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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status the Application
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communication received on 12/3/2024. Claims 16-33 are pending in this application. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on behalf of this case on 12/3/2024 has been considered by the Examiner. This is the first action the merits.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s cancellation of claims 1-15 and addition of new claims 16-33 before this first action on the merits is acknowledged.
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 16-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 16-24 recite a process as the claims recite a method. Claims 25-33 recite a machine as the claims recite a system with processors executing instructions to perform a method and databases.
The claim(s) 16-33 recite(s) collecting data, aggregating it, and displaying results of the collection and analysis where the information relates to assurance policies (like warranties, returns, exchanges, etc.) of purchased products.
The claims are recited at such a high level of abstraction that the claims limitations recite observations, evaluations, judgements and or opinions that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper and accordingly the claims recite a mental process (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Further the claims being related to collecting, aggregating, and displaying results of assurance policies (like warranties, returns, exchanges, etc.) of purchased products recite certain methods of organizing human activities as the claims recite commercial or legal interactions which include business agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations or business relations (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activities are in the groupings of enumerated abstracts ideas, and hence the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and or (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Specifically as recited in the claims:
The Examiner notes that the claims limitations underlined and bolded for distinction are considered the additional elements. Limitations not bolded or underlined are considered part of the abstract idea.
16. (New) A method for assurance management, the method comprising:
querying a first database using transaction information, the transaction information comprising a deliverable item and metadata of a first user;
loading, from the first database, a first assurance policy and a second assurance policy based on the querying, the first assurance policy having a first set of terms and the second assurance policy having a second set of terms;
aligning each term of the first set of terms and the second set of terms with one of a plurality assurance features;
identifying a first term from the first set of terms and second term from the second set of terms aligned with a first assurance feature of the plurality of assurance features;
creating a combined assurance policy having the first term and the second term; and storing the combined assurance policy in a second database, the second database accessible by the first user.
17. (New) The method of claim 16, further comprising:
identifying a third term from a third set of terms;
aligning each of the third set of terms with one of the plurality of assurance features;
identifying a third term having the first assurance feature;
and adjusting, in the second database, the combined assurance policy by including the third term.
18. (New) The method of claim 16, the method further comprising:
identifying a plurality of user selected similar deliverable items;
determining a plurality of supplement assurance features;
and assigning one of the petitioned supplement assurance features using a dynamic assurance adjustment.
19. (New) The method of claim 16, the method further comprising:
providing access, via a user interface, to the combined assurance policy;
receiving, in the user interface, a selection of the combined assurance policy;
receiving, in the user interface, an assignment of the combined assurance policy;
and assigning the combined assurance policy to the first user.
20. (New) The method of claim 16, the method further comprising:
receiving additional transaction information associated with the deliverable item; and sending a notification of the additional transaction information to the first user .
21. (New) The method of claim 16, the method further comprising: assigning the combined assurance policy to a second user.
22. (New) The method of Claim 16, wherein: the transaction information further includes a provider of the deliverable item, and a method of payment, and one of the first assurance policy and the second assurance policy are loaded based on one or more of the provider, the method of payment, and the deliverable item.
23. (New) The method of Claim 16, the method further comprising:
selecting a combined assurance policy; and assigning the combined assurance policy to first user.
24. (New) The method of Claim 16, wherein:
the first assurance policy is loaded from the database based on the deliverable item of the transaction information; and the second assurance policy is loaded from the database based on the metadata of the first user.
25. (New) A computerized system comprising:
one or more processors; and one or more memories configured to store a plurality of non-transitory machine- readable instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the processor to perform a method comprising:
querying a first database using transaction information, the transaction information comprising a deliverable item and metadata of a first user;
loading, from a first database, a first assurance policy and a second assurance policy based on the querying, the first assurance policy having a first set of terms and the second assurance policy having a second set of terms;
aligning each term of the first set of terms and the second set of terms with one of a plurality assurance features;
identifying a first term from the first set of terms and second term from the second set of terms aligned with a first assurance feature of the plurality of assurance features;
creating a combined assurance policy having the first term and the second term; and storing the combined assurance policy in a second database, the second database accessible by the first user.
