DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the original application filed on 11/25/2024.
Claims 1-21 are rejected.
Claims 1-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
The current Application is a CON of US Patent No. 12,154,164, which is a CIP of US Patent No. 12,131,332 which claims priority from Provisional Application No. 63/294,654 filed 12/29/2021. Therefore, some of instant claims receive the effective filing date of 12/29/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statements received 11/25/2024 and 04/06/2026 has been reviewed and considered.
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 .
Regarding Double Patenting:
Regarding US Patent No. 12,154,164, there is no double patenting as US Patent No. 12,154,164 and the current claims are distinct inventions.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-21 objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 1 reads “in response to determining a change to the order, updating, by the one or more processors, data structure” but should likely read “in response to determining a change to the order, updating, by the one or more processors, the data structure”
Claims 2-11 and 21 inherit the deficiencies noted in claim 1, and are therefore objected to on the same basis.
-Claims 2, 12, and 20 read “a subset of the protection plan offers to display in the live website” but should likely read “a subset of the protection plan offers to display in a live website”
Claim 21 inherits the deficiencies noted in claim 2, and are therefore objected to on the same basis.
-Claims 5 and 15 read “wherein the merchant system displays the first quote at an interactive interface of the live website for the shopper” but should likely read “wherein the merchant system displays the first quote at an interactive interface of a live website for the shopper”
Claims 5 and 15 inherit the deficiencies noted in claims 6-7, and 16, respectfully, and are therefore objected to on the same basis.
-Claim 11 reads “in response to receiving an order, facilitate, at an integration system” but should likely read “in response to receiving an order, facilitate, at the integration system”
Claims 12-18 inherit the deficiencies noted in claim 11, and are therefore objected to on the same basis.
-Claim 19 reads “A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium stores instructions” but should likely read “A non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium stores instructions”
Claim 20 inherits the deficiencies noted in claim 19, and are therefore objected to on the same basis.
-Claim 21 reads “wherein a subset of the protection plan offers is provided in a modal window of a live website that is displayed based on the adding of the first item to a virtual shopping cart” but should likely read “wherein a subset of the protection plan offers is provided in a modal window of the live website that is displayed based on the adding of the first item to a virtual shopping cart”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories (see MPEP 2106.03). All the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (YES).
Under Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception (see MPEP 2106.04). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception (YES). Taking Claim 11 as representative, the claim recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including:
-one or more processors; and
-a memory operatively connected to the one or more processors, and including computer code that when executed, causes the one or more processors to:
-in response to receiving an order, facilitate, at an integration system from a merchant system, life cycle management of a selected plan, wherein facilitating life cycle management of the selected plan comprises creating a data structure including a product reference identifier and a protection plan identifier associated with a service contract and automatically registering the protection plan on behalf of the customer;
-in response to determining a change to the order, update the data structure to update the protection plan coverage for the one or more product reference identifiers and the protection plan identifier; and
-provide the product reference identifier and the protection plan identifier, by an orders API or a contracts API of the integration platform, to perform an action associated with the transaction
The above limitations recite the concept of facilitating management of protection plan coverage associated with an order. The above limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Certain methods of organizing human activity include:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risk)
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and business relations)
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
The limitation of in response to determining a change to the order, update the data structure to update the protection plan coverage for the one or more product reference identifiers and the protection plan identifier is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a commercial interaction. For example, “determining” and “update” in the context of this claim encompass advertising, and marketing or sales activities.
Similarly, the limitations of in response to receiving an order, facilitate, at an integration system from a merchant system, life cycle management of a selected plan, wherein facilitating life cycle management of the selected plan comprises creating a data structure including a product reference identifier and a protection plan identifier associated with a service contract and automatically registering the protection plan on behalf of the customer; and provide the product reference identifier and the protection plan identifier, by an orders API or a contracts API of the integration platform, to perform an action associated with the transaction are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a commercial interaction. That is, other than reciting that the facilitating is at an integration system, that the merchant is a merchant system, that the registering is done automatically, and that the providing is by an orders API or a contracts API of the integration platform, , nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by people. For example, but for the “an integration system,” “a merchant system,” “automatically,” “an orders API,” and “a contracts API” language, “receiving,” “facilitate,” and “provide,” ” in the context of this claim encompasses advertising, and marketing or sales activities.
Under Prong 2, it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (NO).
-one or more processors; and
-a memory operatively connected to the one or more processors, and including computer code that when executed, causes the one or more processors to:
-in response to receiving an order, facilitate, at an integration system from a merchant system, life cycle management of a selected plan, wherein facilitating life cycle management of the selected plan comprises creating a data structure including a product reference identifier and a protection plan identifier associated with a service contract and automatically registering the protection plan on behalf of the customer;
-in response to determining a change to the order, update the data structure to update the protection plan coverage for the one or more product reference identifiers and the protection plan identifier; and
-provide the product reference identifier and the protection plan identifier, by an orders API or a contracts API of the integration platform, to perform an action associated with the transaction
These limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application because:
The additional elements of claim 11 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea) as supported by paragraph [0061] of Applicant’s specification – “Processor 204 may comprise a general-purpose or special-purpose processing engine such as, for example, a microprocessor, controller, or other control logic.” Specifically, the additional elements of an integration system, one or more processors, a memory operatively connected to the one or more processors, computer code, a merchant system, automatically registering, an orders API, and a contracts API are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing the generic computer functions of receiving data, facilitating data, determining data, updating data, providing data, and performing data) such that they amount do no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks). Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Additionally, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, ii) apply the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, it is determined whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims of the present application do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (NO).
In the case of claim 11, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 9 do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above under step 2A (prong 2) with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed functions amount to no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually.
Claim 1 is a method reciting similar functions as claim 11. Examiner notes that claim 1 recites the additional elements of a computer-implemented method, an integration system, a merchant system, one or more processors, computer instructions, automatically registering, an orders API, and a contracts API, however, claim 1 does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons as claim 11 indicated above.
Claim 19 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium reciting similar functions as claim 1. Examiner notes that claim 19 recites the additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable medium, one or more processors, an integration system, a merchant system, computer instructions, automatically registering, an orders API, and a contracts API, however, claim 19 does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons as claim 1 indicated above.
