Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 15, and 19 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/17/2025 regarding 35 U.S.C.101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. Examiner disagrees. The Federal Circuit has explained that "the 'directed to' inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether 'their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter."' Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. Here, it is clear from the Specification including the claim language) that claim 1 focuses on an abstract idea. The Specification recites in [0002] “People may sometimes prefer to have food or other items delivered to them. To meet this demand, an agent (e.g., delivery agent, agent, etc.) may deliver one or more items from a merchant to a specified delivery location. For example, a service may enable a user of the service to order items from any of a variety of merchants, and may arrange for agents to deliver the items from the merchants to the user within a relatively short period of time, such as within an hour or less in some cases. Further, the user may sometimes want to receive items from multiple merchants. However, this may be technologically challenging to accomplish efficiently, and typically requires that a separate order be placed with each different merchant, which results in multiple agents being used to deliver items from the different merchants to the same user.” Further in [0019] “Some implementations herein are directed to techniques and arrangements for enabling a user of a service to remotely view and select items available to be added to (i.e., bundled with) a delivery order that the user has already placed or that the user intends to place. Examples of “bundling”, as used herein, may include an act of logically linking two or more separate orders together, with one order serving as an original or parent order (i.e., a first order) and the other order(s) being bundled orders that may be processed with the first order and typically delivered with the first order. For example, the bundled orders herein may be processed using various technologies to attempt to ensure that the same agent picks up and delivers the first order and the bundled order(s). For instance, bundling can increase logistical efficiency by having a single agent deliver multiple items from multiple different merchants to the same delivery location as part of the same delivery.” In addition to the Specification, the independent claims are drawn towards enabling a user of a service to select items to be added with an already placed order, and the claims recite limitations that correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions, behavior; commercial interactions), as evidenced by limitations detailing receiving communications from a user to perform a first action, monitoring the user actively engaging on the app, and performing the first or a second action after an expiration of time upon indication that the user is actively engaging with interface or has closed the app. The claim limitations also correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as evidenced by limitations detailing based on an observed or evaluated received indication via the app (whether there is engagement or not) performing an action after or before an expiration of time. The claims recite (i.e. set forth or describe) an abstract idea. Further, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II) states that the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person, and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping (emphasis added). The application is heavily focused on not only enabling a user of a service to remotely view and select items available to be added to (i.e., bundled with) a delivery order that the user has already placed or that the user intends to place, but also monitoring activity (interactions) between a person and a computer. In conclusion, this is a clear-cut case of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Applicant also argues that the claims do not recite certain methods of organizing human activity. Examiner disagrees. The claim limitations directly correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as evidenced by claim limitations detailing based on an observed or evaluated received indication via the app (whether there is engagement or not) performing an action after or before an expiration of time, monitoring the user interactions to determine whether there is a current active interaction or whether the user has closed the app, and performing an action based on the determination. The limitations directly describe the observation and evaluation of data and making a decision (judgment or opinion) based on the observed and evaluated data. To argue that these limitations are not able to be performed in the human mind is false, even though the limitations are merely being performed via computer. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III) makes it clear that claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. If the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept, the claim is considered to recite a mental process (emphasis added). This is the case with the applicant’s claims where the observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion are merely being performed via computer. Applicant further argues that their claims are similar to that of example 37 of the 2019 Patent Eligible Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG). Examiner disagrees. In example 37, the invention addresses the issue of automatically arranging icons in a non-typical arrangement manually on a graphical user interface by moving the most used icons to a position on the GUI, specifically, closest to the “start” icon of the computer system, based on a determined amount of use. The amount of use of each icon is automatically determined by a processor that tracks the number of times each icon is selected or how much memory has been allocated to the individual processes associated with each icon over a period of time. The claim with the additional elements of receiving, via a GUI, a user selection to organize each icon based on the amount of use of each icon, a processor for performing the determining step, and automatically moving the most used icons to a position on the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system based on the determined amount of use as a whole integrates the mental process into a practical application via the additional elements reciting a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices. Applicant’s invention is in no way similar to that of example 37. Claim 1 does not describe or indicate an improved user interface. Updating an interface with results to enable a user to make selections does not reflect an improvement in the interface itself, just updated data. The display is performing its normal function, which is to display data or information. The data being updated based on accepted or input selections does not equate to an updated interface. Thus, there is no improvement in the user interface like example 37.