26. (New) The computerized system of claim 25, wherein the set of machine-readable instructions include instructions that further cause the processor to:
identify a third term from a third set of terms;
align each of the third set of terms with one of the plurality of assurance features;
identify a third term having the first assurance feature; and adjust, in the second database, the combined assurance policy by including the third term .
27. (New) The computerized system of claim 25, wherein the set of machine-readable instructions include instructions that further cause the processor to:
identify a plurality of user selected similar deliverable items;
determine a plurality of supplement assurance features;
and assign one of the petitioned supplement assurance features using a dynamic assurance adjustment.
28. (New) The computerized system of claim 25, wherein the set of machine-readable instructions include instructions that further cause the processor to:
provide access, via a user interface, to the combined assurance policy;
receive, in the user interface, a selection of the combined assurance policy;
receive, in the user interface, an assignment of the combined assurance policy; and assign the combined assurance policy to the first user.
29. (New) The computerized system of claim 25, wherein the set of machine-readable instructions include instructions further causing the processor to:
receive additional transaction information associated with the deliverable item; and send a notification of the additional transaction information to the first user .
30. (New) The computerized system of claim 25, wherein the set of machine-readable instructions include instructions causing the processor to:
assign the combined assurance policy to a second user .
31. (New) The computerized system of Claim 25, wherein the set of machine-readable instructions include instructions further causing the processor to:
select a combined assurance policy; assign the combined assurance policy to first user.
32. (New) The computerized system of Claim 7, wherein the set of machine-readable instructions include instructions further causing the processor to:
load the first assurance policy from the database based on the deliverable item of the transaction information;
and load the second assurance policy from the database based on the metadata of the first user.
33. (New) The method of Claim 1, further comprising:
sending, to a server, a command to perform a transaction based on the transaction information;
wherein storing the combined assurance policy in the second database is in response to sending the command.
As per claim 16, the claim is recited at such a high level of abstraction that the claims recite mental process steps or limitations a human could perform. Specifically a human could request information related to a product and user metadata, receive the information related to policies from data stores, align the process and identify the information to create a combined policy and store that information in a datastore, like a record or ledger. The additional elements that the data stores instead of being pen and paper for example are databases, merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Specifically here Applicant does not recite an improvement in databases for example, rather Applicant is merely using a database to apply the abstract idea.
Further additional elements that the data stores instead of being pen and paper for example are databases, merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 17, the claim is recited at such a high level of abstraction that the claims recite mental process steps or limitations a human could perform. Specifically a human could identify data, align the data to other data, and adjust a policy based on the aggregated and aligned data and store that information in a log. The additional element that the data stores instead of being pen and paper for example are databases, merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers, as discussed in claim 16 above.
As per claim 18, the claim is recited at such a high level of abstraction that the claims recite mental process steps or limitations a human could perform. Specifically a human could identify similar items, determine supplement assurance features, and assign the features using a dynamic adjustment. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed above.
As per claim 19, the claim is recited at such a high level of abstraction that the claims recite mental process steps or limitations a human could perform. Specifically a human could be provided access to a combined assurance policy, provide a selection on the combined policy, assign the combined assurance policy, and assign the policy to a first user. The additional elements that the display and selection of this information instead of being done by pen and paper for example is done via a user interface, merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Specifically here Applicant does not recite an improvement in interfaces for example, rather Applicant is merely using an interface to apply the abstract idea.
Further additional elements that the display and selection of this information instead of being done by pen and paper for example is done via a user interface, merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 20, the claim is recited at such a high level of abstraction that the claims recite mental process steps or limitations a human could perform. Specifically a human could receive additional transaction information and provide a notification to the user. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed above.
As per claim 21, the claim is recited at such a high level of abstraction that the claims recite mental process steps or limitations a human could perform. Specifically a human could assign a policy to another user via pen and paper or via verbal command for example. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed above.
As per claim 22, the claim is recited at such a high level of abstraction that the claims recite mental process steps or limitations a human could perform. Specifically a human could receive assurance policies from various entities based on information like provider, method of payment, or the delivered (purchased) item. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed above.
As per claim 23, the claim is recited at such a high level of abstraction that the claims recite mental process steps or limitations a human could perform. Specifically a user could select an assurance policy and assign it to a second user. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed above.