Therefore, claims 1, 11, and 19 do not provide an inventive concept and do not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20-21, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20-21 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas in that they recite commercial interactions. Dependent claims 4 and 14 do not recite any farther additional elements, and as such are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons discussed above. Dependent claims 2-3, 5-10, 12-13, 15-18, and 20-21 recite the additional elements of the integration system, the one or more processors, the live website, an offers management system, a set of connected platforms, an offers management, administrative module, a rules system, an offers API, a content management system, lead tokens, an offer rendering system, the merchant system, an interactive interface, a first interactive frame object, a second interactive frame object, a subset of the protection plan offers being provided natively at the live website, a modal window, and a virtual shopping cart, but similar to the analysis under prong two of Step 2A these additional elements are used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, under prong two of Step 2A, claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20-21 are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above. Thus, dependent claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20-21 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Next, under Step 2B, similar to the analysis of claims 1, 11, and 19, dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, and 10-12 when analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, merely further define the commonplace business method (i.e. facilitating management of protection plan coverage associated with an order) being applied on a general-purpose computer and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention.
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.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4, 9, 11-12, 14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komenda et al. (US 2019/0057454 A1), Komenda, in view of Ward et al. (US 2016/0063564 A1), hereinafter Ward.
Regarding claim 1, Komenda discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
-in response to receiving an order, facilitating, at an integration system, life cycle management of a selected plan, wherein facilitating life cycle management of the selected plan comprises (Komenda, see at least: and “The ASI-SP 306 may search the insurance request system 304 automatically and/or in response to a consumer's request [i.e. in response to receiving an order] received through a user-portal. In some embodiments, the insurance request 312 and/or the request parameters requested criteria can be received through a consumer-facing portal in which the consumer is provided login information. For example, once the consumer has logged in, he or she may interact with a server executing the ASI-SP 306 through a network, utilizing a computing device associated with the consumer to submit an insurance request 312. In some embodiments, the ASI-SP 306 actively monitors the insurance request system 304 for any newly-added insurance requests (such as a new transaction block in a distributed ledger system associated with the insurance request system 304) [i.e. facilitating, at an integration system, life cycle management of a selected plan]. As such, the ASI-SP 306 may constantly determine whether a new transaction block comprising an insurance request exists and, if so, determine an optimal insurance based on the insurance request criteria contained within the new transaction block” [0075] and “this disclosure relates to methods and systems for establishing an immutable electronic transaction platform for securing insurance. For ease of understanding, the platform in described in the context of securing insurance for an item being shipped, but it should be understood that the platform could be used to secure any type of insurance. For example, embodiments can provide an autonomous smart insurance selection platform (“ASI-SP”) and automatic claim resolution system (“AIC-RS”) [i.e. facilitating, at an integration system, life cycle management of a selected plan]” [0018] and “a distributed ledger system may store information/data indicative of various transactions associated with the transportation of the parcel and/or insuring the parcel [i.e. in response to receiving an order]” [0022]);
-creating, by one or more processors programmed with computer instructions, a data structure including a product reference identifier and a protection plan identifier associated with a service contract and automatically registering the protection plan on behalf of the customer (Komenda, see at least: “one or more transactions associated with insurance policies may be stored in a distributed ledger. For example, the one or more insurance policies may be submitted by transportation insurers 308 and stored as a transaction on a distributed ledger associated with an insurance offer system 310 [i.e. creating, by one or more processors programmed with computer instructions, a data structure]. Each transaction associated with the one or more insurance policies may comprise a digital signature that is unique to the computing device associated with the transportation insurer 308 such that the node (e.g., node 110n) maintaining the distributed ledger can validate the transaction” [0069] and “The customized insurance policy may then be communicated to the insurance offer system 310 for storage on a distributed ledger [i.e. creating, by one or more processors programmed with computer instructions, a data structure]. In some embodiments, the customized insurance policy can reference the insurance request 312. For instance, the customized insurance policy may include a physical asset identifier, a digital address of the insurance request, a digital address of the insurance requester, a particular request identification number, and the like, as one of the policy parameters. The ASI-SP 306 can then utilize this reference to determine an optimal insurance policy. The term “optimal” may refer to the highest ranked insurance policy. For example, the optimal insurance policy may be the one that most closely matches the user's request [i.e. including a product reference identifier and a protection plan identifier associated with a service contract]” [0070] and “the customized insurance policy [i.e. associated with a service contract] may reference an insurance request, for example, through a digital address, a parcel identification, a particular request identification number [i.e. including a product reference identifier and a protection plan identifier], and the like” [0093] and “the consumer can determines the optimal insurance policy based on reviewing the set of one or more potential insurance policies determined by the ASI-SP 306 and submitting a request for the optimal insurance policy to the ASI-SP 306. This, in part, reduces the resources required to independently research and/or independently contact the insurance provider, for example, by visiting a website associated with the insurance company and requesting a quote. Once an insurance policy has been selected, it may be added as a transaction to a distributed ledger (such as a distributed ledger associated with the completed transaction system 314) [i.e. and automatically registering the protection plan on behalf of the customer]” [0081] and “each transaction/block in the distributed ledger may comprise asset-identifying information (e.g., parcel ID, parcel information/data, information/data of transacting entities), and may comprise data regarding environmental conditions of the physical asset and/or a shipping/tracking event for the physical asset” [0025]);
-in response to determining a change to the order, updating, by the one or more processors, data structure to update the protection plan coverage for the one or more product reference identifiers and the protection plan identifier (Komenda, see at least: “based on the unexpected travel condition occurring, the insurance coverage on the parcel can be automatically entered into, modified, and/or expanded [i.e. in response to determining a change to the order, updating, by the one or more processors, data structure]. For instance, as described, the ASI-SP 306 can determine the GPS location of the parcel and, as such, determine if the parcel is being re-routed if the parcel location does not match the anticipated route. Further, the re-routing of the parcel may increase the risk of damage to and/or loss of the parcel. As such, the ASI-SP 306 can evaluate the risk involved in the unexpected travel condition and can automatically modify and/or expand the insurance coverage [i.e. to update the protection plan coverage for the one or more product reference identifiers and the protection plan identifier] to include the unforeseen risk associated with re-routing the parcel. In one non-limiting example, if the ASI-SP 306 determines there is an increased risk of damage to and/or loss of the parcel, the ASI-SP 306 can then identify a second optimal insurance policy to cover the increase in risk. In a further example, the ASI-SP 306 may secure additional insurance policy to cover the increased risk. It is foreseen that, in exemplary embodiments, the ASI-SP 306 may alert one or more parties (e.g., the consumer, the third-party insurer, and/or a second third-party insurer) as to the modification and may wait for their confirmation for the modification” [0089]); and
-providing, by the one or more processors, the product reference identifier and the protection plan identifier, by the integration platform, to perform an action associated with the transaction (Komenda, see at least: “FIG. 7 depicts an exemplary flow diagram of a method 700 for resolving a claim in accordance with some embodiments of the present disclosure. The method 700 may be carried out by a server employing the AIC-RS 414. The AIC-RS 414 [i.e. by the integration platform] may comprise one or more components to carry out each step for resolving a claim” [0112] and “At step 720, the AIC-RS 414 may search data stores, repositories, distributed ledgers, and databases to obtain the relevant shipping information and insurance policy information that is used during the claims resolution process (if it has not already been provided by the claim submission 406) [i.e. providing, by the one or more processors, the product reference identifier and the protection plan identifier]” [0115] and “the claim resolution component may use references within the blocks and/or the digital addresses to identify relevant claim resolution data [i.e. providing, by the one or more processors, the product reference identifier and the protection plan identifier]. Because blocks within one or more distributed ledgers can be linked to other blocks in other distributed ledgers, this information can be used to identify which systems and/or distributed ledgers to search” [0117] and “Relevant claim resolution data includes, but is not limited to, shipment information, insurance information, parcel information/data [i.e. the product reference identifier and the protection plan identifier], and/or information associated with the claim itself” [0118] and “At step 730, a claim resolution transaction can be generated for communication to a node. The claim resolution transaction can be generated by the AIC-RS 414 based on relevant shipping information, parcel information/data, and insurance policy information [i.e. to perform an action associated with the transaction]” [0119]).