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, applicant argues that their claims are directed to an improvement in remote monitoring and computer interaction technology. Examiner disagrees. The claims and invention are merely using remote monitoring and computer interaction to enable a user of a service to remotely view and select items available to be added to (i.e., bundled with) a delivery order that the user has already placed or that the user intends to place, and the application programming interface (API) is used for communicating the user interactions with the user application to the service computing device, which is not an improvement in computers or technology. This remote monitoring is to determine whether the user would like additional time to select an item from the second merchant for creating a bundled order, and may extend the delay based at least in part on the user’s response. At best, any alleged improvement is an improvement in the judicial exception itself, not computers or technology. It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology (emphasis added). For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Similarly, the Applicant’s claim recitations are an improvement in the judicial exception, not an improvement in technology.
Finally, under Step 2B, applicant argues that the claims include significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner disagrees. As indicated above, the claims and invention are merely using remote monitoring and computer interaction to enable a user of a service to remotely view and select items available to be added to (i.e., bundled with) a delivery order that the user has already placed or that the user intends to place, and the application programming interface (API) is used for communicating the user interactions with the user application to the service computing device, which is not an improvement in computers or technology. This remote monitoring is to determine whether the user would like additional time to select an item from the second merchant for creating a bundled order, and may extend the delay based at least in part on the user’s response. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of a computing device, an application executing on a mobile device, an API, a user interface on the mobile device, one or more processors (claims 8 and 15), and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible. Additionally, Applicant’s claims are not similar to that of BASCOM. Examiner notes that the court in BASCOM did not find that the claims at issue were directed to statutory subject matter because they were directed to a filtering scheme. While applicant argues that the claims are similar to the abstract idea in BASCOM, and therefore are directed to an abstract idea under step 2B, applicant does not further argue that the claims satisfy the rationale provided by the court in BASCOM for why the claims at issue were directed to statutory subject matter. In BASCOM the court held that the claims amounted to statutory subject matter under step 2B because the additional elements within the claims were directed to a particular arrangement that yielded a technical improvement to the technology of filtering content. Specifically, the particular arrangement of the additional elements of controlled network access accounts, a local client computer, an Internet computer network, and a remote ISP server, provided an unconventional combination of elements based on the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location within the network, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user, where the filtering tool at the ISP was able to identify individual accounts that communicate with the ISP server and associate a request for Internet content with a specific individual account. It explained that this yielded a technical improvement because this particular arrangement of the known elements offered both the benefits of a filter on the local computer and the benefits of a filter on the ISP server. Critically however, the court pointed to the disclosure of the application which explained why and how the particular claimed arrangement of these elements yielded the asserted technological improvement. No such unconventional and non-generic arrangement of otherwise known computer elements is argued with respect to the present claims, and Examiner asserts that the present claims do not satisfy the rationale provided by the court.