As per claim 24, the claim is recited at such a high level of abstraction that the claims recite mental process steps or limitations a human could perform. Specifically a user could receive different assurance policies from different ledgers or records based on different information like transaction information or metadata of the first user. The additional element that these records or ledgers (data stores) are databases merely result in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 25, the claim is recited at such a high level of abstraction that the claims recite mental process steps or limitations a human could perform. Specifically a human could request information related to a product and user metadata, receive the information related to policies from data stores (records), align the process and identify the information to create a combined policy and store that information in a datastore, like a log or ledger. The additional elements that the data stores instead of being pen and paper for example are databases, and the limitations are being performed by software running on a computer ( “a computerized system”, “one or more processors; and one or more memories configured to store a plurality of non-transitory machine readable instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the processor to perform a method comprising:”) merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Specifically here Applicant does not recite an improvement in databases or computers for example, rather Applicant is merely using a database and or computer to apply the abstract idea.
Further additional elements that the data stores instead of being pen and paper for example are databases and the limitations are being performed by software running on a computer ( “a computerized system”, “one or more processors; and one or more memories configured to store a plurality of non-transitory machine readable instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, cause the processor to perform a method comprising:”), merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 26, the claim is recited at such a high level of abstraction that the claims recite mental process steps or limitations a human could perform. Specifically a human could identify data, align the data to other data, and adjust a policy based on the aggregated and aligned data and store that information in a log (data store). The additional element that the data stores instead of being pen and paper for example are databases and by software running on a computer (the set of machine-readable instructions include instructions that further cause the processor to:), merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers, as discussed in claim 25 above.
As per claim 27, the claim is recited at such a high level of abstraction that the claims recite mental process steps or limitations a human could perform. Specifically a human could identify similar items, determine supplement assurance features, and assign the features using a dynamic adjustment. The additional element that these limitations that could be performed by a human or humans are instead being performed by software running on a computer (the set of machine-readable instructions include instructions that further cause the processor to:), merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers, as discussed in claim 25 above.
As per claim 28, the claim is recited at such a high level of abstraction that the claims recite mental process steps or limitations a human could perform. Specifically a human could be provided access to a combined assurance policy, provide a selection on the combined policy, assign the combined assurance policy, and assign the policy to a first user.
The additional element that these limitations that could be performed by a human or humans are instead being performed by software running on a computer (the set of machine-readable instructions include instructions that further cause the processor to:), merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers, as discussed in claim 25 above.
The additional elements that data the display and selection of this information instead of being done by pen and paper for example is done via a user interface, merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Specifically here Applicant does not recite an improvement in interfaces for example, rather Applicant is merely using an interface to apply the abstract idea.
Further additional elements that the display and selection of this information instead of being done by pen and paper for example is done via a user interface, merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 29, the claim is recited at such a high level of abstraction that the claims recite mental process steps or limitations a human could perform. Specifically a human could receive additional transaction information and provide a notification to the user. The additional element that these limitations that could be performed by a human or humans are instead being performed by software running on a computer (the set of machine-readable instructions include instructions that further cause the processor to:), merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers, as discussed in claim 25 above.
As per claim 30, the claim is recited at such a high level of abstraction that the claims recite mental process steps or limitations a human could perform. Specifically a human could assign a policy to another user via pen and paper or via verbal command for example. The additional element that these limitations that could be performed by a human or humans are instead being performed by software running on a computer (the set of machine-readable instructions include instructions that further cause the processor to:), merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers, as discussed in claim 25 above.
As per claim 31, the claim is recited at such a high level of abstraction that the claims recite mental process steps or limitations a human could perform. Specifically a human could select an assurance policy and assign it to a first user via pen and paper or via verbal command for example. The additional element that these limitations that could be performed by a human or humans are instead being performed by software running on a computer (the set of machine-readable instructions include instructions that further cause the processor to:), merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers, as discussed in claim 25 above.
As per claim 32, the claim is recited at such a high level of abstraction that the claims recite mental process steps or limitations a human could perform. Specifically a user could receive different assurance policies from different ledgers or records based on different information like transaction information or metadata of the first user. The additional element that these records or ledgers (data stores) are databases merely result in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
The additional element that these limitations that could be performed by a human or humans are instead being performed by software running on a computer (the set of machine-readable instructions include instructions that further cause the processor to:), merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers, as discussed in claim 25 above.
As per claim 33, the claim is recited at such a high level of abstraction that the claims recite mental process steps or limitations a human could perform. Specifically a human could send a command to perform a transaction and store the combined assurance policy in a data store in response to sending the command as broadly recited in the claims.
The additional element that these records or ledgers (data stores) are databases merely result in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
The additional elements that the request to perform the transaction instead of being sent to another person is sent to a server, merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Specifically here Applicant does not recite an improvement in servers for example, rather Applicant is merely using a server to apply the abstract idea.
Further additional elements that the request to perform the transaction instead of being sent to another person is sent to a server, merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (“significantly more”) in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as detailed under the practical application step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 18 and 26-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claims 18 and 27, Applicant recites assigning one of the petitioned supplement assurance features using a dynamic assurance adjustment. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation, the petitioned supplement assurance features, as Applicant does not previously recite petitioned supplement assurance features. For purposes of this examination, the Examiner will interpret the claims as follows based on the other limitations in the claim (specifically Applicant recites supplemental assurance features): assigning one of the
As per claims 26-28, Applicant recites wherein the set of machine-readable instructions include instructions that further cause the processor to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation, the set of machine-readable instructions include instructions that further cause the processor to, as Applicant does not previously recite the limitation of “a set of machine-readable instructions include instructions that further cause the processor to” in the claim or the claim from which the limitation depends. For the purposes of this examination, the Examiner will interpret the claims as follows: wherein the one or more processors to:.
As per claims 29, 31-32, Applicant recites wherein the set of machine-readable instructions include instructions further causing the processor to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation, the set of machine-readable instructions include instructions further causing the processor to, as Applicant does not previously recite the limitation of “a set of machine-readable instructions include instructions further causing the processor to” in the claim or the claim from which the limitation depends. For the purposes of this examination, the Examiner will interpret the claims as follows: the one or more processors to:.
As per claims 30, Applicant recites wherein the set of machine-readable instructions include instructions causing the processor to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation, the set of machine-readable instructions include instructions causing the processor to, as Applicant does not previously recite the limitation of “a set of machine-readable instructions include instructions causing the processor to” in the claim or the claim from which the limitation depends. For the purposes of this examination, the Examiner will interpret the claims as follows: the one or more processors to:.
As per claims 32, Applicant recites the computerized system of claim 7, however claim 7 is cancelled therefore making the claim indefinite as it depends from a cancelled claim. Specifically the metes and bounds of the limitation can therefore not be ascertained. For the purposes of this examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to depend from independent system claim 25.
As per claim 33, Applicant recites the method of claim 1, however claim 1 is cancelled therefore making the claim indefinite as it depends from a cancelled claim. Specifically the metes and bounds of the limitation can therefore not be ascertained. For the purposes of this examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to depend from independent method claim 16.
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.
Claim(s) 16-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubey et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2018/0225673) further in view of Rodriguez et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2005/0131768).
As per claim 16, Dubey et al. teaches A method for assurance management, the method comprising: (see abstract and Figure 9, Examiner’s note: method for providing and redeeming consumer protections like returns, price guards, and extended warranties).
querying a first data store using transaction information, the transaction information comprising a deliverable item and metadata of a first user; loading, from the first data store, a first assurance policy and a second assurance policy based on the querying, the first assurance policy having a first set of terms and the second assurance policy having a second set of terms; aligning each term of the first set of terms and the second set of terms with one of a plurality assurance features; identifying a first term from the first set of terms and second term from the second set of terms aligned with a first assurance feature of the plurality of assurance features; creating a combined assurance policy having the first term and the second term; and storing the combined assurance policy in a second data store, the second data store accessible by the first user (see paragraph 0055, 0062, 0103, and Figure 9, Examiner’s note: shows receiving benefit policy information from a data store (see paragraph 0055) and is then stored in a data store (see paragraph 0062), where benefit information may be from a retailer, manufacturer, or a credit card company and this information is based on searching for information related to the purchased product UPC, product name, product category, etc. (see paragraph 0103). Further Figure 9 shows combining these assurances or polices for individual products for display to the user).