Komenda does not explicitly disclose, in response to receiving an order, facilitating, at an integration system from a merchant system, life cycle management of a selected plan; and providing, by the one or more processors, the product reference identifier and the protection plan identifier, by an orders API or a contracts API of the integration platform.
Ward, however, teaches making a warranty offer (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of, in response to receiving an order, facilitating, at an integration system from a merchant system, life cycle management of a selected plan (Ward, see at least: “when a purchase is made at an e-commerce store [i.e. in response to receiving an order]. The goods and services offered by the e-commerce store are categorized by the categorization engine 146 at step 310 or may alternatively be categorized in real time. Warranty stock keeping units (SKUs) are loaded onto the e-commerce store website at step 320 and a computer program in the form of JavaScript® code is inserted into the e-commerce store website at step 330. The JavaScript® code triggers the offer engine 148 on the server 122 to offer a warranty [i.e. facilitating, at an integration system from a merchant system, life cycle management of a selected plan] when a consumer clicks an icon, for example, ADD TO CART, to purchase goods or services at step 340 [i.e. in response to receiving an order]. In other examples however the JavaScript® code could be developed with code for the e-commerce store and pull data from the server 122” [0032] and “The association of an extended warranty with a purchase may also trigger further actions including, but not limited to, preparation for claims, the setting up of a consumer account, the billing of the e-commerce store, order execution with a warranty provider, and the tracking of the extended warranty and any manufacturer warranty [i.e. facilitating, at an integration system from a merchant system, life cycle management of a selected plan]” [0035]); and
the known technique of providing, by the one or more processors, protection plan data, by an orders API or a contracts API of the integration platform (Ward, see at least: “The offer engine [i.e. by the one or more processors] may also offer a warranty or additional goods and services on a call center display, on remarketing advertisements on social media, direct to consumers by email, and on an application programming interface (API) [i.e. providing protection plan data, by an orders API or a contracts API of the integration platform]” [0042] and Fig. 9 indicates that the API includes “warranty offer capability, general quotes or product specific, mobile apps, other third party tools” [i.e. providing protection plan data, by an orders API or a contracts API of the integration platform]). These known techniques are applicable to the method of Komenda as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to making a warranty offer.
It would have been recognized that applying the known techniques of, in response to receiving an order, facilitating, at an integration system from a merchant system, life cycle management of a selected plan; and providing, by the one or more processors, protection plan data, by an orders API or a contracts API of the integration platform, as taught by Ward, to the teachings of Komenda would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modifications of, in response to receiving an order, facilitating, at an integration system from a merchant system, life cycle management of a selected plan; and providing, by the one or more processors, protection plan data, by an orders API or a contracts API of the integration platform, as taught by Ward, into the method of Komenda would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would associate the goods and services available for purchase by the consumer with the warranty (Ward, [0008]).
Regarding claim 2, Komenda in view of Ward teach the method of claim 1, Komenda further discloses:
-determining, at the integration system, by the one or more processors, a subset of the protection plan offers to display in the live website, wherein the subset of the protection plan includes shipping protection plans (Komenda, see at least: “the ASI-SP 306 can rank each insurance policy within the set of insurance policies based on predetermined weights applied to insurance request criteria and/or the insurance policy parameters. In various embodiments, the predetermined weights are predefined by one or more entities (e.g., a shipper and/or insurance provider) [i.e. wherein the subset of the protection plan includes shipping protection plans] and/or systems (ASI-SP 306)” [0078] and “the insurance request 312 and/or the request parameters requested criteria can be received through a consumer-facing portal [i.e. to display in the live website]” [0075] and “the ASI-SP 306 may rank each insurance policy within the set of potential insurance policies [i.e. determining, at the integration system, by the one or more processors, a subset of the protection plan offers]. In various embodiments, the ASI-SP 306 may use this raking and select the highest weighted insurance policy as the optimal insurance policy. Additionally or alternatively, the consumer can determines the optimal insurance policy based on reviewing the set of one or more potential insurance policies determined by the ASI-SP 306 and submitting a request for the optimal insurance policy to the ASI-SP 306” [0081]); and
-performing, at the integration system, an action associated with the transaction (Komenda, see at least: “At step 730, a claim resolution transaction can be generated for communication to a node. The claim resolution transaction can be generated by the AIC-RS 414 based on relevant shipping information, parcel information/data, and insurance policy information [i.e. performing, at the integration system, an action associated with the transaction]” [0119]).
Komenda does not explicitly disclose receiving, at the integration system, by the one or more processors, a catalog of items and the notification related to the transaction.
Ward, however, teaches making a warranty offer (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of receiving, at the integration system, by the one or more processors, a catalog of items and the notification related to the transaction (Ward, see at least: “There is a database 144 on the server 122 [i.e. at the integration system, by the one or more processors]. The database 144 contains a list of goods and services offered by a merchant which are categorized by a categorization engine 146. The database 144 may be populated by uploading or downloading a merchant database or manually inputting data [i.e. receiving the catalog of items]” [0031] and “The mainframe computer 124 of the e-commerce store provides consumer information and purchase information to the server 122 at step 710 [i.e. receiving the notification related to the transaction]. The purchase information is scanned to identify purchases associated with an extended warranty at step 720” [0035] and “in addition to being implemented on a variety of hardware platforms, the warranty management system may also be implemented on a variety of software platforms [i.e. at the integration system, by the one or more processors]” [0029]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Komenda with Ward for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Komenda in view of Ward teach the method of claim 1, Komenda further discloses:
-wherein the protection plan comprises one or more of a product protection plan and a shipping protection plan (Komenda, see at least: "the insurance policy may be weighted more heavily when it is considered for an insurance request that requests insurance for a similar logistics provider than when it is considered for an insurance request that requests insurance for a particular shipping method [i.e. wherein the protection plan comprises one or more of a product protection plan and a shipping protection plan]" [0079]).
