4A-4H also show multiple people with a plurality of chat application instances. Paragraph [0141] teaches the system determines a message contains transactional language.);
causing a user interface of at least one of the first user device or the second user device to display a user-engageable element; (Ku [0030] teaches including payment features that allow the person to fund the transaction. Paragraph [0051] teaches using additional input fields and/or selectable elements to complete the transaction;)
generating, in response to receiving an engagement of the user-engageable element, an invoice for the prospective transaction, wherein at least a first portion of the invoice is automatically filled out based on the result of the analyzing; (Ku Paragraph 120 teaching purchase control button initiating transaction; para. 142 teaches providing an invoice by detecting a purchase event. Figure 4E also teaches the invoice is transmitted in another chat text to the chat session. Para. 142 showing detection of purchase event triggers invoice.)
and providing the invoice to the electronic chat; (Ku Paragraph [0142] also teaches providing an invoice by sending another message. Figure 4E also teaches the invoice is transmitted in another chat text to the chat session)
wherein at least one of the accessing, the analyzing, the determining, the causing, the generating, or the providing is performed by a computerized assistant. (para. 193 showing personal digital assistant as an embodiment)
Claim 5. Ku teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the user-engageable element is associated with an entity that is different from an entity that provides the electronic platform. (Ku para. 122 showing GUI elements associated with a third party)
Claim 6. Ku teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the user-engageable element is engaged by the first user or by the second user as a seller of a product or a service associated with the prospective transaction, and wherein the method further comprises: (Ku Paragraph 120 teaching purchase control button initiating transaction)
authenticating, based on one or more user authentication credentials, the seller with the entity; (Ku ¶0080, showing determination of analysis of factors to control access to purchases and transaction, ¶0081, payment manager 212 can allow any of the users 110a-110d to maintain an escrow account including monetary funds that are held by the social networking system 104.)
accessing, after the seller has been authenticated, user account information of the seller with the entity; and (Ku paragraph 81, messaging manager 106 can also include the ability to hold purchase funds in escrow)
automatically populating the first portion of the invoice or a second portion of the invoice with at least a subset of the user account information, wherein the second portion of the invoice is different from the first portion of the invoice. (Ku paragraph 79 payment manager 212 can generate an invoice for the product that includes, but is not limited to, the cost of the product, the payment terms for the purchase)
Claim 7. Ku teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the content comprises both textual content and graphical content. (para. 141 teaching analyzing chat text to determine purchase) (Figure 4C teaches multiple images with text next to them. Figures 4A, 4B, and 4E - 4H teach chat text accessed at a chat session with an image.)
Claim 8. Ku teaches the method of claim 7, further comprising: determining, based on the analyzing the textual content, that the electronic chat includes a negotiation between the first user and the second user, wherein the first portion of the invoice is automatically filled out based on one or more parameters of the negotiation. (Figure 1 teaches multiple people linked through a social networking app. Figures 4A-4H also show multiple people with a plurality of chat application instances. Paragraph [0141] teaches the system determines a message contains transactional language.) (Ku ¶0079; Accordingly, the payment manager 212 can generate an invoice for the product that includes, but is not limited to, the cost of the product, the payment terms for the purchase, and other information associated with the seller (e.g., the name the buyer can make a check out to, the seller's business address, etc.).)
Claim 11. Ku teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the electronic platform comprises a social networking platform. (Ku; abstract teaches a social networking system used for selling products. Figure 1 also teaches multiple users with a social networking app, which includes having a chat application instance. Figures 4A-4H also teach conducting transactions with at least two people.).
Claim 12. Ku teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising: storing the invoice in a database of an entity that provides the computerized assistant. (Para. 142 showing system generating and making available to download the invoice)
Claim 13. Ku teaches a system, comprising:
a non-transitory memory storing instructions; (para. 165)
and one or more hardware processors configured to execute the instructions to cause the system to perform operations comprising: (para. 165)
analyzing a content displayed in a user interface of a user device on which a computer application is executing, wherein the content is generated by one or more users of the computer application, and wherein the user interface further displays a transaction control icon; (Figure 1 teaches multiple people linked through a social networking app. Figures 4A-4H also show multiple people with a plurality of chat application instances. Paragraph [0141] teaches the system determines a message contains transactional language.) (Ku Paragraph 120 teaching purchase control button initiating transaction; para. 142 teaches providing an invoice by detecting a purchase event. Figure 4E also teaches the invoice is transmitted in another chat text to the chat session)
determining, based on an analysis of the content, that the content comprises a potential transaction involving the one or more users; Paragraph [0141] teaches the system determines a message contains transactional language.)