While Dubey et al. clearly teaches receiving this benefit information from and storing aggregated information in a data store (see paragraphs 0055 and 0062), Dubey et al. does not expressly teach storing information in databases (first database and second database) as claimed.
However, Rodriguez et al. which is in the art of aggregating information from merchant, retailers, and purchaser’s banks to combine the information into one package for warranty information (see Figures 3-4) teaches storing information in databases (first database and second database) as claimed (see paragraphs 0026, 0031-0032, 0051, and 0064, Examiner’s note: teaches receiving information from and storing information in databases).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Dubey et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Rodriguez et al. with the motivation of using a common computer storage data element to receive information from and store information related to product warranties and policies (see Rodriguez et al. paragraphs 0026, 0031-0032, 0051, and 0064), when receiving information from and storing information to a data store in the computer environment related to product warranties and policies is known (see Dubey et al. paragraphs 0055 and 0062).
As per claim 17, Dubey et al teaches
further comprising: identifying a third term from a third set of terms; aligning each of the third set of terms with one of the plurality of assurance features; identifying a third term having the first assurance feature; and adjusting, in the second data store, the combined assurance policy by including the third term (see paragraphs 0134-0135 and Figure 9, Examiner’s note: this broad limitation could read on one item in Figure 9 having a return, price guard, and extended warranty or could alternatively read on the interface showing multiple items like the watch and t-shirt as displayed on Figure 9).
While Dubey et al. clearly teaches receiving this information from and storing aggregated information in a data store (see paragraphs 0055 and 0062), Dubey et al. does not expressly teach storing information in databases (second database) as claimed.
However, Rodriguez et al. which is in the art of aggregating information from merchant, retailers, and purchaser’s banks to combine the information into one package for warranty information (see Figures 3-4) teaches storing information in databases (second database) as claimed (see paragraphs 0026, 0031-0032, 0051, and 0064, Examiner’s note: teaches receiving information from and storing information in databases).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Dubey et al. in view of Rodriguez et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Rodriguez et al. with the motivation of using a common computer storage data element to receive information from and store information related to product warranties and policies (see Rodriguez et al. paragraphs 0026, 0031-0032, 0051, and 0064), when receiving information from and storing information to a data store in the computer environment related to product warranties and policies is known (see Dubey et al. paragraphs 0055 and 0062).
As per claim 18, Dubey et al teaches
the method further comprising: identifying a plurality of user selected similar deliverable items; determining a plurality of supplement assurance features; and assigning one of the petitioned supplement assurance features using a dynamic assurance adjustment (see Figure 9 and paragraph 0105, Examiner’s note: this broad limitation could read on the interface showing multiple items like the watch and t-shirt as displayed on Figure 9. Alternatively this could read on the machine learning used to categorize and subcategorize benefits offered by for example a financial instruction and retailers for example extended warranty for electronics (see paragraph 0105)).
As per claim 19, Dubey et al teaches
the method further comprising: providing access, via a user interface, to the combined assurance policy; receiving, in the user interface, a selection of the combined assurance policy; receiving, in the user interface, an assignment of the combined assurance policy; and assigning the combined assurance policy to the first user (see Figures 9-11, paragraphs 0135-0136, 0140, Examiner’s note: as discussed here a user can click on a link on Figure 9 and be provided Figures 10-11. Further teaches a user selecting the claim protection on Figures 10-11 and being able to have an insurance or warranty claim being automatically generated).
As per claim 20, Dubey et al teaches
the method further comprising: receiving additional transaction information associated with the deliverable item; and sending a notification of the additional transaction information to the first user (see paragraph 0134, Examiner’s note: broad limitation in the claim could include information like the count down feature that indicates the days left to take advantage of a particular benefit or policy).
As per claim 21, Dubey et al teaches
the method further comprising: assigning the combined assurance policy to a second user (see Figure 9 and paragraph 0133, Examiner’s note: limitation could read on changing the credit card associated with the transaction (see reference character 920)).
As per claim 22, Dubey et al teaches
wherein: the transaction information further includes a provider of the deliverable item, and a method of payment, and one of the first assurance policy and the second assurance policy are loaded based on one or more of the provider, the method of payment, and the deliverable item (see Figure 9 and paragraph 0103, Examiner’s note: information from the retailer, manufacturer or the credit card company).
As per claim 23, Dubey et al teaches
the method further comprising: selecting a combined assurance policy; and assigning the combined assurance policy to first user (see Figure 9 and paragraphs 0103, and 0133-0135, Examiner’s note: Figure 9 shows a combined insurance policy and paragraphs 0133-0135 explain how Figure 9 is generated based on information received. Further paragraph 0103 discusses receiving information based on things like product name or UPC code).
As per claim 24, Dubey et al. teaches
wherein: the first assurance policy is loaded from the data store based on the deliverable item of the transaction information; and the second assurance policy is loaded from the data store based on the metadata of the first user (see paragraph 0055, 0062, and 0103, Examiner’s note: information from the retailer, manufacturer or the user’s credit card company. Further paragraphs 0055 and 0062 teach this information is received from and stored in a data store).
While Dubey et al. clearly teaches receiving this information from and storing aggregated information in a data store (see paragraphs 0055 and 0062), Dubey et al. does not expressly teach storing information in a database as claimed.
However, Rodriguez et al. which is in the art of aggregating information from merchant, retailers, and purchaser’s banks to combine the information into one package for warranty information (see Figures 3-4) teaches storing information in a database as claimed (see paragraphs 0026, 0031-0032, 0051, and 0064, Examiner’s note: teaches receiving information from and storing information in databases).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Dubey et al.in view of Rodriguez et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Rodriguez et al. with the motivation of using a common computer storage data element to receive information from and store information to related product warranties and policies (see Rodriguez et al. paragraphs 0026, 0031-0032, 0051, and 0064), when receiving information from and storing information to a data store in the computer environment related to product warranties and policies is known (see Dubey et al. paragraphs 0055 and 0062).
As per claim 25, Dubey et al. teaches A computerized system comprising: (see abstract and Figure 9, Examiner’s note: system for providing and redeeming consumer protections like returns, price guards, and extended warranties).
one or more processors; and one or more memories configured to store a plurality of non-transitory machine- readable instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the processor to perform a method comprising: (see paragraphs 0038-0039, Examiner’s note: software running on a computer to perform he functions, where this medium may include things like disks (non-transitory)).
querying a first data store using transaction information, the transaction information comprising a deliverable item and metadata of a first user; loading, from a first data store, a first assurance policy and a second assurance policy based on the querying, the first assurance policy having a first set of terms and the second assurance policy having a second set of terms; aligning each term of the first set of terms and the second set of terms with one of a plurality assurance features; identifying a first term from the first set of terms and second term from the second set of terms aligned with a first assurance feature of the plurality of assurance features; creating a combined assurance policy having the first term and the second term; and storing the combined assurance policy in a second data store, the second data store accessible by the first user. (see paragraph 0055, 0062, 0103, and Figure 9, Examiner’s note: shows receiving benefit policy information from a data store (see paragraph 0055) and is stored in a data store (see paragraph 0062), where benefit information may be from a retailer, manufacturer, or a credit card company and this information is based on searching for information related to the purchased product UPC, product name, product category, etc. (see paragraph 0103). Further Figure 9 shows combining these assurances or polices for individual products).
While Dubey et al. clearly teaches receiving this information from and storing aggregated information in a data store (see paragraphs 0055 and 0062), Dubey et al. does not expressly teach storing information in databases (first database and second database) as claimed.
However, Rodriguez et al. which is in the art of aggregating information from merchant, retailers, and purchaser’s banks to combine the information into one package for warranty information (see Figures 3-4) teaches storing information in databases (first database and second database) as claimed (see paragraphs 0026, 0031-0032, 0051, and 0064, Examiner’s note: teaches receiving information from and storing information in databases).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Dubey et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Rodriguez et al. with the motivation of using a common computer storage data element to receive information from and store information related to product warranties and policies (see Rodriguez et al. paragraphs 0026, 0031-0032, 0051, and 0064), when receiving information from and storing information to a data store in the computer environment related to product warranties and policies is known (see Dubey et al. paragraphs 0055 and 0062).
As per claim 26, Dubey et al. teaches
wherein the set of machine-readable instructions include instructions that further cause the processor to: (see paragraphs 0038-0039, Examiner’s note: software running on a computer to perform he functions, where this medium may include things like disks (non-transitory)).
identify a third term from a third set of terms; align each of the third set of terms with one of the plurality of assurance features; identify a third term having the first assurance feature; and adjust, in the second data store, the combined assurance policy by including the third term (see paragraphs 0134-0135 and Figure 9, Examiner’s note: this broad limitation could read on one item in Figure 9 having a return, price guard, and extended warranty or could alternatively read on the interface showing multiple items like the watch and t-shirt as displayed on Figure 9).
While Dubey et al. clearly teaches receiving this information from and storing aggregated information in a data store (see paragraphs 0055 and 0062), Dubey et al. does not expressly teach storing information in databases (second database) as claimed.
However, Rodriguez et al. which is in the art of aggregating information from merchant, retailers, and purchaser’s banks to combine the information into one package for warranty information (see Figures 3-4) teaches storing information in databases (second database) as claimed (see paragraphs 0026, 0031-0032, 0051, and 0064, Examiner’s note: teaches receiving information from and storing information in databases).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Dubey et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Rodriguez et al. with the motivation of using a common computer storage data element to receive information from and store information related to product warranties and policies (see Rodriguez et al. paragraphs 0026, 0031-0032, 0051, and 0064), when receiving information from and storing information to a data store in the computer environment related to product warranties and policies is known (see Dubey et al. paragraphs 0055 and 0062).
As per claim 27, Dubey et al. teaches
wherein the set of machine-readable instructions include instructions that further cause the processor to: (see paragraphs 0038-0039, Examiner’s note: software running on a computer to perform the functions, where this medium may include things like disks (non-transitory)).
identify a plurality of user selected similar deliverable items; determine a plurality of supplement assurance features; and assign one of the petitioned supplement assurance features using a dynamic assurance adjustment. (see Figure 9 and paragraph 0105, Examiner’s note: this broad limitation could read on the interface showing multiple items like the watch and t-shirt as displayed on Figure 9). Alternatively this could read on the machine learning used to categorize and subcategorize benefits offered by for example a financial instruction and retailers for example extended warranty for electronics (see paragraph 0105).
As per claim 28, Dubey et al. teaches
wherein the set of machine-readable instructions include instructions that further cause the processor to: (see paragraphs 0038-0039, Examiner’s note: software running on a computer to perform he functions, where this medium may include things like disks (non-transitory)).
provide access, via a user interface, to the combined assurance policy; receive, in the user interface, a selection of the combined assurance policy; receive, in the user interface, an assignment of the combined assurance policy; and assign the combined assurance policy to the first user. (see Figures 9-11, paragraphs 0135-0136, 0140, Examiner’s note: as discussed here a user can click on a link on Figure 9 and be provided Figures 10-11. Further teaches a user selecting the claim protection on Figures 10-11 and being able to have an insurance or warranty claim being automatically generated).
As per claim 29, Dubey et al. teaches
wherein the set of machine-readable instructions include instructions further causing the processor to: (see paragraphs 0038-0039, Examiner’s note: software running on a computer to perform he functions, where this medium may include things like disks (non-transitory)).
receive additional transaction information associated with the deliverable item; and send a notification of the additional transaction information to the first user . (see paragraph 0134, Examiner’s note: broad limitation in the claim could include information like the count down feature that indicates the days left to take advantage of a particular benefit or policy).
As per claim 30, Dubey et al. teaches
wherein the set of machine-readable instructions include instructions causing the processor to: (see paragraphs 0038-0039, Examiner’s note: software running on a computer to perform the functions, where this medium may include things like disks (non-transitory)).
assign the combined assurance policy to a second user . (see Figure 9 and paragraph 0133, Examiner’s note: limitation could read on changing the credit card associated with the transaction (see reference character 920)).
As per claim 31, Dubey et al. teaches
wherein the set of machine-readable instructions include instructions further causing the processor to: (see paragraphs 0038-0039, Examiner’s