Regarding claim 9, Komenda in view of Ward teach the method of claim 1, Komenda further discloses:
-further comprising at least one of:
-generating, by the one or more processors, a refund associated with the first item, the shopper, and the protection plan; and
-initiating, by the one or more processors, shipment of a replacement product associated with the first item, the shopper, and the protection plan, wherein the protection plan is a shipping protection plan (Komenda, see at least: “once a smart contract is executed, a claim-resolution action may be generated. This may be generated by the AIC-RS 414 [i.e. by the one or more processors] or automatically triggered by the smart contract. By way of example, the claim-resolution action can be disbursing a payment (e.g., currency or cryptocurrency) from a financial institution system 412, generating a return shipping label (e.g., by a logistics provider and shipment system 408), generating a communication to be delivered to the appropriate parties regarding the resolution of the claim, issuing a replacement shipment (e.g., by communicating with a shipper system 416) [i.e. initiating shipment of a replacement product associated with the first item, the shopper, and the protection plan], and the like” [0121] and "the insurance policy may be weighted more heavily when it is considered for an insurance request that requests insurance for a similar logistics provider than when it is considered for an insurance request that requests insurance for a particular shipping method [i.e. wherein the protection plan is a shipping protection plan]" [0079]).
Claims 11, 14, and 18 recite limitations directed towards integration system, the integration system comprising: one or more processors; and a memory operatively connected to the one or more processors, and including computer code (Komenda, see at least: “a system is provided for automating selection of insurance policies for physical assets, the system comprising one or more processors and computer storage memory having computer-executable instructions stored thereon” [0006]). The rest of the limitations recited in claims 11, 14, and 18 are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claims 1, 4, and 9, respectively, and are therefore rejected for those same reasons set forth above in claims 1, 4, and 9, respectively.
Regarding claim 12, Komenda in view of Ward teach the system of claim 11, Komenda further discloses:
-wherein the one or more processors are further to:
-determine a set of protection plan offers and a subset of the protection plan offers to display in the live website (Komenda, see at least: “the insurance request 312 and/or the request parameters requested criteria can be received through a consumer-facing portal [i.e. to display in the live website]” [0075] and “the ASI-SP 306 may rank each insurance policy within the set of potential insurance policies [i.e. determine, by the one or more processors, a set of protection plan offers and a subset of the protection plan offers]. In various embodiments, the ASI-SP 306 may use this raking and select the highest weighted insurance policy as the optimal insurance policy. Additionally or alternatively, the consumer can determines the optimal insurance policy based on reviewing the set of one or more potential insurance policies determined by the ASI-SP 306 and submitting a request for the optimal insurance policy to the ASI-SP 306” [0081]); and
-perform an action associated with the transaction (Komenda, see at least: “At step 730, a claim resolution transaction can be generated for communication to a node. The claim resolution transaction can be generated by the AIC-RS 414 based on relevant shipping information, parcel information/data, and insurance policy information [i.e. perform an action associated with the transaction]” [0119]).
Komenda does not explicitly disclose the one or more processors are further to: receive a catalog of items and the notification associated with the transaction.
Ward, however, teaches making a warranty offer (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of the one or more processors are further to: receive a catalog of items and the notification associated with the transaction (Ward, see at least: “There is a database 144 on the server 122 [i.e. the one or more processors are further to:]. The database 144 contains a list of goods and services offered by a merchant which are categorized by a categorization engine 146. The database 144 may be populated by uploading or downloading a merchant database or manually inputting data [i.e. receive the catalog of items]” [0031] and “The mainframe computer 124 of the e-commerce store provides consumer information and purchase information to the server 122 at step 710 [i.e. receive the notification related to the transaction]. The purchase information is scanned to identify purchases associated with an extended warranty at step 720” [0035]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Komenda with Ward for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 11.
Claims 19 and 20 recite limitations directed towards non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium stores instructions, which when executed by one or more processing resources of an integration system (Komenda, see at least: “Computing device 800 typically includes a variety of computer-readable media. Computer-readable media can be any available media that can be accessed by computing device 800 and includes both volatile and nonvolatile media, and removable and non-removable media” [0125]). The rest of the limitations recited in claims 19 and 20 are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claims 1 and 2, respectively, and are therefore rejected for those same reasons set forth above in claims 1 and 2, respectively.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komenda, in view of Ward, in further view of Breed et al. (US 2011/0225047 A1), hereinafter Breed.
Regarding claim 3, Komenda in view of Ward teach the method of claim 1, Komenda further discloses:
-providing, at the integration system, by the one or more processors, an offers management system that includes a set of connected platforms to manage aspects of the protection plan offers, wherein the offers management system includes an offers management administrative module, a content management system, and an offer rendering system (Komenda, see at least: “the ASI-SP 306 selects an insurance policy for the insurance request 312 [i.e. providing, at the integration system, by the one or more processors, an offers management system]” [0068] and “the one or more insurance policies may be submitted by transportation insurers 308 and stored as a transaction on a distributed ledger associated with an insurance offer system 310 [i.e. an offer rendering system]” [0069] and “the requested criteria and values of the insurance request 312 are utilized to search one or more insurance policies to identify any insurance policies [i.e. an offers management administrative module] having policy parameters with similar values” [0076] and “the ASI-SP 306 can obtain the one or more insurance policies through a transportation insurance provider and/or its agent systems 302 (e.g., a remote database associated with a server of a transportation insurance provider). Further, the insurance policy may be received from the insurance provider 308 through a web-based portal (not shown) [i.e. a content management system]” [0072] and “The various components described herein are provided in relation to an autonomous smart insurance selection platform (ASI-SP) and automatic insurance claim resolution system (AIC-RS). The described components are provided to describe some embodiments in accordance with the present disclosure. It is contemplated that any components, sub-components, modules [i.e. an offers management administrative module], or sub-modules described herein can be combined, interchanged, distributed, or re-arranged to accomplish the features and operations described in accordance with the present disclosure” [0021] and Fig. 3 [i.e. that includes a set of connected platforms to manage aspects of the protection plan offers]).
Komenda does not explicitly disclose the offers management system includes an offers API.
Ward, however, teaches making a warranty offer (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of the offers management system includes an offers API, a content management system, and an offer rendering system (Ward, see at least: “An offer engine 148 supported by the server 122 [i.e. wherein the offers management system includes] cross-references the database 144 to determine an appropriate warranty to offer [i.e. a content management system] to a consumer based on the goods and services being purchased” [0031] and “Warranty stock keeping units (SKUs) are loaded onto the e-commerce store website at step 320 and a computer program in the form of JavaScript® code is inserted into the e-commerce store website at step 330. The JavaScript® code triggers the offer engine 148 [i.e. wherein the offers management system includes] on the server 122 to offer a warranty when a consumer clicks an icon [i.e. an offer rendering system], for example, ADD TO CART, to purchase goods or services at step 340” [0032] and “The offer engine [i.e. wherein the offers management system includes an offer rendering system] may also offer a warranty or additional goods and services on a call center display, on remarketing advertisements on social media, direct to consumers by email, and on an application programming interface (API) [i.e. an offers API]” [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Komenda with Ward for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 1.
Komenda in view of Ward does not explicitly teach the offers management system including a rules system and lead tokens.
Breed, however, teaches providing advertisements for warranties to consumers (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of an offers management system including a rules system and lead tokens (Breed, see at least: “The various functions of the IIC server 108 [i.e. offers management system includes] (as executed by the aforementioned applications 126, 128) can also be masked or controlled by a “business rules engine” [i.e. a rules system]or other logical wrapper or layer as described subsequently herein” [0076] and “the term "network" refers generally to data or communications networks regardless of type, including without limitation, LANs, WANs, intranets, internets, the Internet, cable systems, telecommunications networks, satellite networks, and Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), or collections or combinations thereof, whether based on wired, wireless, or matter wave modalities. Such networks may utilize literally any physical architectures and topologies (e.g. ATM, IEEE-802.3, X.25, Token Ring [i.e. lead token]” [0045] and “FIG. 4a illustrates the lead generation method relating specifically to the one or more warranty providers [i.e. wherein the offers management system includes lead tokens], as these are provided with the extracted information (step 404 of FIG. 4)” [0115] Examiner notes that using a token ring as a communication network means that the generated leads would be communicated as tokens [i.e. lead token]). This known technique is applicable to the method of Komenda in view of Ward as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing advertisements for warranties to consumers.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of an offers management system including a rules system and lead tokens, as taught by Breed, to the teachings of Komenda in view of Ward would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modification of an offers management system including a rules system and lead tokens, as taught by Breed, into the method of Komenda in view of Ward would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would provide efficient, time-sensitive, integrated, and cost-effective way to providing information to a consumer regarding a possible purchase or sale of an item (Breed, [0014]).
Claim 13 recites limitations directed towards integration system. The limitations recited in claim 13 are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 3, and are therefore rejected for those same reasons set forth above in claim 3.
Claims 5-7, 15-16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komenda, in view of Ward, in further view of Haynes et al. (US 9,123,069 B1), hereinafter Haynes.
Regarding claim 5, Komenda in view of Ward teach the method of claim 1, Komenda further discloses:
-determining, by the one or more processors, one or more rules that map a subset of protection plan offers, from a set of protection plan offers, to a first item as a function of at least one of: offer price, merchant, product type, term length, coverage type, service type, region, and subregion, wherein the subset of protection plan offers are shipping protection plan offers (Komenda, see at least: “the requested criteria and values of the insurance request 312 are utilized to search one or more insurance policies to identify any insurance policies having policy parameters with similar values [i.e. determining, by the one or more processors, one or more rules that map a subset of protection plan offers]. It should be appreciated that the term “similar” could mean an exact match, the term also refers to values within a given range, a predetermined tolerance, and/or a threshold. By way of example, a consumer may have a criterion (e.g. cost of insurance) [i.e. as a function of at least one of: offer price, merchant, product type, term length, coverage type, service type, region, and subregion, wherein the subset of protection plan offers are shipping protection plan offers] having a particular value (e.g., “$8.00” or “Willing to pay to up $8.00”). The ASI-SP 306 may utilize this criterion and value to identify any insurance policies having a corresponding policy parameter (e.g., cost of insurance) with a similar value ($7.50)” [0076]); and
-identifying, by the one or more processors, the subset of the set of protection plan offers based on the one or more rules (Komenda, see at least: “Any insurance request criteria may be used to search and identify an insurance policy having policy parameters with similar values [i.e. identifying, by the one or more processors, the subset of the set of protection plan offers based on the one or more rules] … It should be appreciated that any number of insurance request criteria can be used to search and identify insurance policies having at least one corresponding insurance parameter having a similar value” [0077]); and
-providing, by the one or more processors, a shipping offer configuration (Komenda, see at least: “the ASI-SP 306 may use this raking and select the highest weighted insurance policy as the optimal insurance policy. Additionally or alternatively, the consumer can determines the optimal insurance policy based on reviewing the set of one or more potential insurance policies determined by the ASI-SP 306 [i.e. providing, by the one or more processors, a shipping offer configuration] and submitting a request for the optimal insurance policy to the ASI-SP 306. This, in part, reduces the resources required to independently research and/or independently contact the insurance provider, for example, by visiting a website associated with the insurance company and requesting a quote. Once an insurance policy has been selected, it may be added as a transaction to a distributed ledger (such as a distributed ledger associated with the completed transaction system 314)” [0081]).
Komenda does not explicitly disclose a first item being offered by the merchant.
Ward, however, teaches making a warranty offer (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of a first item offered by the merchant (Ward, see at least: “when a purchase is made at an e-commerce store. The goods and services offered by the e-commerce store [i.e. a first item offered by the merchant] are categorized by the categorization engine 146 at step 310 or may alternatively be categorized in real time. Warranty stock keeping units (SKUs) are loaded onto the e-commerce store website at step 320 and a computer program in the form of JavaScript® code is inserted into the e-commerce store website at step 330. The JavaScript® code triggers the offer engine 148 on the server 122 to offer a warranty when a consumer clicks an icon, for example, ADD TO CART, to purchase goods or services at step 340. In other examples however the JavaScript® code could be developed with code for the e-commerce store and pull data from the server 122” [0032] and “The system may deploy cookies or other tracking tools to track consumer behaviour on e-commerce websites. This information can be analyzed to improve offers made to individual consumers by the offer engine 148 or provide aggregate data to improve general offers made by the offer engine 148. The offer engine is thereby able to learn to associate a specific warranty with a specific good or service [i.e. rules]” [0034]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Komenda with Ward for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 1.
Komenda in view of Ward does not explicitly teach providing a first quote with a quote ID, wherein the merchant system displays the first quote at an interactive interface of the live website for the shopper, wherein the live website displays the first item with a first interactive frame object and a second interactive frame object comprising the subset of the set of shipping protection plan offers mapped to the first item.
Haynes, however, teaches online transactions (i.e. abstract) including the known technique of providing a first quote with a quote ID, wherein the merchant system displays the first quote at an interactive interface of the live website for the shopper, wherein the live website displays the first item with a first interactive frame object and a second interactive frame object comprising the subset of the set of shipping protection plan offers mapped to the first item (Haynes, see at least: “FIG. 7 is a schematic diagram showing details of item queue 114 following user selection of the arrival date line item 122. When the user selects the arrival date line item 122, a list of available arrival dates is presented to the user, along with the corresponding shipping speed, carrier, and or cost. For example, in the illustrated example, the user is given the choice of arrival dates between September 3 and September 12. If the item is to be delivered on September 3, the item will be shipped via Federal Express (FedEx) and the cost will be $12.00. If, however, the user is willing to wait until sometime between September 7 and September 12, the item can be shipped via the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) for only $5.00 [i.e. providing a first quote with a quote ID, wherein the merchant system displays the first quote at an interactive interface of the live website for the shopper]. The user may obtain additional details of the arrival date (e.g., time of day, insurance options [i.e. the subset of the set of shipping protection plan offers mapped to the first item], restrictions, etc.) by selecting the desired arrival date (e.g., by clicking or hovering over)” Col. 6 Ln. 65-67 & Col. 7 Ln. 1-12 and “Various techniques for moving transaction information forward and for presenting an item queue are described in the context of an e-commerce merchant website” Col. 9 Ln. 66-67 & Col. 10 Ln. 1 and Fig. 12 displays that the left panel of the interface displayed item product details as well as interactive size and color components [i.e. wherein the live website displays the first item with a first interactive frame object] and the right panel of the interface displays the item queue 114 with the shipping options [i.e. a second interactive frame object comprising the subset of the set of shipping protection plan offers mapped to the first item]). These known techniques are applicable to the method of Haynes as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to online transactions.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of a first quote with a quote ID, wherein the merchant system displays the first quote at an interactive interface of the live website for the shopper, wherein the live website displays the first item with a first interactive frame object and a second interactive frame object comprising the subset of the set of shipping protection plan offers mapped to the first item, as taught by Haynes, to the teachings of Haynes would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modification of a first quote with a quote ID, wherein the merchant system displays the first quote at an interactive interface of the live website for the shopper, wherein the live website displays the first item with a first interactive frame object and a second interactive frame object comprising the subset of the set of shipping protection plan offers mapped to the first item, as taught by Haynes, into the method of Haynes would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would provide simpler and faster online shopping (Haynes, Col. 2 Ln. 54-57).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Komenda/Ward/Haynes teach the method of claim 5.
Komenda does not explicitly disclose one or more of a set of protection plan offers, an updated subset of protection plan offers, and a subset of the protection plan offers being provided natively at the live website associated with the merchant system.
Ward, however, teaches making a warranty offer (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of one or more of a set of protection plan offers, an updated subset of protection plan offers, and a subset of the protection plan offers are provided natively at the live website associated with the merchant system (Ward, see at least: “Warranty stock keeping units (SKUs) are loaded onto the e-commerce store website at step 320 and a computer program in the form of JavaScript® code is inserted into the e-commerce store website at step 330. The JavaScript® code triggers the offer engine 148 on the server 122 to offer a warranty when a consumer clicks an icon, for example, ADD TO CART, to purchase goods or services at step 340. In other examples however the JavaScript® code could be developed with code for the e-commerce store and pull data from the server 122. The warranty offer appears on the e-commerce store website [i.e. wherein one or more of a set of protection plan offers, an updated subset of protection plan offers, and a subset of the protection plan offers are provided natively at the live website associated with the merchant system], as shown in FIG. 4, despite the warranty offer being made by a third party warranty provider and not a merchant operating the e-commerce store” [0032] and Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Komenda with Ward for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Komenda/Ward/Haynes teach the method of claim 5. Komenda further discloses:
-creating, by the one or more processors, the second quote in part based on updating the one or more rules to map an updated subset of shipping protection plan offers to the first item, and identifying the updated subset of shipping protection plan offers based on the updated one or more rules (Komenda, see at least: “based on the unexpected travel condition occurring, the insurance coverage on the parcel can be automatically entered into, modified, and/or expanded [i.e. creating, by the one or more processors, the second quote in part based on updating the one or more rules to map an updated subset of shipping protection plan offers to the first item]. For instance, as described, the ASI-SP 306 can determine the GPS location of the parcel and, as such, determine if the parcel is being re-routed if the parcel location does not match the anticipated route. Further, the re-routing of the parcel may increase the risk of damage to and/or loss of the parcel. As such, the ASI-SP 306 can evaluate the risk involved in the unexpected travel condition and can automatically modify and/or expand the insurance coverage to include the unforeseen risk associated with re-routing the parcel [i.e. identifying the updated subset of shipping protection plan offers based on the updated one or more rules]. In one non-limiting example, if the ASI-SP 306 determines there is an increased risk of damage to and/or loss of the parcel, the ASI-SP 306 can then identify a second optimal insurance policy to cover the increase in risk. In a further example, the ASI-SP 306 may secure additional insurance policy to cover the increased risk. It is foreseen that, in exemplary embodiments, the ASI-SP 306 may alert one or more parties (e.g., the consumer, the third-party insurer, and/or a second third-party insurer) as to the modification and may wait for their confirmation for the modification” [0089] and “the insurance request 312 may comprise insurance request criteria. At a high level, the insurance request criteria may comprise general shipping conditions, transportation mode and/or route, environmental condition requirements (temperature, pressure, vibration), duration of shipment, general security of the asset (e.g., an enclosed, locked transportation container), policy limits, and parcel identification [i.e. based on updating the one or more rules to map an updated subset of shipping protection plan offers to the first item]” [0066]); and
-providing, by the one or more processors, the second quote to display at the interactive interface for the shopper, wherein the second quote is displayed in the live website (Komenda, see at least: “based on the unexpected travel condition occurring, the insurance coverage on the parcel can be automatically entered into, modified, and/or expanded. For instance, as described, the ASI-SP 306 can determine the GPS location of the parcel and, as such, determine if the parcel is being re-routed if the parcel location does not match the anticipated route. Further, the re-routing of the parcel may increase the risk of damage to and/or loss of the parcel. As such, the ASI-SP 306 can evaluate the risk involved in the unexpected travel condition and can automatically modify and/or expand the insurance coverage to include the unforeseen risk associated with re-routing the parcel. In one non-limiting example, if the ASI-SP 306 determines there is an increased risk of damage to and/or loss of the parcel, the ASI-SP 306 can then identify a second optimal insurance policy to cover the increase in risk. In a further example, the ASI-SP 306 may secure additional insurance policy to cover the increased risk. It is foreseen that, in exemplary embodiments, the ASI-SP 306 may alert one or more parties (e.g., the consumer, the third-party insurer, and/or a second third-party insurer) as to the modification [i.e. providing, by the one or more processors, the second quote to display at the interactive interface for the shopper] and may wait for their confirmation for the modification” [0089] and “The ASI-SP 306 may search the insurance request system 304 automatically and/or in response to a consumer's request received through a user-portal. In some embodiments, the insurance request 312 and/or the request parameters requested criteria can be received through a consumer-facing portal [i.e. wherein the second quote is displayed in the live website] in which the consumer is provided login information” [0075]).