detecting an engagement of the transaction control icon; (para. 55 user input detector)
causing, based on the determining that the content comprises the potential transaction involving the one or more users and the detecting of the engagement of the transaction control icon, the user interface to display a window comprising a plurality of fields that are fillable with parameters regarding the potential transaction; (Ku Paragraph 120 teaching purchase control button initiating transaction; para. 142 teaches providing an invoice by detecting a purchase event. Figure 4E also teaches the invoice is transmitted in another chat text to the chat session; para. 78 showing detection of purchase control, GUI provides input fields for transaction)
populating at least a subset of the plurality of fields based on one or more inputs from the one or more users; (Ku paragraph 79 payment manager 212 can generate an invoice for the product that includes, but is not limited to, the cost of the product, the payment terms for the purchase and user information such as name and address; para. 78 showing input fields for transaction))
and generating, based at least in part on the populated subset of the plurality of fields, an invoice for the potential transaction. (Ku Paragraph 120 teaching purchase control button initiating transaction; para. 142 teaches providing an invoice by detecting a purchase event. Figure 4E also teaches the invoice is transmitted in another chat text to the chat session)
Claim 14. Ku teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the operations further comprise automatically populating, without the one or more inputs from the one or more users, an additional subset of the plurality of fields based on the analysis of the content. (Ku ¶0079; Accordingly, the payment manager 212 can generate an invoice for the product that includes, but is not limited to, the cost of the product, the payment terms for the purchase, and other information associated with the seller (e.g., the name the buyer can make a check out to, the seller's business address, etc.).)
Claim 15. Ku teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the operations further comprise making the invoice accessible via the user interface. (Ku Paragraph [0142] also teaches providing an invoice by sending another message. Figure 4E also teaches the invoice is transmitted in another chat text to the chat session)
Claim 17. Ku teaches the system of claim 13, wherein:
the computer application is a chat application provided by a first entity; (Ku para. 122 showing GUI for messaging is third party)
and at least the generating of the invoice is performed by a computer bot provided by a second entity that is different from the first entity. (Ku Paragraph [0142] also teaches providing an invoice by sending another message. Figure 4E also teaches the invoice is transmitted in another chat text to the chat session)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ku in view of Meixner (US 20180095940).
Claim 3. Ku teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the prospective transaction involves a sale of one or more products, and attaching the image to the invoice. (para. 142 showing product picture in invoice) Ku does not, but Meixner teaches, based on the result of the analyzing, that no image depicting the product is included in the electronic chat; generating, based on the determining that no image depicting the product is included in the electronic chat, an image for the product. (Meixner paras. 55 and 56 image generation from text analysis from internet.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of invoice production in Ku, with the known technique of metadata sourcing in Meixner because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by filling in the missing pieces of information. See Meixner para. 55.
Claim 4. Ku as modified by Meixner teaches the method of claim 3. Ku does not, but Meixner teaches wherein the image is generated by accessing an Internet to locate the image. (Meixner paras. 55 and 56 image generation from text analysis from internet.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of invoice production in Ku, with the known technique of metadata sourcing in Meixner because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by filling in the missing pieces of information. See Meixner para. 55.
Claim 16. Ku teaches the system of claim 13. Ku does not, but Meixner teaches wherein the operations further comprise: determining, based on the analysis of the content, that the content lacks an image for a product that is a subject of the potential transaction; and generating the image for the product based on the determining that the content lacks the image for the product. (Meixner paras. 55 and 56 image generation from text analysis from internet.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of invoice production in Ku, with the known technique of metadata sourcing in Meixner because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by filling in the missing pieces of information. See Meixner para. 55.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ku in view of Roche (Pub. No. US 2016/0300294 A1).
Claim 9. Ku teaches the method of claim 7. Ku does not, but Roche teaches wherein:
the graphical content comprises a first image corresponding to a first item and a second image corresponding to a second item; (para. 104 showing multiple products in images)
the analyzing indicates that the prospective transaction involves the first item but not the second item; (para. 105 showing determination of one product selection)
and the invoice is generated to include the first item but not the second item. (Figure 9 showing purchase and receipt of item element that was selected from the image)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of invoice production in Ku, with the known technique of image modification in Roche because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing a potential buyer to know what items are still available. See Roche para. 105.
Claim 10. Ku teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising updating the second image to indicate that the second item is no longer available for additional transactions. (Roche ¶0105; Selected wine bottles 2122 may be represented by a solid or a bold line delineation with a cross as shown for example with the top rack 2124 of wine bottles 2122 in FIG. 21.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of invoice production in Ku, with the known technique of image modification in Roche because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing a potential buyer to know what items are still available. See Roche para. 105.
Claims 18, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ku (US 2016/0307249) in view of MacIntosh (US 2017/0249491).
Claim 18. Ku teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions are executable to cause a machine of a system to perform operations comprising:
retrieving, from a computer application, content generated by a plurality of users, wherein the computer application is displayed via a first user interface; (para. 141 teaching analyzing chat text to determine purchase) (Figure 4C teaches multiple images with text next to them. Figures 4A, 4B, and 4E - 4H teach chat text accessed at a chat session with an image.)
analyzing a textual portion and an imagerial portion of the retrieved content; (para. 141 teaching analyzing chat text to determine purchase) (Figure 4C teaches multiple images with text next to them. Figures 4A, 4B, and 4E - 4H teach chat text accessed at a chat session with an image.)