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-7 recite a method (i.e. process), claims 8-14 recite system (i.e. machine), and claims 15-20 recite non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. machine or article of manufacture). Therefore claims 1-20 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. Therefore claims 1-20 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the limitations of receiving, by [a computing device], from an [application executing on a mobile device] associated with a user, a first communication requiring the [computing device] to perform at least a first action, wherein the [application] presents a [user interface on the mobile device] that enables interaction with the [application]; in response to receiving the first communication, implementing, by the [computing device], a first time period during which the [computing device] waits before performing the first action, wherein the [application on the mobile device] is configured to monitor interaction with the [user interface on the mobile device] during the first time period, and to report, via an [application programming interface (API)], interface interaction information to the [computing device] to enable the [computing device] to determine remotely in real time (1) whether there is current active interaction with the [user interface], and (2) whether the [application] has been closed on the [mobile device]; receiving, by the [computing device], in real time and the [API], a plurality of second communications containing the interface interaction information, the interface interaction information received through the plurality of second communications indicating one of: there is current active interaction with the user interface on the [mobile device]; or the [application] has been closed on the [mobile device] for a threshold time; based at least on receiving, in real time and via the [API], the interface interaction information via the plurality of second communications, one of: based on the received interface interaction information indicating that the [application] has been closed on the [mobile device] for the threshold time, performing, by the [computing device], the first action before expiration of the first time period; or based on the received interface interaction information indicating current active interaction with the [user interface on the mobile device], performing, by the [computing device], after the expiration of the first time period, at least one of the first action or a second action. The invention and claims are drawn towards enabling a user of a service to select items to be added with an already placed order, and the claims recite limitations that correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions, behavior; commercial interactions), as evidenced by limitations detailing receiving communications from a user to perform a first action, monitoring the user actively engaging on the app, and performing the first or a second action after an expiration of time upon indication that the user is actively engaging with interface or has closed the app. The claim limitations also correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as evidenced by limitations detailing based on an observed or evaluated received indication via the app (whether there is engagement or not) performing an action after or before an expiration of time. The claims recite an abstract idea.
Note: the features or elements in brackets in the above section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: a computing device, an application executing on a mobile device, an API, a user interface on the mobile device, one or more processors (claims 8 and 15), and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media. The additional elements are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, in combination, 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 recite the limitation that the first action includes sending a communication to another mobile device. The limitation is further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional element of another mobile device. The additional element amounts to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Accordingly, in combination, 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. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3-7, 10-14, and 17-20 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above. The claims also recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 3-7, 10-14, and 17-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-9, 13-16, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iacono (US 10,043,149) in view of Duffield (2017 /0364227).
Claim 1: Iacono discloses: A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, from an application executing on a mobile device associated with a user, a first communication requiring the computing device to perform at least a first action, wherein the application presents a user interface on the mobile device that enables interaction with the application; (Iacono Col. 1, Ln. 64-65 disclosing a buyer may place a first order for a first item through a buyer application on a buyer device; Col. 3, Ln. 8-14 disclosing the buyer being presented with the option to add on other items to the initial order; Col. 2, Ln. 8-10 disclosing the buyer device may present received information about the one or more add-on items available to be added to the order in a graphic user interface (GUI))
in response to receiving the first communication, implementing, by the computing device, a first time period during which the computing device waits before performing the first action, (Iacono Col. 11, Ln. 4-12 disclosing the buyer application 134 may present a GUI (not shown in FIG. 1) on the buyer device that enables the buyer to browse through the add-on items available from at least the first merchant; a time limit associated with ordering each add-on item may also be presented in the GUI; this occurs in response to receiving the first communication of ordering the initial item (see Fig. 6))
Iacono in view of Duffield discloses:
wherein the application on the mobile device is configured to monitor interaction with the user interface on the mobile device during the first time period, and to report, via an application programming interface (API), interface interaction information to the computing device to enable the computing device to determine remotely in real time (1) whether there is current active interaction with the user interface, and (2) whether the application has been closed on the mobile device;
Iacono discloses the application determining interaction with the user interface on the mobile device during the first time period: (Iacono Col. 11, Ln. 4-7 and 15-18 disclosing the GUI allowing the buyer to browse through the add-on items available; the order processing module receiving the selection of the add-on item and may send the order information to the corresponding merchant; Col. 13, Ln. 50-51 disclosing as time elapses, the remaining time for the buyer to order the add-on items may decrease in real time; Col. 11, Ln. 56-59 disclosing each of the threshold order times may be provided as a real-time countdown of the time remaining for the buyer to place an order for the associated add-on item; Col. 5, Ln. 3-6 disclosing the merchant and service computing devices for receiving orders being in communication via one or more APIs; see also Col. 6, Ln. 30-32 disclosing the buyer app and service computing device communicating via one or more APIs; Col. 21, Ln. 33-40 disclosing the service computing device may receive, from the buyer device, within the respective threshold order time associated with a first additional item, a request for the first additional item to be included with the order for the first item; if the buyer attempts to order an additional item after expiration of the associated threshold time, the a new order may be created that is not added on to the order for the first item). While strongly suggested, Iacono does not explicitly disclose that the application on the mobile device is configured to monitor interaction with the user interface on the mobile device during the first time period, and to report, via an application programming interface (API), interface interaction information to the computing device to enable the computing device to determine remotely in real time (1) whether there is current active interaction with the user interface, and (2) whether the application has been closed on the mobile device. Duffield suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Duffield ¶0110 disclosing user interactions are received at one or more computing devices; user interactions with web apps, tablet apps, and/or smartphone apps (among others) may be tracked and/or stored; the user interaction data is communicated to a server of the system; ¶0113 user interaction data may be received and processed by the system at any time and/or continuously; user interaction data may be updated even as the operator is viewing the data on the user interface; operator may use the system to analyze substantially real-time user interaction data; ¶0051 the system may receive user interaction data from various types of content; analysis of user interactions in such an example may include, for example determining at which points users exit; ¶0057 disclosing indications of the users exiting the app). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iacono to include that the application on the mobile device is configured to monitor interaction with the user interface on the mobile device during the first time period, and to report, via an application programming interface (API), interface interaction information to the computing device to enable the computing device to determine remotely in real time (1) whether there is current active interaction with the user interface, and (2) whether the application has been closed on the mobile device as taught by Duffield. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Iacono in order to analyze user interactions (see ¶0003 of Duffield).
receiving, by the computing device, in real time and via the API, a plurality of
Iacono discloses receiving, by the computing device via the API, a plurality of second communications containing the interface interaction, the interface interaction information received through the plurality of second communications indicating one of: there is current active interaction with the user interface on the mobile device; or the application has been closed on the mobile device for a threshold time: (Iacono Col. 11, Ln. 4-7 and 15-18 disclosing the GUI allowing the buyer to browse through the add-on items available; the order processing module receiving the selection of the add-on item and may send the order information to the corresponding merchant; Col. 13, Ln. 50-51 disclosing as time elapses, the remaining time for the buyer to order the add-on items may decrease in real time; Col. 11, Ln. 56-59 disclosing each of the threshold order times may be provided as a real-time countdown of the time remaining for the buyer to place an order for the associated add-on item; Col. 5, Ln. 3-6 disclosing the merchant and service computing devices for receiving orders being in communication via one or more APIs; see also Col. 6, Ln. 30-32 disclosing the buyer app and service computing device communicating via one or more APIs). Iacono, while disclosing real-time timeframes for receiving a user interaction in the form of a selection and although strongly suggesting real-time interactions, does not explicitly disclose that the communications are received in real-time. Duffield suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Duffield ¶0110 disclosing user interactions are received at one or more computing devices; user interactions with web apps, tablet apps, and/or smartphone apps (among others) may be tracked and/or stored; the user interaction data is communicated to a server of the system; ¶0113 user interaction data may be received and processed by the system at any time and/or continuously; user interaction data may be updated even as the operator is viewing the data on the user interface; operator may use the system to analyze substantially real-time user interaction data; ¶0051 the system may receive user interaction data from various types of content; analysis of user interactions in such an example may include, for example, determining the points at which users look for help, determining at which points users exit; ¶0057 disclosing indications of the users exiting the app). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iacono to include receiving, by the computing device, in real time and via the API, a plurality of second communications containing the interface interaction, the interface interaction information received through the plurality of second communications indicating one of: there is current active interaction with the user interface on the mobile device; or the application has been closed on the mobile device for a threshold time as taught by Duffield. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Iacono in order to analyze user interactions (see ¶0003 of Duffield).
based at least on receiving, in real time and via the API, the interface interaction information via the plurality of second communications, one of: based on
Iacono discloses based at least on receiving, via the API, the interface interaction information via the plurality of second communications, one of: based on the received interface interaction information indicating that the application has been closed on the mobile device for the threshold time, performing, by the computing device, the first action before expiration of the first time period; or based on the received interface interaction information indicating current active interaction with the user interface on the mobile device, performing, by the computing device, after the expiration of the first time period, at least one of the first action or a second action: (Iacono Col. 11, Ln. 4-7 and 15-18 disclosing the GUI allowing the buyer to browse through the add-on items available; the order processing module receiving the selection of the add-on item and may send the order information to the corresponding merchant; Col. 21, Ln. 33-40 disclosing the service computing device may receive, from the buyer device, within the respective threshold order time associated with a first additional item, a request for the first additional item to be included with the order for the first item; if the buyer attempts to order an additional item after expiration of the associated threshold time, the a new order may be created that is not added on to the order for the first item). Iacono, while disclosing real-time timeframes for receiving a user interaction in the form of a selection and although strongly suggesting real-time interactions, does not explicitly disclose that the communications are received in real-time. Duffield suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Duffield ¶0110 disclosing user interactions are received at one or more computing devices; user interactions with web apps, tablet apps, and/or smartphone apps (among others) may be tracked and/or stored; the user interaction data is communicated to a server of the system; ¶0113 user interaction data may be received and processed by the system at any time and/or continuously; user interaction data may be updated even as the operator is viewing the data on the user interface; operator may use the system to analyze substantially real-time user interaction data; ¶0051 the system may receive user interaction data from various types of content; analysis of user interactions in such an example may include, for example, determining the points at which users look for help, determining at which points users exit; ¶0057 disclosing indications of the users exiting the app). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iacono to include based at least on receiving, in real time and via the API, the interface interaction information via the plurality of second communications, one of: based onactive interaction with the user interface on the mobile device, performing, by the computing device, after the expiration of the first time period, at least one of the first action or a second action as taught by Duffield. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Iacono in order to analyze user interactions (see ¶0003 of Duffield).
Claims 8 and 15 are directed to a system and non-transitory computer-readable medium, respectively. Claims 8 and 15 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 1, which is directed towards a method. Claims 8 and 15 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1. Furthermore, claims 8 and 15 recite:
(Claim 8): A system comprising one or more processors configured by executable instructions to perform operations comprising:(Iacono Fig. 8 disclosing processors of the service computing device; Col. 20, Ln. 25-28 disclosing represent computer-executable instructions stored on one or more computer-readable media that, when executed by one or more processors, program the processors to perform the recited operations)
(Claim 15): One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: (Iacono Col. 23, Ln. 64-67 disclosing service computing device, the computer-readable media may be a type of computer-readable storage media and/or may be a tangible non-transitory media to the extent that when mentioned, non-transitory computer-readable)
Claim 2: The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the first action includes sending a communication to another mobile device. (Iacono Col. 11, Ln. 15-18 disclosing the order processing module receiving the selection of the add-on item and sending the order information to the corresponding merchant; Col. 24, Ln. 50-59 disclosing the merchant device…which may be portable computers or devices such as smartphones, etc.)
Claims 9 and 16 are directed to a system and non-transitory computer-readable medium, respectively. Claims 9 and 16 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 2, which is directed towards a method. Claims 9 and 16 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 2.
Claim 6: The method as recited in claim 1,
the received interface interaction information indicating current active interaction with the user interface on the mobile device includes detecting, by the application, browsing activity in the user interface.
Iacono discloses that received interface interaction information indicating active interaction with the user interface on the mobile device includes detecting, by the application, browsing activity in the user interface: (Iacono Col. 11, Ln. 4--18 disclosing the GUI allowing the buyer to browse through the add-on items available; if the buyer selects a particular add-on item prior to expiration of the associated time limit, the selected add-on item may be added to the buyer's original order; order processing module may receive the selection of the add-on item and may send the order information to the corresponding merchant; Col. 11, Ln. 44-46 disclosing items being viewed by scrolling or traversing through the GUI). Although strongly suggested, Iacono does not explicitly disclose that the received interface interaction information indicating current active interaction with the user interface on the mobile device includes detecting, by the application, browsing activity in the user interface. Duffield suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Duffield ¶0110 disclosing user interactions are received at one or more computing devices; user interactions with web apps, tablet apps, and/or smartphone apps (among others) may be tracked and/or stored; the user interaction data is communicated to a server of the system; ¶0113 user interaction data may be received and processed by the system at any time and/or continuously; user interaction data may be updated even as the operator is viewing the data on the user interface; operator may use the system to analyze substantially real-time user interaction data; ¶0046 the news content may be available to users through a software application running on a small mobile device, and/or through a web browser software application running on any computer-based device; ¶0066 sessions of app data includes continuous user activity, e.g. scrolling on the page or otherwise interacting with it). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iacono to include that the received interface interaction information indicating current active interaction with the user interface on the mobile device includes detecting, by the application, browsing activity in the user interface as taught by Duffield. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Iacono in order to analyze user interactions (see ¶0003 of Duffield).
Claims 13 and 19 are directed to a system and non-transitory computer-readable medium, respectively. Claims 13 and 19 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 6, which is directed towards a method. Claims 13 and 19 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 6.
Claim 7: The method as recited in claim 1, further comprising: following receipt of the first communication, sending, by the computing device, a communication to the mobile device to cause the user interface to present information related to the first time period. (Iacono Fig. 3 disclosing after receiving the first order, the user interface presenting additional add-on items to be selected within a period of time; Col. 1, Ln. 64-65 disclosing a buyer may place a first order for a first item through a buyer application on a buyer device; Col. 3, Ln. 8-14 disclosing the buyer being presented with the option to add on other items to the initial order; Col. 2, Ln. 8-10 disclosing the buyer device may present received information about the one or more add-on items available to be added to the order in a graphic user interface (GUI))
Claims 14 and 20 are directed to a system and non-transitory computer-readable medium, respectively. Claims 14 and 20 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 7, which is directed towards a method. Claims 14 and 20 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 7.
Claim(s) 3-5, 10-12, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iacono (US 10,043,149) in view of Duffield (2017 /0364227) further in view of Kumar (US 9,269,103).
Claim 3: The method as recited in claim 1,
wherein the second action includes sending a communication to the mobile device associated with the user for determining whether to implement a second time period before performing the first action.
Iacono discloses implementing a time period before performing the first action, but does not explicitly disclose that the second action includes sending a communication to the mobile device associated with the user for determining whether to implement a second time period before performing the first action. Kumar suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Kumar Col. 11, Ln. 21-24 disclosing a first buyer may select one or more items for an order with a merchant, and may pause the order to provide time for other buyers to participate in a combined order with the order of the first buyer; Col. 11, Ln. 40-42 disclosing before sending the order to the merchant, the service provider may inquire as to whether the first buyer would like to pause the order for an additional period of time). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iacono in view of Duffield to include that the second action includes sending a communication to the mobile device associated with the user for determining whether to implement a second time period before performing the first action as taught by Kumar. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Iacono in view of Duffield in order to provide time for others to participate in the first action (of submitting/preparing an order) (see col. 11, Ln, 23-24 of Kumar).
Claims 10 and 17 are directed to a system and non-transitory computer-readable medium, respectively. Claims 10 and 17 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 3, which is directed towards a method. Claims 10 and 17 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 3.
Claim 4: The method as recited in claim 3,
wherein, following implementation of the second time period after the expiration of the first time period, the second communications continue to be received via the API in real time.
Iacono discloses second communications being received via the API and in real time: (Iacono Col. 13, Ln. 50-51 disclosing as time elapses, the remaining time for the buyer to order the add-on items may decrease in real time; Col. 11, Ln. 56-59 disclosing each of the threshold order times may be provided as a real-time countdown of the time remaining for the buyer to place an order for the associated add-on item; Col. 5, Ln. 3-6 disclosing the merchant and service computing devices for receiving orders being in communication via one or more APIs; see also Col. 6, Ln. 30-32 disclosing the buyer app and service computing device communicating via one or more APIs). Iacono does not explicitly disclose the implementation of the second time period after the expiration of the first time period. Kumar suggests or disclosing this limitation/concept: (Kumar Col. 11, Ln. 21-24 disclosing a first buyer may select one or more items for an order with a merchant, and may pause the order to provide time for other buyers to participate in a combined order with the order of the first buyer; Col. 11, Ln. 40-42 disclosing before sending the order to the merchant, the service provider may inquire as to whether the first buyer would like to pause the order for an additional period of time). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iacono in view of Duffield to include the implementation of the second time period after the expiration of the first time period as taught by Kumar. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Iacono in view of Duffield in order to provide time for others to participate in the first action (of submitting/preparing an order) (see col. 11, Ln, 23-24 of Kumar).
Claim 11 is directed to a system. Claim 11 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 4, which is directed towards a method. Claim 11 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 4.
Claim 5: The method as recited in claim 1, further comprising:
based at least on receiving, from the mobile device, a third communication indicating a user input via the user interface, performing at least the first action immediately and prior to termination of the first time period.
Iacono discloses that the system performs the first action after the time period expires, but does not explicitly disclose based at least on receiving, from the mobile device, a third communication indicating a user input via the user interface, performing at least the first action immediately and prior to termination of the first time period. Kumar suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Kumar Col. 22, Ln. 22, Ln. 49-52 disclosing the computing device may receive, from the second buyer device (third communication), within a threshold period of time, second order information indicating a second item to order from the merchant for delivery to the second delivery location; and Col 22, Ln. 56-59 disclosing the computing device may send, to a merchant device associated with the merchant, combined order information for ordering the first item and the second item from the merchant). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iacono in view of Duffield to include based at least on receiving, from the mobile device, a third communication indicating a user input via the user interface, performing at least the first action immediately and prior to termination of the first time period as taught by Kumar. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Iacono in view of Duffield in order to provide time for others to participate in the first action (of submitting/preparing an order) (see col. 11, Ln, 23-24 of Kumar).
Claims 12 and 18 are directed to a system and non-transitory computer-readable medium, respectively. Claims 12 and 18 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 5, which is directed towards a method. Claims 12 and 18 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 4.
Additional Relevant Art
Additional prior art reference(s) that is/are relevant to the applicant’s invention, but not relied upon in the current prior art rejection includes:
Burr (2020/0258119) which discloses a system for promoting and ordering items and further discloses: (Burr ¶0050 the user shopping or browsing for product items via an app to interact with the host system operated by the merchant; the user may select items and place them in a virtual shopping cart; a determination is made as to whether the user has chosen; see also Fig. 2B, 224 to checkout, and if not, the method proceeds to determine whether the user has abandoned their car by leaving the website of the merchant (app closed) see also Fig. 2A the flowchart disclosing determining whether the user has abandoned their car and if so the process ends, and if not the process lops around to the user (continuing) to shop for product items); ¶0056 disclosing the determination being made whether there is an add-on order or purchase, see also ¶0061; note also in ¶0032, ¶0033, ¶0036 the applications such as web browser and communication via interface allowing for communication between the app and the host system)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628