DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This action is in response to Applicant’s filing on Nov. 14, 2024, and is made Non-Final. This action is being examined by James H. Miller, who is in the eastern time zone (EST), and who can be reached by email at James.Miller1@uspto.gov or by telephone at (469) 295-9082.
Interviews
Examiner interviews are available by telephone or, preferably, by video conferencing using the USPTO’s web-based collaboration platform. Applicants are strongly encouraged to schedule via the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) portal at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. Interviews conducted solely for the purpose of “sounding out” the examiner, including by local counsel acting only as a conduit for another practitioner, are not permitted under MPEP § 713.03. The Office is strictly enforcing established interview practice, and applicants should ensure that every interview request is directed toward advancing prosecution on the merits in compliance with MPEP §§ 713 and 713.03.
For after-final Interview requests, supervisory approval is required before an interview may be granted. Each AIR should specifically explain how the After-Final Interview request will advance prosecution—for example, by identifying targeted arguments responsive to the rejection of record, alleged defects in the examiner’s analysis, proposed claim amendments, or another concrete basis for discussion. See MPEP § 713. If the AIR form’s character limits prevent inclusion of all pertinent details, Applicants may send a contemporaneous email to the examiner at James.Miller1@uspto.gov.
The examiner is generally available Monday through Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. EST.
For any GRANTED Interview Request, Applicant can expect an email within 24 hours confirming an interview slot from the dates/times proposed and providing collaboration tool access instructions. For any DENIED Interview Request, the record will include a communication explaining the reason for the denial.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on Nov. 22, 2024, was filed before the mailing of a first office action on the merits and therefore, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97(b)(3). Accordingly, the IDS has been considered.
Claim Status
The status of claims is as follows:
Claims 1–20 are pending and examined with Claims 1, 8, and 15 in independent form.
This is a first action on the merits.
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.
Analysis
Step 1: Claims 1–20 are directed to a statutory category. Claims 1–7 recite a “method” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of a “process.” Claims 8–14 recite a “system” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of a “machine.” Claims 15–20 recite “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media” and are therefore, directed to the statutory category of an "article of manufacture.”
Representative Claim
Claim 8 is representative [“Rep. Claim 8”] of the subject matter under examination and recites, in part, emphasis added by Examiner to identify limitations with normal font indicating the abstract idea exception, bold limitations indicating additional elements. Each limitation is identified by a letter for later use as a shorthand notation in referencing/describing each limitation. Portions of the claim use italics to identify intended use limitations1 and underline, as needed, in further describing the abstract idea exception:
[A] 8. A system comprising: one or more processors; and non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
[B] identifying a transaction of a first user as a social transaction;
[C] identifying, based on a preference of the first user or a characteristic of the transaction, at least a second user as a potential participant in the transaction;
[D] updating a user interface presented via a user device of the first user to (i) indicate the transaction is a social transaction and (ii) recommend the first user invite the second user to participate in the transaction;
[E] in response to an input to the user interface [of the user device of the first user], sending a request to a user device of the second user to participate in the transaction, wherein the request includes an interactive element and an indication of a condition that must be satisfied for the second user to participate in the transaction; and [F] creating, in response to the second user opting to participate in the transaction via an interaction with the interactive element, a shared channel to facilitate the transaction involving the first user and the second user.
Claims are directed to an abstract idea exception.
Step 2A, Prong One: Rep. Claim 8 recites “facilitate the transaction involving the first user and the second user,” in Limitation F, which recites commercial or legal interactions under the organizing human activity exception because facilitating a transaction recites “sales activities or behaviors, and business relations” between two people. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). Limitations B–E are the steps the “facilitate the transaction” and therefore, recite the same exception. Id.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Rep. Claim 8 does not contain additional elements that integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional elements are limited to the computer components and indicated in bold, supra. The additional elements are: A system comprising: one or more processors; and non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions; a user interface presented via a user device of the first user; a user device of the second user; an interactive element; an indication of a condition; an interaction with the interactive element; creating, in response to the second user opting to participate in the transaction via an interaction with the interactive element, a shared channel.
Regarding the system comprising: one or more processors; and non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions; a user interface presented via a user device of the first user; a user device of the second user; an interactive element; an indication of a condition; an interaction with the interactive element; creating, in response to the second user opting to participate in the transaction via an interaction with the interactive element, a shared channel, Applicant’s Specification does not otherwise describe them or describes them using exemplary language as a general-purpose computer, as a part of a general-purpose computer, or as any known and exemplary (generic) computer component known in the prior art. Thus, Applicant takes the position that such hardware/software is so well known to those of ordinary skill in the art that no explanation is needed under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1463 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citing In re Meyers, 410 F.2d 420, 424 (CCPA 1969) (“[T]he specification need not disclose what is well known in the art”). E.g., E.g., Spec. ¶¶ 299–302, Fig. 14 (generic processors and non-transitory memory in a conventional computing device); ¶¶ 207, 208, 302 (generic graphical user interface on conventional user devices); ¶¶ 4, 207, 208 (any generic computer device known in the prior art); ¶¶ 23, 24, 66 (any generic link known in the prior art); ¶¶ 23, 38 (generic business transaction conditions such as time windows, geolocation, event or item constraints); ¶¶ 23, 28, 30 (generic shared channel/cart/ticket functionality implement in known networked systems). The generic processor, here, appears to perform calculations (functions) that are programmed by software. Spec. ¶ 300. This is a computer doing what it is designed to do—performing directions it is given to follow.
The displaying steps, Limitations D, E, F, fail to transform the claims into patent eligible material, as this is part of the field of use and technical environment in which the abstract idea is being implement and does not result in an improvement to additional elements, a practical application, or inventive concept. MPEP 2106.05(h) (citing Electric Power Group). Further, requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer also does not provide a practical application or inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) (citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Regarding the interactive element, a web browser’s back and forward button functionality is not a practical application or inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(vi) (citing Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Limitation A describes the processor executing instructions stored in computer-readable media to perform the steps of the claimed invention. This takes generic hardware and describes the functions of receiving, storing, and sending data (instructions) between the processor and media device, which merely invokes computers or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2). Limitations B–F describe the processor, media device, and instructions, performing the steps of the claimed invention, which represents the abstract idea exception itself. Performing the steps of the abstract idea exception itself simply adds a general-purpose computer after the fact to an abstract idea exception, MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2), or generically recites an effect of the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(3).
Therefore, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and is not a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea exception. Accordingly, Rep. Claim 8 is directed to an abstract idea.
Rep. Claim 8 is not substantially different than Independent Claims 1 and 15 and includes all the limitations of Rep. Claim 8. Independent Claims 1 and 15 contain no additional elements. Therefore, Independent Claims 1 and 15 are also directed to the same abstract idea.
The claims do not provide an inventive concept.
Step 2B: Rep. Claim 8 fails Step 2B because the claim as whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or generic computer components. MPEP § 2106.05(f). The same analysis applies here in Step 2B. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer and/or generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(I).
The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
The pending claims in their combination of additional elements is not inventive. First, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Second, each additional element represents a currently available generic computer technology, used in the way in which it is commonly used (individually generic). Last, Applicant’s Specification discloses that the combination of additional elements is not inventive. Spec. ¶ 23 (high level functional description that mirrors claim 8); ¶ 24 (interactive elements such as links, deep links, bar codes, and QR codes that simply link users to a shared channel and may trigger fund transfers or shared carts are described generically); ¶94 (blocks/steps in the illustrated processes may be performed in any order or in parallel, indicating no specialized or unconventional control logic); ¶¶ 207, 208 (user devices are any conventional computing devices with standard GUIs and apps); ¶¶ 294–302 (generic processors and computer readable media executing stored instructions in a standard client–server computing environment, as exemplary hardware); ¶¶ 4, 23, 24, 28, 30, 38, 66, 207, 208, 299–302, Fig. 14 (known and generic (exemplary) computer equipment as explained and cited supra.).
Thus, Examiner finds the additional elements of Rep. Claim 8 are elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional (“WURC”) activity in the particular field of this invention based on Applicant’s own disclosure2. ¶¶ 4, 23, 24, 28, 30, 38, 66, 207, 208, 299–302, Fig. 14; MPEP § 2106.05(d). Specifically, Applicant’s Specification discloses the recited additional elements in bold (i.e., the system comprising: one or more processors; and non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions; a user interface presented via a user device of the first user; a user device of the second user; an interactive element; an indication of a condition; an interaction with the interactive element; creating, in response to the second user opting to participate in the transaction via an interaction with the interactive element, a shared channel) are limited to generic computer components. These elements do no more than “apply” the recited abstract idea(s) on a known computer (e.g., processor) and computer-related components (e.g., media). The Examiner also finds the functions of receiving, storing, transmitting, displaying, and processing (e.g., performing mathematical operations on) data, described in Limitations A–F, are all normal functions of a generic computer.
There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements in combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation of the abstract idea at a high level of generality. Thus, Rep. Claim 8 does not provide an inventive concept.
Rep. Claim 8 is not substantially different than Independent Claims 1 and 15 and includes all the limitations of Rep. Claim 8. Independent Claims 1 and 15 contain no additional elements. Therefore, Independent Claims 1 and 15 also do not recite an inventive concept.
Dependent Claims Not Significantly More
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Dependent claims are dependent on Independent Claims and include all the limitations of the Independent Claims. Therefore, all dependent claims recite the same Abstract Idea. Dependent claims do not contain additional elements that integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application or recite an inventive concept because the additional elements: (1) are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception; and/or (2) further limit the abstract idea exception of the Independent Claims. The abstract idea itself cannot provide the inventive concept or practical application. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Dependent Claims 2/9/16, 3/10/17, 4/11/18, 5/12, 6/13/19, 7/14/20 all recite “wherein” clauses that further limits the abstract idea of the Independent Claims but contains the additional elements of: the condition to be satisfied is a time window for opting into the social transaction (Claims 2, 9, 16); the interactive element includes a visual indication of time remaining in the time window (Claims 2, 9, 16); the shared channel is temporarily available for a time period that is based at least in part on one or more of a time window for opting into the social transaction, a geolocation of the second user, an event type, an appointment parameter, or an item for purchase included in the social transaction (Claims 3, 10, 17); the interaction with the interactive element causes real-time information associated with the social transaction to be presented to the second user and provides access to the shared channel (Claims 4, 11, 18); the shared channel is one of an open ticket or a shared virtual cart (Claims 5, 12); identifying the transaction as the social transaction is based at least in part on determining that the transaction includes a plurality of items or an item with a plurality of portions (Claims 6, 13, 19). For Dependent Claims 2/9/16, 3/10/17, these limitations just choose particular business conditions (deadlines, location, events, item-based availability) and display a countdown in the UI. The specification treats time windows, geolocation, event type, appointment parameters, and item type as generic “conditions” that govern when a shared channel is temporarily available, and the UI merely shows time remaining. Implementing a deadline with a timer and turning a channel on/off based on those conditions is routine information processing on generic computer devices and networks and not a technical improvement. MPEP § 2106.05(f). For Dependent Claims 4/11/18, the added feature is that when the user selects the interactive element, the system shows “real-time information” about the transaction and “provides access to the shared channel”. The specification describes real-time updates as ordinary UI behavior on generic computer devices communicating with servers (e.g., interfaces that update “on the fly” to show who has joined, status, amounts, conditions, etc.). This is standard event driven UI updating on a generic client server system, which does not improve the functioning of a computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f). For Dependent Claims 5/12, 6/13/19, specifying that the shared channel is an “open ticket” or “shared virtual cart” is merely a label for the familiar ecommerce constructs implemented with generic servers, databases, and user devices as shown by the specification. Likewise, deciding a transaction is “social” when it has multiple items or portions is a business rule about when to enable the social purchase sequence and not a new technical mechanism. These limitations merely narrow the abstract commercial scheme and do no change how a computer operates or improve the functioning of the computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f). For Dependent Claims 7/14/20, a particular settlement pattern is recited. The specification implements this using conventional accounts and payment components – querying user accounts, depositing funds to a merchant account, and then transferring reimbursement funds between user accounts using standard payment services and ledgers. This is a routine financial transaction sequence run on generic payment systems, not an unconventional computer operation in view of Applicant own disclose. MPEP § 2106.05(f). All dependent claims merely refine/narrow the abstract commercial workflow with more conditions, statutes, and payment arrangements. The specification describes all dependent claim imitations with standard components without any new computer data structure, protocols, or architectures. An inventive concept or practical application cannot be furnished by an abstract idea exception itself. MPEP §§ 2106.05(I), 2106.04(d)(III).
Conclusion
Claims 1–20 are therefore drawn to ineligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of Rep. Claim 8 otherwise styled as another statutory category is subject to the same analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1–6, 8–13, and 15–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bank et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2013/0238464) [“Bank”] in view of Skeen et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0012612) [“Skeen”].
Regarding Claim 1, Bank discloses:
A method comprising:
(See at least Fig. 2, disclosing a method)
identifying a transaction of a first user as a social transaction;
(See at least ¶ 15, “a user (e.g., referred to as User A) 102 is allowed to conditionally select a coupon or discount or other offer associated with a product and notify one or more friends 104 about the user's intention to purchase the product.” ¶ 17 (“[T]he server 106 or a plugin detects that the user has navigated to a Web page wherein a purchase is being made, the "share" button or like user interface component may be displayed. Selecting or clicking this button or like component in one embodiment of the present disclosure presents or displays a list of users with whom the purchase may be shared, for example, previously designated sharing friends.” See also, Fig. 2, steps 202, 204.)
identifying, based on a preference of the first user [buddy list] or a characteristic of the transaction [date], at least a second user as a potential participant in the transaction;
(See at least ¶ 28, “At 206, in response to the first user selecting the option to indicate the contingency based purchase, the functionality of the present disclosure in one embodiment may enable the first user to indicate one or more second users with whom the first user would like to share the purchase or activity.” ¶ 15 (“One or more users (User Bs) may be selected from a group or a buddy list, from a social network, or other known
list or combinations thereof.”). ¶ 25 (“the methodologies of the present disclosure may access calendar systems (or the like functionality) of users to determine the availability of
friends (or other people in the initial user's network) who could potentially share purchases.”).
updating a user interface presented via a user device of the first user to (i) indicate the transaction is a social transaction [share button] and (ii) recommend the first user invite the second user to participate in the transaction;
(See at least ¶ 17, “A new "share" button or the like or another user interface component may be presented on Web pages for users to optionally select and display a shopping cart or purchase order status. When the server 106 or a plugin detects that the user has navigated to a Web page wherein a purchase is being made, the "share" button or like user interface component may be displayed.” See also, Claim 2 (“the user interface includes a selection component enabling the first user to choose an option to share purchasing of the item with others.” ¶ 28 (“At 206, in response to the first user selecting the option to indicate the contingency based purchase, the functionality of the present disclosure in one embodiment may enable the first user to indicate one or more second users with whom the first user would like to share the purchase or activity.”) ¶ 15 (“One or more users (User Bs) may be selected from a group or a buddy list, from a social network, or other known list or combinations thereof.”); ¶ 25 (“the methodologies of the present disclosure may access calendar systems ( or the like functionality) of users to determine the availability of friends (or other people in the initial user's network) who could potentially share purchases.” ¶ 17 (“the user may specify the identity of individuals selected to share a purchase by choosing from a list or display of various types, such as a community, a social networking site like Facebook™, an address book, an Instant Message buddy list, a phone buddy list, etc.“).
in response to an input to the user interface, sending a request to a user device of the second user to participate in the transaction, wherein the request includes […] and an indication of a condition that must be satisfied for the second user to participate in the transaction; and
(See at least ¶ 17, “In response to the user selecting one or more users 104 to share the purchase offer, the server 106 or the plugin may send the notifications to the selected users 104 notifying the users 104 of the available purchase offer and the initial user's desire to share via for example user devices 112.”); Claim 1 (“transmitting, by the processor, notification to the selected one or more second users requesting the selected one or more second users to purchase the same item;”); ¶ 32 (“the one or more second users invited to make the purchase together, may be given a URL to navigate to in order to make the purchase.”); ¶ 31 (“the notification may be in the form of opening or launching the browser of an on line group member when one person in the group is shopping for a shared purchase item.”); Claim 4 (“automatically launching and opening a second user interface on one or more devices respectively of the selected one or more users, the second user interface having at least some of the purchase order information populated on the second user interface; automatically sending a electronic mail to the selected one or more users;”). The condition is expressly recited. Claim 1 (“determining whether a minimum subset of the selected one or more users have indicated to purchase the same item;”); see also ¶ 2 (Other restrictions in currently offered discounts via such Web sites include time restrictions, such as expiration dates only a few days away, which makes it difficult for a user to gather a group with whom to make the purchase in time.”).
creating […] a shared channel to facilitate the transaction involving the first user and the second user.
(See at least ¶ 22, “If designated users sharing in a group purchase are found to be online at the time the purchase initiator is ordering a shared item, the server or plugin may open a browsing session for each online designated user and display a purchasing page or shopping cart containing the shared item.”; ¶ 20 (“The shared information may also be used to facilitate the completion of a shopping order (e.g., by partially filling in the shopping cart or order form with the product code, description, quantity, etc.). If others have accepted and all conditions have been met, the purchase is made using the captured information. If others also made conditional purchases, the server 106 can automatically complete their purchases if shopping cart information is stored in the shared database.”); see also Claim 1 (“if it is determined that the minimum subset of the selected
one or more users have indicated to purchase the same item, completing the purchase transaction associated with the item”). The steps of storing purchase order information in a shared database and competing the shared purchase upon all/minimum subset opt in is creating a shared channel (shared database/shopping cart) to facilitate the transaction.
Bank discloses sending a request wherein the request includes an indication of a condition that must be satisfied for the second user to participate in the transaction. Bank does not disclose the request includes an interactive element. Bank discloses creating a shared channel to facilitate the transaction involving the first user and the second user. Bank does not disclose creating a shared channel in response to the second user opting to participate in the transaction via an interaction with the interactive element. Thus, Bank does not disclose but Skeen discloses:
the request includes an interactive element
(See at least Claim 1, “causing at least one component of the computer network to generate a first set of instructions for causing a Ticketing graphical user interface ("Ticketing GUI") to be displayed at an end user's device, wherein the first set of instructions include instructions for configuring the Ticketing GUI to enable a first end user to initiate a ticket reservation invitation transaction for inviting at least one identified invitee to accept at least one reserved ticket for the first upcoming event; causing at least one component of the computer network to notify the at least one identified invitee of the ticket reservation invitation transaction; causing at least one component of the computer network to monitor the ticket reservation invitation transaction; automatically causing, in response to detecting a first condition or event, at least one component of the computer network to fund at least one reserved ticket purchase transaction relating to a purchase of at least one reserved ticket for the first upcoming event;”; ¶ 143 (“a Group Ticketing Event Page may be created within the platform, and Group Ticketing Invitations may be sent to the Initial Invitees via email, SMS, MAGNIFI notification or other means-directing the Initial Invitees to access the Group Ticketing Event Page within the MAGNIFI platform.”); see also ¶¶ 144–148 (specific examples of invitation messages with a link), ¶ 944 Fig. 36)
creating, in response to the second user opting to participate in the transaction via an interaction with the interactive element, a shared channel
(See at least Claim 1, “causing at least one component of the computer network to monitor the ticket reservation invitation transaction and automatically causing, in response to detecting a first condition or event, at least one component of the computer network to fund at least one reserved ticket purchase transaction.” Claim 1. The first condition or event includes: “detecting that a specific invitee has expressed interest in purchasing at least one of the reserved tickets” and “detecting that a specific invitee has purchased ticket for the first upcoming event.” Claim 1. ¶ 934 (“The Invitee receives 3502 a Reservation Group invitation via email or SMS, and clicks the associated invitation link.”) Upon clicking the invitation link (i.e., interacting with the interactive element), the Invitee is then taken to the Reservation Group Event Page — the shared channel — where they can view event details, claim reserved tickets, and enter payment information. ¶¶ 934–941. ¶ 143 (“a Group Ticketing Event Page may be created within the platform… directing the Initial Invitees to access the Group Ticketing Event Page within the MAGNIFI platform,” which constitutes the creation of the shared channel — the Group Ticketing Event Page — in response to the reservation group initiation and invitee opt-in interaction.) ¶ 920 (“FIG. 33 illustrates an embodiment of a Reservation Group Event Page GUI 3301 which may be displayed to the Host after confirming the initiation of the Reservation Group,” including a “shareable link 3320 for the Reservation Group event page, such that this link may be posted on social channels… for others to come to the event page and join the Reservation Group.” ¶ 930.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the request includes an interactive element and creating, in response to the second user opting to participate in the transaction via an interaction with the interactive element, a shared channel as explained in Skeen, to the known invention of Bank, in the same field of invention, with the motivation to provide a more effective and timely mechanism for notifying and enabling second users to opt into a contingency-based group purchase transaction without requiring the second user to be online at the time the first user initiates the purchase. Bank expressly acknowledges at ¶ 21 that its notification approach — sending a URL or launching a browser — is dependent on the second user being online at the time of initiation, and identifies at ¶ 2 the problem of coordinating group purchases “in time before any discount offers expire” where “time restrictions, such as expiration dates only a few days away… makes it difficult for a user to gather a group… in time.” Skeen addresses this exact problem by embedding an interactive graphical element — specifically a “hyperlinked button/link” — directly within an email or SMS invitation sent to the invitee’s device (¶¶ 944, 945), which the invitee can interact with asynchronously at any time to access the Group Ticketing Event Page (the shared channel) and complete their opt-in (¶¶ 143–148, ¶¶ 934–941). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that substituting Skeen’s embedded interactive graphical element for Bank’s URL/browser-launch notification would have been a predictable use of a known technique — embedded hyperlinked interactive elements in digital communications — to improve the reliability and timeliness of second-user opt-in in Bank’s contingency purchasing system, with a reasonable expectation of success given that both techniques serve the identical function of directing the second user to the shared transaction channel.
Regarding Claim 2, Bank and Skeen disclose:
The method as claim 1 recites, the condition to be satisfied, and the interactive element.
Bank further discloses
wherein the condition to be satisfied is a time window for opting into the social transaction, and
(See at least ¶ 13, “Another concern may be coordinating the purchase with the others in
time before any discount offers expire. The methodologies of the present disclosure in one embodiment facilitate and automate the sharing of coupons or bulk purchase items by two or more people”.
Bank discloses that notifications are sent with purchase information including amounts and product details (¶ 31), and that the notification may include a URL to the purchase page (¶ 21). Bank does not explicitly disclose that the notification or interactive element sent to the second user includes a visual indication of time remaining in the time window. Bank references the existence of expiration dates and time windows (¶¶ 13, 23, 33, 38) but does not disclose that these time parameters are visually displayed within the interactive element itself as a countdown or time-remaining indicator. Therefore, Bank does not disclose but Skeen discloses
wherein the interactive element includes a visual indication of time remaining in the time window.
(See at least ¶ 81, that the Event Page accessed via the invitation link (interactive element), displays the “required time frame for accepting or declining the Group Ticketing Invitation” as one of the items of information presented to invitees upon accessing the page. ¶ 163 (that upon accessing the Group Ticketing Event Page, invitees are presented with the “required time frame for accepting or declining the Group Ticketing Invitation” — i.e., a visual display of the time window condition governing opt-in to the reservation group transaction.); ¶ 95 (“If the Reservation Group does not achieve the Minimum Subscriber Level within a predetermined time frame e.g., 24 hours, 48 hours, 72 hours, the Reservation Group is cancelled, the reservations expire, and the Event Tickets become reclaimed inventory.”) See also ¶¶ 144–148 example invitation messages sent to invitees, which communicate the event date and time — temporal conditions governing participation — as part of the invitation itself. For example: “Howie just reserved 5 tickets to Cool Ghouls at the Fillmore on Nov. 23, 2015. Are you in? with a link to the Group Ticketing Event Page.” ¶145. Skeen further discloses at ¶¶ 883–892 that the Host may configure conditional purchase parameters including “Specifying a time window by which one or more Invitees need to complete their reservation acceptance and ticket purchases before conditional purchasing of the Host’s reserved tickets is triggered,” including specific “time frame for accepting reserved tickets” and “time frame for purchasing reserved tickets.” ¶¶ 890–892.)
The resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 1 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3, Bank and Skeen disclose:
The method as claim 1 recites and the shared channel
Bank further discloses
wherein the shared channel is temporarily available for a time period that is based at least in part on one or more of a time window for opting into the social transaction, a geolocation of the second user, an event type, an appointment parameter, or an item for purchase included in the social transaction.
(See at least ¶ 23, “Once the purchase is made, or the expiration date has passed, the server 106 or the plugin optionally may delete related information from the database and/or the user’s personal computer.” ¶ 13 (“Another concern may be coordinating the purchase with the others in time before any discount offers expire. The methodologies of the present disclosure in one embodiment facilitate and automate the sharing of coupons or bulk purchase items.”); ¶¶ 23, 32 (the purchase transaction is stored without completing, pending second-user opt-in, and that once “the expiration date has passed” the information is deleted — meaning the shared purchase channel is only temporarily available within the offer/expiration time window.)
Regarding Claim 4, Bank and Skeen disclose:
The method as claim 1 recites and the interaction with the interactive element
Bank further discloses
wherein the interaction with the interactive element causes real-time information associated with the social transaction to be presented to the second user and
(See at least ¶¶ 21, 22, where upon interaction with the notification, a live purchasing page/shopping cart is displayed to the second user with up-to-date transaction information (product, price, allocated share), which is “information associated with the social transaction” presented at the time of interaction.
provides access to the shared channel.
(See at least ¶ 31, describing a notification to second users: “the functionality… may send a purchase invitation to the specified one or more second users to share the purchase” and that the notification may include a “location address, e.g., uniform resource locator (URL) of the Web site for the final purchase confirmation or can launch a browser on a friend’s personal computer if the friend is on line at the time.” ¶ 21. When the notified users “visit the location address, e.g., the URL, their purchase orders are automatically filled in using the information previously stored.” ¶ 21. It also discloses that if purchase information is stored in a shared database, “the server 106 or the plugin may… search the shared database” and, if conditions are met, “the purchase is made using the captured information. If others also made conditional purchases, the server 106 can automatically complete their purchases if shopping cart information is stored in the shared database.” ¶ 20. At ¶ 22, Bank discloses that, when designated users are online, the server “may open a browsing session for each online designated user and display a purchasing page or shopping cart containing the shared item.” That purchasing page/shopping cart is the functional shared channel through which the group purchase is coordinated (the same shared item, shared cost allocation, and stored order information are presented and ultimately used to complete the contingent transaction). ¶¶ 20–22. Thus, interaction with the notification (URL / automatically opened browser) gives the second user access to the shared purchasing page/shopping cart, which is the shared channel that facilitates the contingent group transaction.)
Regarding Claim 5, Bank and Skeen disclose:
The method as claim 1 recites and the shared channel
Bank further discloses
wherein the shared channel is one of an open ticket or a shared virtual cart.
(Bank discloses a contingency arrangement where a first user’s purchase order is stored without completing the transaction until other users join, and then the group purchase is completed collectively. ¶ 12 (“The methodologies of the present disclosure in one embodiment allow a purchaser to form a group to be able to jointly purchase a product.”); ¶ 35 (“The methodologies of the present disclosure in one embodiment enable collectively utilizing by members of a group a shared service or a shared item such as a bulk purchase, dinner at a restaurant, and tickets to an event that the group would attend together, where the item purchased is divided among the group.”); see also, ¶¶ 3, 4, 30, 31, 32. This is functionally an open ticket: the purchase order is created and held open (contingent) until a minimum subset of others opt in, at which point the transaction for all members is completed. The claim’s phrase “open ticket” is a naming of the existing structure/function rather than a new structure.)
Regarding Claim 6, Bank and Skeen disclose:
The method as claim 1 recites and identifying the transaction as the social transaction
Bank further discloses
wherein identifying the transaction as the social transaction is based at least in part on determining that the transaction includes a plurality of items or an item with a plurality of portions.
(Bank explicitly teaches coordinating “multiple products” in a shared shopping cart (¶ 2) and “multiple purchases related to an event” (¶¶ 36, 37) as the context in which its group/contingency logic is applied. This aligns with identifying certain transactions as candidates for social treatment when they involve multiple items. Bank explicitly discloses bulk products and items whose benefits are divided among group members. ¶¶ 2, 13, 35. That is the functional equivalent of an “item with a plurality of portions,” and it is a central reason why such transactions are treated as group/contingency purchases.)
Regarding Claim 8, Bank discloses
A system comprising: one or more processors; and non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
(See at least ¶ 40)
The remaining limitations of Claim 8 are not substantively different than those presented in Claim 1 and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Bank and Skeen for the same rationale presented in Claim 1 supra.
The resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 1 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 8.
Regarding Claims 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, Bank and Skeen disclose
The system as claim 8 recites.
The remaining limitations of Claims 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 are not substantively different than those presented in Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, respectively, and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Bank and Skeen for the same rationale presented in Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, respectively, supra.
Regarding Claim 15, Bank discloses
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
(See at least ¶ 40)
The remaining limitations of Claim 15 are not substantively different than those presented in Claim 1 and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Bank and Skeen for the same rationale presented in Claim 1 supra.
The resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 1 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 15.
Regarding Claims 16, 17, 18, and 19, Bank and Skeen disclose
The system as claim 8 recites.
The remaining limitations of Claims 16, 17, 18, and 19 are not substantively different than those presented in Claims 2, 3, 4, and 6, respectively, and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Bank and Skeen for the same rationale presented in Claims 2, 3, 4, and 6, respectively, supra.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bank et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2013/0238464) [“Bank”] in view of Skeen et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0012612) [“Skeen”] and further in view of Gupta (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2013/0041824) [“Gupta”]
Regarding Claim 7, Bank and Skeen disclose:
The method as claim 1 recites and the social transaction is for a purchase of an item or a service, and the method further comprising facilitating payment of the transaction
Bank further discloses
wherein the social transaction is for a purchase of an item or a service, (¶ 12) and the method further comprising facilitating payment of the transaction by: withdrawing funds to purchase the item or the service from an account associated with the first user; causing the funds to be deposited into an account associated with a merchant that provides the item or the service;
(Bank discloses that once the group conditions are met, the system completes the purchase transaction and charges the group members using stored payment details. See at least Abstract, ¶¶ 15, 19, 20)
withdrawing a portion of the funds associated with the second user from an account associated with the second user; and causing the portion of the funds to be deposited […].
(Bank discloses dividing and allocating cost among group members. ¶¶ 18, 21, Claims 5, 6, 7.
Bank does not disclose the exact direction of the second user payment (directly to merchant vs. first user) Bank broadly discloses cost division and that one person can be the purchaser but does not explicitly disclose the second user’s share is deposited into the first user’s account as claimed. Thus, Bank does not disclose but Gupta discloses:
causing the portion of the funds to be deposited into the account associated with the first user.
(See at least ¶ 3, “a person within the group pays for the total bill with his or her payment device (e.g., a credit card, a debit card) and seeks repayment from others within the group.”; ¶ 5, (“the collaboration application may facilitate a transfer of funds from the participants to the payer in some embodiments.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined causing the portion of the funds to be deposited into the account associated with the first user as explained in Gupta, to the known invention of Bank, in the same field of invention, with the motivation to improve Bank’s existing cost sharing framework by automating reimbursement to a single payer, thereby reducing manual settlement between participants and leveraging well known collaboration based split payment techniques to streamline group purchases and enhance user convenience. Gupta, ¶ 3.
Regarding Claim 14, Bank and Skeen disclose
The system as claim 8 recites
The remaining limitations of Claim 14 are not substantively different than those presented in Claim 7 and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Bank, Skeen, and Gupta for the same rationale presented in Claim 7 supra.
The resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 7 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 20, Bank and Skeen disclose
The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media as claim 15 recites
The remaining limitations of Claim 20 are not substantively different than those presented in Claim 7 and are therefore, rejected, mutatis mutandis, based on Bank, Skeen, and Gupta for the same rationale presented in Claim 7 supra.
The resolution of the remaining Graham factual inquiries to support a conclusion of obviousness that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary skill in the pertinent art is substantively the same as that presented in Claim 7 supra, and is incorporated in its entirety herein, mutatis mutandis, to support the rejection of Claim 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES H MILLER whose telephone number is (469)295-9082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10- 4 PM (EST).
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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/JAMES H MILLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
1 Statements of intended use fail to limit the scope of the claim under BRI. MPEP § 2103(I)(C).
2 See Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.), 3-4, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF (April, 18, 2018) (That additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional may be supported by various forms of evidence, including "[a] citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).").
Prosecution Insights