determining, based on the analyzing of the textual portion, that the content pertains to a sale of a good or a service in a potential transaction; (para. 141 teaching analyzing chat text to determine purchase) (Figure 4C teaches multiple images with text next to them. Figures 4A, 4B, and 4E - 4H teach chat text accessed at a chat session with an image.)
determining, based on the analyzing of the imagerial portion, that the good or the service includes at least a first component and a second component that can be transacted separately from the first component; (Figures 4A-H teach a user selecting a bicycle. The bicycle is an image element. The person can then determine, based on the selection of the bicycle, the transaction is for the bicycle and not the other items listed in figure 4C.)
detecting an engagement of an icon that is embedded in the first user interface; (Ku Paragraph 120 teaching purchase control button initiating transaction; para. 142 teaches providing an invoice by detecting a purchase event. Figure 4E also teaches the invoice is transmitted in another chat text to the chat session)
launching, based on the detecting of the engagement, a second user interface that includes a plurality of fields, wherein at least a subset of the plurality fields pertain to one or more parameters of the potential transaction; (paragraphs 51 and 78 providing UI for transaction input fields)
generating an invoice based on an input received via the second user interface; (Figure 4E teaches providing the invoice. [0142] teaches generating the invoice for the sale of the product;)
and attaching the invoice or a link to the invoice to the first user interface. (Ku ¶0142; For example, as shown in FIG. 4E, in response to the purchase event detected in the electronic message 448, the messaging manager 104 can automatically generate an invoice 450. In one or more embodiments, the messaging manager 104 can deliver the invoice 450 to the potential product buyer as a file attached to an electronic message and/or available by way of the communication thread 422)
Ku teaches determining, based on the user selection, that a first portion of the transaction involves the first product but no longer involves the second product (Figures 4A-H teach a user selecting a bicycle. The bicycle is an image element. The person can then determine, based on the selection of the bicycle, the transaction is for the bicycle and not the other items listed in figure 4C.)
Ku does not, but MacIntosh teaches: wherein the second user interface allows the potential transaction to be directed to just the first component, just the second component, or both the first component and the second component. (MacIntosh ¶0494; The spatial template is placed around a block area where watermarks were detected. If watermarks (or watermark components like orientation components) are located outside of the spatial template then there is a likelihood that the image frame includes two or more watermarked objects. [0495]… the system may make a determination independently to ring up two items.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the teachings of Ku to incorporate the teachings of MacIntosh. MacIntosh ¶0360 teaches the motivation as, “serving as context information useful, e.g., in tailoring the search results (or order of search results) presented when Tony thereafter uses the Google search service or engages in other activities. If Tony does a Google search for a recipe (e.g., to make use of a surplus of tomatoes harvested from his garden), he might get different search results than Alice, who enters the same search terms--but whose grocery profile data is different.”
Claim 19. Ku as modified by MacIntosh teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 18. Ku teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
determining, based on the analyzing the textual portion of the retrieved content or on the analyzing the imagerial portion of the retrieved content, one or more parameters of the potential transaction; and automatically populating the subset of the plurality of fields with the determined one or more parameters of the potential transaction. (Figure 1 teaches multiple people linked through a social networking app. Figures 4A-4H also show multiple people with a plurality of chat application instances. Paragraph [0141] teaches the system determines a message contains transactional language.) (Ku ¶0079; Accordingly, the payment manager 212 can generate an invoice for the product that includes, but is not limited to, the cost of the product, the payment terms for the purchase, and other information associated with the seller (e.g., the name the buyer can make a check out to, the seller's business address, etc.).)
Claim 21. Ku as modified by MacIntosh teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 18. Ku teaches wherein:
the computer application comprises a chat application of a social media networking provider; (Ku; abstract teaches a social networking system used for selling products. Figure 1 also teaches multiple users with a social networking app, which includes having a chat application instance. Figures 4A-4H also teach conducting transactions with at least two people.).
and the icon is provided by a payment provider and is integrated as an extension into the computer application. (para. 194 showing embodiments including extensions; para. 122 showing graphical UI associated with third party connection)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ku (US 2016/0307249) in view of MacIntosh (US 2017/0249491) and in further view of Roche.
Claim 20. Ku as modified by MacIntosh teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 18. Ku teaches: determining, based on the analyzing of the textual portion of the retrieved content, that the first component is available for the potential transaction, but the second component is not available for the potential transaction; (para. 72 showing detection of sale of item of multiple items)
Said modified Ku does not, but Roche teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
and automatically modifying the content, such that the modified content indicates an unavailability of the second component for the potential transaction. (Roche ¶0105; Selected wine bottles 2122 may be represented by a solid or a bold line delineation with a cross as shown for example with the top rack 2124 of wine bottles 2122 in FIG. 21.) Examiner note: modifying the image by blurring out would be a stylistic element that would not distinguish from line delineation with a cross that is functionally equivalent and would not change the scope of the claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of invoice production in Ku, with the known technique of image modification in Roche because applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system by allowing a potential buyer to know what items are still available. See Roche para. 105.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron Tutor, whose telephone number is 571-272-3662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM.
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, Fahd Obeid, can be reached at 571-270-3324. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-5266.
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.
/AARON TUTOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights