DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on XXXXXXXXXXXXXX has been entered.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims X are canceled.
Claims X are new.
Claim 1 is pending and has been examined.
This action is in reply to the papers filed on 11/05/2024 (effective filing date 10/05/2017).
Information Disclosure Statement
No Information Disclosure Statement has been filed.
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted: xxxxxxxx, has/have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Amendment
The present Office Action is based upon the original patent application filed on xxx as modified by the amendment filed on xxx.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on xxx disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Pat. No. xxxx has been reviewed and has been placed in the file.
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s filed Terminal Disclaimer to prior art patent McCauley et al. US Pat. No. 5,930,775. A terminal disclaimer may be filed to overcome or obviate a nonstatutory double patenting rejection (37 CFR 1.321; MPEP 706.02; 1490).
Double Patenting - Withdrawn
The double patenting rejection is withdrawn per the filed terminal disclaimer noted above.
Reasons For Allowance
Prior-Art Rejection withdrawn
Claims xxx are allowed. The closest prior art (See PTO-892, Notice of References Cited) does not teach the claimed:
The invention teaches… and the prior-art teaches…, however, the prior-art does not teach…
The closest prior-art (xxx) teach the features as disclosed in Non-final Rejection (xxxx), however, these cited references do not teach and the prior-art does not teach at least the following:
determining, at a second time after associating the information corresponding to the first loyalty card with the logged location, that a second user computing device is located within a specified distance of the logged location using a second positioning system of the second user computing device; in response to determining that the second user computing device is located within the specified distance of the logged location of the first user computing device at the first time of detecting: retrieving information corresponding to a second loyalty card, the second loyalty card being associated with the merchant and the second user computing device; and displaying, by the second user computing device, data describing the second loyalty card.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101 - Withdrawn
Per Applicant’s amendments and arguments and considering new guidance in the MPEP, the rejections are withdrawn. Specifically, in Applicant’s Remarks (dated 03/14/2017, pgs. 8-11), Applicant traverses the 35 USC §101 rejections arguing that the amended claims recite new limitations that are not abstract, amount to significantly more, are directed to a practical application, etc… For example, Applicant argues….
In support of their arguments, Applicant cites to the following recent Fed. Cir. court cases (i.e., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, Berkheimer, Core Wireless, McRO, Enfish, Bascom, DDR, etc…).
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of anticipatory-nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,410,201.
The remaining independent claims contain feature similar to that of claim 1 and are rejected accordingly. The dependent claims are further rejected for their dependency upon a rejected independent base claim.
18/937,817 – Claim 1. A method to market to consumers with data obtained from abandoned Global Positioning System (GPS) searches, the method comprising:
US 11,410,201 – Claim 1. A method to obtain data from abandoned Global Positioning System (GPS) searches, the method comprising:
determining that a GPS search on a GPS enabled device accessed by a user has been abandoned by the user;
US 11,410,201 – Claim 1. determining, that the GPS search has been abandoned based at least in part on obtaining with the computing device, additional user-entered touch indications, and using the additional user-entered touch indications to determine whether the user has checked a review associated with a search result within a time period;
obtaining data from the abandoned GPS search; and
US 11,410,201 – Claim 1. obtaining data from the abandoned GPS search with the embedded data scraping script that is configured to locate the at least one HTML element by building a data structure based on the abandoned GPS search and parsing the data structure to obtain one or more of the user-entered text and user touch indications associated with the at least one HTML element;
sending a personalized message to the user based at least in part on the obtained data.
US 11,410,201 – Claim 1. sending a personalized message to the user based at least in part on the one or more identifying information of the user and the at least one HTML element.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of anticipatory-nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,929,892.
18/937,817 – Claim 1. A method to market to consumers with data obtained from abandoned Global Positioning System (GPS) searches, the method comprising:
US 10,929,892 – Claim 1. A method to obtain data from abandoned Global Positioning System (GPS) searches, the method comprising:
determining that a GPS search on a GPS enabled device accessed by a user has been abandoned by the user;
US 10,929,892 – Claim 1. determining, based at least in part on the obtained user-entered text and user touch indications, the GPS search has been abandoned by the user by determining at least one of (i) the user has traveled to a location associated with a search result, (ii) the user has called a phone number associated with the search result, and (iii) the user has checked a review associated with the search result;
obtaining data from the abandoned GPS search; and
US 10,929,892 – Claim 1. communicating with one or more databases to obtain identifying information of the user based at least in part on the obtained user-entered text and user touch indications from the abandoned GPS search;
sending a personalized message to the user based at least in part on the obtained data.
US 10,929,892 – Claim 1. sending a personalized message to the user via the preferred communication medium.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This claim recites a method for marketing to consumers using data obtained from abandoned GPS searches.
Claim 1 recites [a] method to market to consumers with data obtained from abandoned Global Positioning System (GPS) searches, the method comprising: determining that a GPS search on a GPS enabled device accessed by a user has been abandoned by the user; obtaining data from the abandoned GPS search; and sending a personalized message to the user based at least in part on the obtained data.
The claims are being rejected according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 5, p. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 1 recites a method and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of a process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The following tables identify the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea. The column that identifies the additional elements will be relevant to the analysis in step 2A, prong two, and step 2B.
Claim 1: Identification of Abstract Idea and Additional Elements, using Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
Claim Limitation
Abstract Idea
Additional Element
1. A method to market to consumers with data obtained from abandoned Global Positioning System (GPS) searches, the method comprising:
No additional elements are positively claimed.
determining that a GPS search on a GPS enabled device accessed by a user has been abandoned by the user;
This limitation includes the step(s) of: determining that a GPS search on a GPS enabled device accessed by a user has been abandoned by the user.
But for the GPS enabled device, this limitation is directed to processing and/or communicating known information to facilitate marketing to consumers using data obtained from abandoned GPS searches which may be categorized as any of the following:
mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and/or
certain method of organizing human activity –
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
determining that a GPS search on a GPS enabled device accessed by a user has been abandoned…
obtaining data from the abandoned GPS search; and
This limitation includes the step(s) of: obtaining data from the abandoned GPS search.
No additional elements are positively claimed.
This limitation is directed to processing and/or communicating known information to facilitate marketing to consumers using data obtained from abandoned GPS searches which may be categorized as any of the following:
mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and/or
certain method of organizing human activity –
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
No additional elements are positively claimed.
sending a personalized message to the user based at least in part on the obtained data.
This limitation includes the step(s) of: sending a personalized message to the user based at least in part on the obtained data.
No additional elements are positively claimed.
This limitation is directed to processing and/or communicating known information to facilitate marketing to consumers using data obtained from abandoned GPS searches which may be categorized as any of the following:
mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and/or
certain method of organizing human activity –
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
No additional elements are positively claimed.
As shown above, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea). The claims are directed to the abstract idea of determining that a GPS search on a GPS enabled device accessed by a user has been abandoned by the user, which, pursuant to MPEP 2106.04, is aptly categorized as a mental process and/or a method of organizing human activity. Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Next, the aforementioned claims recite additional functional elements that are associated with the judicial exception, including: a GPS enabled device for obtaining data. Examiner understands these limitations to be insignificant extrasolution activity. (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Cf. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-192 (1981) ("[I]nsignificant post-solution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle in to a patentable process.”).
The aforementioned claims also recite additional technical elements including: a “GPS enabled device” to execute the method. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 134 S. Ct. at 2389, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements listed above that relate to computing components are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions such as communicating, receiving, processing, analyzing, and outputting/displaying data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. There is no technological problem that the claimed invention solves. Rather, the computer system is invoked merely as a tool. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, these claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Furthermore, looking at the elements individually and in combination, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they fail to: improve the functioning of a computer or a technical field, apply the judicial exception in the treatment or prophylaxis of a disease, apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Rather, the claims merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s), and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept?
Next, under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Simply put, as noted above, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer (or any other technology), and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements relating to computing components amount to no more than applying the exception using a generic computing components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computing component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed computer components (i.e., additional elements) includes any generic computing components that are capable of being programmed to communicate, receive, send, process, analyze, output, or display data. Furthermore, Applicant’s Specification (PGPub. 2025/0238843 [0044; 0046; 143]) refers to a general computer system, but they do not include any technically-specific computer algorithm or code.
Additionally, pursuant to the requirement under Berkheimer, the following citations are provided to demonstrate that the additional elements, identified as extra-solution activity, amount to activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Capturing an image (code) with an RFID reader. Ritter, US Patent No. 7734507 (Col. 3, Lines 56-67); “RFID: Riding on the Chip” by Pat Russo. Frozen Food Age. New York: Dec. 2003, vol. 52, Issue 5; page S22.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
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.
Outputting/Presenting data to a user. Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Using a machine learning model to determine user segment characteristics for an ad campaign. https://whites.agency/blog/how-to-use-machine-learning-for-customer-segmentation/.
Thus, taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea), and are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Independent system claim 8 and CRM claim 15 also contains the identified abstract ideas, with the additional elements of a processor and storage medium, which are a generic computer components, and thus not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale above.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of the dependent claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, as the dependent claims remain directed to a judicial exception, and as the additional elements of the claims do not amount to significantly more, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
Invention Could be Performed Manually
It is conceivable that the invention could be performed manually without the aid of machine and/or computer. For example, Applicant claims determining that a GPS search has been abandoned by a user, obtaining data from the abandoned search, and sending a personalized message, etc… Each of these features could be performed manually and/or with the aid of a simple generic computer to facilitate the transmission of data.
See also Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., and In re Venner, which stand for the concept that automating manual activity and/or applying modern electronics to older mechanical devices to accomplish the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. Here, applicant is merely claiming computers to facilitate and/or automate functions which used to be commonly performed by a human.
Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007) "[a]pplying modern electronics to older mechanical devices has been commonplace in recent years…"). The combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention using newer technology that is commonly available and understood in the art.
In In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958), the court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04, III Automating a Manual Activity.
MPEP 2144.04 III - Automating a Manual Activity and In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) further stand for and provide motivation for using technology, hardware, computer, or server to automate a manual activity.
Therefore, the Office finds no improvements to another technology or field, no improvements to the function of the computer itself, and no meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, based on the two-part Alice Corp. analysis, there are no limitations in any of the claims that transform the exception (i.e., the abstract idea) into a patent eligible application.
Claim Rejections - Not an Ordered Combination
None of the limitations, considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility, because taken as a whole, the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with routine, conventional activity.
Claim Rejections - Preemption
Allowing the claims, as presently claimed, would preempt others from marketing to consumers using data obtained from abandoned GPS searches. Furthermore, the claim language only recites the abstract idea of performing this method, there are no concrete steps articulating a particular way in which this idea is being implemented or describing how it is being performed.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Ling, III et al. 2015/0149877; in view of Nuzzi et al. 2013/0006816.
18/937,817 – Claim 1. Ling, III et al. 2015/0149877 teaches A method to market to consumers with data obtained from abandoned Global Positioning System (GPS) searches (Ling, III et al. 2015/0149877 [Abstract] Visitors that abandon electronic or computer-generated forms before completing and submitting the form are lost to business entities. Data obtained from abandoned electronic or computer-generated forms is used to identify these lost visitors. Sometimes a unique script embedded on the webpages scrapes the data from the forms. The obtained data is further utilized to market or remarket to the lost consumers by sending personalized messages via a preferred communication medium.), the method comprising: determining that a GPS search on a GPS enabled device accessed by a user has been abandoned by the user (Ling, III et al. 2015/0149877 [0005-0008 – abandoned electronic forms] [0005] The system then sends to the consumer, using one or more of the preferred methods of communication, a reminder, an incentive such as electronic coupon, information about the desired products and services, discount notifications, or an offering for a similar product or service, etc. In one or more embodiments, the system also generate reports including by way of example, the identities of the abandoning consumers, consumer's names, email addresses and account status. Other reports may include the number of completed forms, number of abandoned forms, and the number of abandoning consumers that have been subsequently contacted. [0006] Certain embodiments relate to a method to obtain data from abandoned electronic forms. The method comprises determining that an electronic form accessed by a user has been abandoned by the user, obtaining data from the abandoned electronic form, and using or storing the obtained data. In an embodiment, the electronic form does not include a payment gateway. In another embodiment, the method further comprises determining when the electronic form has been accessed by the user and embedding script in a webpage of a website comprising the electronic form, where obtaining data from the abandoned electronic form comprises scraping the data from the abandoned electronic form using the script. [0007] According to a number of embodiments, the disclosure relates to a method to obtain data from abandoned electronic forms. The method comprises determining that an electronic form accessed by a user has been abandoned by the user. The electronic form has embedded computer-executable instructions and one or more fields configured to accept user-entered text and comprises at least one hypertext markup language (HTML) element associated with the one or more fields, where the at least one HTML element has at least one attribute. The method further comprises obtaining data from the abandoned electronic form with the embedded computer-executable instructions by building a data structure based on the abandoned electronic form and parsing the data structure to obtain the at least one HTML element, and storing one or more of the at least one HTML element, the at least one attribute, and the user-entered text. In an embodiment, the determination that the user has abandoned the electronic form is based at least in part on one or more of a length of time that the electronic form is accessed, the user leaving a website associated with the electronic form, the user canceling the electronic form, and a failure of the user to input data into the electronic form. In another embodiment, the data is obtained from the abandoned electronic form without a product feed. In a further embodiment, the electronic form does not include a payment gateway. In a yet further embodiment, the method further comprises storing an Internet protocol (IP) address associated with a computing device used to access the electronic form. In an embodiment, the obtained data comprises a preferred communication medium of the user. In another embodiment the method further comprises constructing a selector to identify the at least one HTML element and applying the selector to the parsed data structure to obtain the identified at least one HTML element. [0008] In accordance with various embodiments, an apparatus to obtain data from abandoned electronic forms is disclosed. The apparatus comprises computer hardware configured to determine that an electronic form accessed by a user has been abandoned by the user, where the electronic form has embedded computer-executable instructions and one or more fields configured to accept user-entered text. The electronic form comprises at least one hypertext markup language (HTML) element associated with the one or more fields and the at least one HTML element has at least one attribute. The apparatus further comprises computer hardware configured to obtain data from the abandoned electronic form with the embedded computer-executable instructions by building a data structure based on the abandoned electronic form and parse the data structure to obtain the at least one HTML element, and computer hardware configured to store one or more of the at least one HTML element, the at least one attribute, and the user-entered text.); obtaining data from the abandoned GPS search (Ling, III et al. 2015/0149877 [0007-0008 – method to obtain data from abandoned electronic forms] [0007] According to a number of embodiments, the disclosure relates to a method to obtain data from abandoned electronic forms. The method comprises determining that an electronic form accessed by a user has been abandoned by the user. The electronic form has embedded computer -executable instructions and one or more fields configured to accept user -entered text and comprises at least one hypertext markup language ( HTML) element associated with the one or more fields, where the at least one HTML element has at least one attribute. The method further comprises obtaining data from the abandoned electronic form with the embedded computer -executable instructions by building a data structure based on the abandoned electronic form and parsing the data structure to obtain the at least one HTML element, and storing one or more of the at least one HTML element, the at least one attribute, and the user -entered text. In an embodiment, the determination that the user has abandoned the electronic form is based at least in part on one or more of a length of time that the electronic form is accessed, the user leaving a website associated with the electronic form, the user canceling the electronic form, and a failure of the user to input data into the electronic form. In another embodiment, the data is obtained from the abandoned electronic form without a product feed. In a further embodiment, the electronic form does not include a payment gateway. In a yet further embodiment, the method further comprises storing an Internet protocol (IP) address associated with a computing device used to access the electronic form. In an embodiment, the obtained data comprises a preferred communication medium of the user. In another embodiment the method further comprises constructing a selector to identify the at least one HTML element and applying the selector to the parsed data structure to obtain the identified at least one HTML element. [0008] In accordance with various embodiments, an apparatus to obtain data from abandoned electronic forms is disclosed. The apparatus comprises computer hardware configured to determine that an electronic form accessed by a user has been abandoned by the user, where the electronic form has embedded computer -executable instructions and one or more fields configured to accept user -entered text. The electronic form comprises at least one hypertext markup language ( HTML) element associated with the one or more fields and the at least one HTML element has at least one attribute. The apparatus further comprises computer hardware configured to obtain data from the abandoned electronic form with the embedded computer -executable instructions by building a data structure based on the abandoned electronic form and parse the data structure to obtain the at least one HTML element, and computer hardware configured to store one or more of the at least one HTML element, the at least one attribute, and the user -entered text.); and sending a personalized message to the user based at least in part on the obtained data (Ling, III et al. 2015/0149877 [0034 - marketing service 212 sends a personalized message to the visitor via the visitor's preferred communication medium 222 to entice the visitor to return to the website 204 and complete the eForm] Further, the identification and marketing service 212 creates the intelligent marketing matrix 220 to identify the preferred communication media 222 of the identified visitor. The identification and marketing service 212 sends a personalized message to the visitor via the visitor's preferred communication medium 222 to entice the visitor to return to the website 204 and complete the eForm 206. In another embodiment, the identification and marketing service 212 sends a personalized message to the visitor via the visitor's preferred communication medium 222 to introduce the visitor to a product or service of the business entity to replace the product or service associated with the abandoned electronic form. In an embodiment, the visitor receives an email or social media message within one minute. In another embodiment, the visitor receives an email or social media message within one hour.).
Ling, III et al. 2015/0149877 may not expressly disclose the GPS features, however, Nuzzi et al. 2013/0006816 teaches these features as follows (Nuzzi et al. 2013/0006816 [0130 – local search fails … in their GPS search radius interpreted as GPS search has been abandoned] The searcher may ask to include the friend's or friends' location into the item/inventory search. The friend could have a setting to automatically accept these types of searches and include their position (e.g., geo-location) in a friend search or the friend must accept the request in order to be included in the search (e.g., via a social network contact interface application 162). If the searcher's local search fails to find the item/inventory in their GPS search radius but it is found in a friend search radius the searcher may be notified. The searcher may then provide an incentive to give the friend to go and pick up the item. For example, the user application could send the friend located near the item an SMS message saying if you go pick up this item I will buy lunch or provide a PayPal money transfer once the item has been purchased. [0067] The user also provides a decision as to whether or not to include social network contacts and their associated device locations in the merchant and/or product search parameters (decision block 220). If not, then the search may be conducted with mapping and GPS capability inherent only to the user device 120. If yes, then the user may provide social network contact information and preferences (block 222) and incentive preferences (block 224). Social network contact info/illation (e.g., name, address, mobile phone number, etc.) may be provided by the user manually via user device 120, automatically from a contacts list in user device 120, or manually/automatically from a social network server, which may be separate from or within service provider server 180. Social network contact preferences are user preferences specified for a social network contact and may include for example, selecting certain contacts to be included in the search, certain contacts to be excluded in the search, automatic inclusion of all contacts, inclusion of contacts only if the search local to the user device 120 is unsuccessful (e.g., falls below a threshold of listings), categorization of contacts, and so on. Incentive preferences may include for example, incentive messages, incentive types, incentive amounts, timing of incentive offers, incentive associated with a specified contact, and so on.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Ling, III et al. 2015/0149877 to include the GPS features as taught by Nuzzi et al. 2013/0006816. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to send personalized messages to a user based upon location which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue (i.e., advertisement optimization / improve user experience).
Examiner’s Response to Arguments
Per Applicants’ amendments/arguments, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicants’ amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Examiner’s Response: Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112
Per Applicants’ amendments/arguments, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicants’ amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Examiner’s Response: Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101
Per Applicants’ amendments/arguments, the rejections are withdrawn. See notes above for additional reasoning and rationale for dropping 35 USC 101 rejection including Applicant’s amendments, arguments, lack of abstract idea, and practical integration.
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicants’ amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Regarding Claims 1-15, on page(s) 6-12 of Applicant’s Remarks (dated 12/27/2016), Applicants traverse the 35 USC §101 rejections arguing the following:
Examiner’s Response: Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102 / § 103
Per Applicants’ amendments/arguments, the rejections are withdrawn. See notes above for additional reasoning and rationale for dropping prior-art rejection including Applicant’s amendments and arguments and unique combination of features and elements not taught by the prior-art without hindsight reasoning.
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicants’ amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Regarding Claim X, on page(s) 8-9 of Applicant’s Remarks / After Final Amendments (dated 07/15/2011), Applicant(s) argues that the cited reference(s) (Ellis and Vandermolen) fails to teach, describe, or suggest the amended features. Specifically, Applicant(s) argues that cited reference(s) do not teach, describe, or suggest the following: . With respect, Applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive and the amended feature(s) remain rejected as follows.
With respect, Applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive and the amended feature(s) remain rejected as follows.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
PERTINENT PRIOR ART – Patent Literature
The prior-art made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Guo et al. 2008/0262721 [0011] For example, as illustrated in FIG. 23, it should be noted that the result of matching of GPS location information to a map for the vehicle navigation has been simply abandoned. The result of matching of an acquisition sequence of the GPS location information acquired by the in-vehicle GPS device and the corresponding map (the result is referred to as GPS track) contains a trajectory of a vehicle motion, which provides perfect matching with road geometric information. The GPS track data is not sufficient to represent precise road information because of an error deviation of a GPS positioning signal. However, the collection and the accumulation of a large number of pieces of the GPS track data as described above allow road information to be statistically derived from the GPS tracks. This invention provides a method of collecting and accumulating such GPS track data which has been conventionally abandoned.
The BEST patent literature reference is:
Other relevant patent literature reference are:
PERTINENT PRIOR ART – Non-Patent Literature (NPL)
The NPL prior-art made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The BEST NPL prior-art reference is:
Other relevant NPL prior-art reference are:
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL
Applicant’s amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection and FINAL Rejection.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW T. SITTNER whose telephone number is (571) 270-7137 and email: matthew.sittner@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm (Mountain Time Zone). Please schedule interview requests via email: matthew.sittner@uspto.gov
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah M. Monfeldt can be reached on (571) 270-1833.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW T SITTNER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629b