Komenda in view of Ward does not explicitly teach the second quote being for the merchant system, wherein the live website updates the second interactive frame object to display the updated subset of shipping protection plan offers.
Haynes, however, teaches online transactions (i.e. abstract) including the known technique of the second quote for the merchant system, wherein the live website updates the second interactive frame object to display the updated subset of shipping protection plan offers (Haynes, see at least: “FIG. 7 is a schematic diagram showing details of item queue 114 following user selection of the arrival date line item 122. When the user selects the arrival date line item 122, a list of available arrival dates is presented to the user, along with the corresponding shipping speed, carrier, and or cost. For example, in the illustrated example, the user is given the choice of arrival dates between September 3 and September 12. If the item is to be delivered on September 3, the item will be shipped via Federal Express (FedEx) and the cost will be $12.00. If, however, the user is willing to wait until sometime between September 7 and September 12, the item can be shipped via the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) for only $5.00. The user may obtain additional details of the arrival date (e.g., time of day, insurance options, restrictions, etc.) by selecting the desired arrival date (e.g., by clicking or hovering over)” Col. 6 Ln. 65-67 & Col. 7 Ln. 1-12 and “Various techniques for moving transaction information forward and for presenting an item queue are described in the context of an e-commerce merchant website” Col. 9 Ln. 66-67 & Col. 10 Ln. 1 and “Where the shipping information would normally be shown, there will instead be a link (not shown) to "Enter new shipping address." Clicking, hovering over, or otherwise selecting the address section will allow the user to enter the shipping and payment information. In one example, using AJAX and/or other web 2.0 technologies, hovering a pointer over the address information field will cause a flyover to open containing fields for entering a new address. Once the customer has filled out the fields with in-line verification of the address, the flyover will close and their new address will now appear in the shipping address field. The cost of queue will update to reflect any changes in tax or shipping charges [i.e. the second quote for the merchant system, wherein the live website updates the second interactive frame object to display the updated subset of shipping protection plan offers]” Col. 5 Ln. 25-37 and Fig. 12 displays that the left panel of the interface displayed item product details as well as interactive size and color components and the right panel of the interface displays the item queue 114 with the shipping options [i.e. the second interactive frame object]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Komenda in view of Ward with Haynes for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 5.
Regarding claim 21, Komenda in view of Ward teach the method of claim 2, Komenda further discloses:
Komenda in view of Ward does not explicitly teach a subset of the protection plan offers being provided in a modal window of a live website that is displayed based on the adding of the first item to a virtual shopping cart
Haynes, however, teaches online transactions (i.e. abstract) including the known technique of a subset of the protection plan offers is provided in a modal window of a live website that being displayed based on the adding of the first item to a virtual shopping cart (Haynes, see at least: “the item queue 114 is shown to include a list 116 of items in the queue, and line items for a total cost of the items in the queue or "cost of queue" 118, a source of payment 120, an arrival date 122, shipping information 124, and a link 126 to more options. While in this implementation the item queue is shown and described as being presented in a field in the browser, in other implementations, the item queue may be presented directly on the detail page, overlaid on the detail page [i.e. wherein a subset of the protection plan offers is provided in a modal window of a live website]” Col. 4 Ln. 24-32 and “The detail page 100 also includes an item queue 114 presenting a list of previously purchased items and pertinent transaction information about the purchase of those items. The transaction information may include any information a user might consider useful in deciding whether or not to add another item to the item queue [i.e. that is displayed based on the adding of the first item to a virtual shopping cart]. Without limitation, some examples of transaction information that may be presented include a total cost of the queue including tax, shipping costs, and any applicable promotions, an arrival date, a shipping address, a source of payment, a billing address, gift options, item options (e.g. model, size, color, etc.), warranty information, shipping mode, insurance, accessories, and related items, among other things” Col. 4 Ln. 11-23). This known technique is applicable to the method of Haynes as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to online transactions.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of a subset of the protection plan offers is provided in a modal window of a live website that being displayed based on the adding of the first item to a virtual shopping cart, as taught by Haynes, to the teachings of Haynes would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modification of a subset of the protection plan offers is provided in a modal window of a live website that being displayed based on the adding of the first item to a virtual shopping cart, as taught by Haynes, into the method of Haynes would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would provide simpler and faster online shopping (Haynes, Col. 2 Ln. 54-57).
Claims 15 and 16 recite limitations directed towards integration system. The rest of the limitations recited in claims 15 and 16 are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claims 5 and 7, respectively, and are therefore rejected for those same reasons set forth above in claims 5 and 7, respectively.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komenda, in view of Ward, in further view of Thomson et al. (US 2003/0061104 A1), hereinafter Thomson.
Regarding claim 8, Komenda in view of Ward teach the method of claim 1, Komenda further discloses:
-generating, by the one or more processors, the service contract, wherein the service contract is associated with the first item, the shopper, and another protection plan that includes a shipping protection plan (Komenda, see at least: “a smart contract can include any algorithm that defines an action or event that is to be triggered based on a determination that one or more defined conditions precedent to the action or event have occurred. In various embodiments, a smart contract can be generated [i.e. generating, by the one or more processors, the service contract], transmitted, received, stored, validated, and/or verified by any node or computing device described in accordance with the present disclosure” [0041] and “the IoT parcel and/or a computing device associated with an IoT enabled parcel [i.e. associated with the first item] automatically determines to request insurance based on detected or determined state information of the parcel, the request may comprise an indication of pre-authorization. The indication of pre-authorization of a particular entity (sender, consignee, etc.) may be relied upon by the ASI-SP 306 or an insuring party to enter into a smart contract [i.e. wherein the service contract is associated with the first item, the shopper, and another protection plan]” [0082] and "the insurance policy may be weighted more heavily when it is considered for an insurance request that requests insurance for a similar logistics provider than when it is considered for an insurance request that requests insurance for a particular shipping method [i.e. another protection plan that includes a shipping protection plan]" [0079]).
Komenda in view of Ward does not explicitly teach generating, by the one or more processors, a first contract associated with the first item, the shopper, and the protection plan, wherein the protection plan is a product protection plan.
Thomson, however, teaches an electronic warranty administrator (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of generating, by the one or more processors, a first contract associated with the first item, the shopper, and the protection plan, wherein the protection plan is a product protection plan (Thomson, see at least: “a customer 154 purchases a comprehensive household warranty [i.e. associated with the protection plan]. A warranty administrator 158 collects data from customer 154… the warranty administrator 158 utilizes an algorithm to calculate a service contract price [i.e. generating, by the one or more processors, a first contract] for each customer based on, as a non-exclusive list, (1) product reliability, (2) repair costs, (3) consumer data [i.e. associated with the shopper], (4) total value of goods in household, (5) age of product [i.e. associated with the first item], (6)type and amount of usage, and (7) warranty status” [0121] and “At the time of purchase, a customer is given an opportunity to purchase an extended warranty 14 from a manufacturer. Typically, the product purchase price includes a basic, for example one year, warranty that may be further limited as to territory and product owner [i.e. wherein the protection plan is a product protection plan]” [0050]). This known technique is applicable to the method of Komenda in view of Ward as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to an electronic warranty administrator.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of generating, by the one or more processors, a first contract associated with the first item, the shopper, and the protection plan, wherein the protection plan is a product protection plan, as taught by Thomson, to the teachings of Komenda in view of Ward would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modification of generating, by the one or more processors, a first contract associated with the first item, the shopper, and the protection plan, wherein the protection plan is a product protection plan, as taught by Thomson, into the method of Komenda in view of Ward would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would provide global customer service and promote brand loyalty (Thomson, [0017]).
Claim 17 recites limitations directed towards integration system. The limitations recited in claim 17 are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 8, and are therefore rejected for those same reasons set forth above in claim 8.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komenda, in view of Ward, in further view of Gibbon et al. (US 2015/0348282 A1), hereinafter Gibbon.
Regarding claim 10, Komenda in view of Ward teach the method of claim 1, Komenda further discloses:
Komenda in view of Ward determining, by the one or more processors, that the first item is eligible for shipping protection, wherein determining, by the one or more processors, that the first item is eligible for shipping protection comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, that the first item is a physical good that can be shipped; and determining, by the one or more processors, that the first item is eligible for coverage under a service provider's policy.
Gibbon, however, teaches items being shipped (i.e. [0025]), including the known technique of determining, by the one or more processors, that the first item is eligible for shipping protection (Gibbon, see at least: “image processing and item transport service 130 can use insurance information 366 to compare insurance rates and/or quality across multiple insurance providers, and use that comparison to select and/or recommend one or more insurance products and/or insurance providers for a shipment… For example, insurance information 366 can be used to recommend the cheapest and/or most reliable insurance for a particular item being shipped from a particular origin to a particular destination [i.e. determining, by the one or more processors, that the first item is eligible for shipping protection] at particular service level and/or by a particular shipping company” [0062]), wherein determining, by the one or more processors, that the first item is eligible for shipping protection comprises:
the known technique of determining, by the one or more processors, that the first item is a physical good that can be shipped (Gibbon, see at least: “image processing and item transport service 130 can use insurance information 366 to compare insurance rates and/or quality across multiple insurance providers, and use that comparison to select and/or recommend one or more insurance products and/or insurance providers for a shipment… For example, insurance information 366 can be used to recommend the cheapest and/or most reliable insurance for a particular item being shipped from a particular origin to a particular destination [i.e. wherein determining, by the one or more processors, that the first item is eligible for shipping protection comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, that the first item is a physical good that can be shipped] at particular service level and/or by a particular shipping company” [0062]); and
the known technique of determining, by the one or more processors, that the first item is eligible for coverage under a service provider's policy (Gibbon, see at least: “Insurance information 366 can include data related to insurance rates and/or quality for multiple insurance providers. image processing and item transport service 130 can use insurance information 366 to compare insurance rates and/or quality across multiple insurance providers, and use that comparison to select and/or recommend one or more insurance products and/or insurance providers for a shipment [i.e. wherein determining, by the one or more processors, that the first item is eligible for shipping protection comprises:]. In some embodiments, insurance information 366 enables comparisons that account for type of item [i.e. determining that the first item is eligible for coverage under a service provider's policy], value of item, type of damage covered, fragility of item, special handling, destination location, origin location, route from destination to origin location, claim processing speed, number and/or frequency submitted insurance claims, percentage of claims honored (e.g., how frequently insurance claims are honored and/or items are repaired and/or replaced), reimbursement/payout amount, ratio of item value to reimbursement/payout amount, insurance options, plans, and/or coverage amounts [i.e. determining, by the one or more processors, that the first item is eligible for coverage under a service provider's policy], customer reviews and/or satisfaction, reputation, the shipping company used to ship the item, and/or the like” [0062]). These known techniques are applicable to the method of Komenda in view of Ward as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to items being shipped.
It would have been recognized that applying the known techniques of determining, by the one or more processors, that the first item is eligible for shipping protection, wherein determining, by the one or more processors, that the first item is eligible for shipping protection comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, that the first item is a physical good that can be shipped; and determining, by the one or more processors, that the first item is eligible for coverage under a service provider's policy, as taught by Gibbon, to the teachings of Komenda in view of Ward would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modifications of determining, by the one or more processors, that the first item is eligible for shipping protection, wherein determining, by the one or more processors, that the first item is eligible for shipping protection comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, that the first item is a physical good that can be shipped; and determining, by the one or more processors, that the first item is eligible for coverage under a service provider's policy, as taught by Gibbon, into the method of Komenda in view of Ward would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would providing preferred insurance companies and rates (Gibbon, [0053]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Dubey et al. (US 2018/0225673 A1) teaches redeeming consumer protections.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLE E WEINER whose telephone number is (571)272-9007. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Maria-Teresa (Marissa) Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ARIELLE E WEINER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights