DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
1. Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 2-21 are directed to facilitating a gift transaction, which is considered a commercial interaction. Commercial interactions fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claim 2-8 recite a method and at least one step. Claims 9-14 recite a system comprising a memory and one or more processors. Claims 15-21 recite a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, apparatus, manufacture).
Under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding independent claim 9, the claim sets forth a process in which a gift transaction is facilitated, including through the facilitation of consumer-to-business interaction, in the following limitations:
determining, at a gift transaction system, a gift intent associated with a buyer input;
facilitates access to an inventory database of a first merchant;
receiving a gift selection indication including a product identifier and a merchant identifier;
receiving a recipient contact identifier;
generating, at the gift transaction system, a gift alert of a gift transaction based on the recipient contact identifier and the product identifier, wherein the gift alert provides access to an interactive gift notification via a recipient interface, and wherein the gift alert is received at a first merchant, the gift alert facilitates access to an inventory database of the first merchant; and
processing payment associated with the product identifier, wherein processing is in response to receiving an acceptance of the gift alert.
The above-recited limitations establish a commercial interaction with a consumer to facilitate a gift transaction. This arrangement amounts to both a sales activity or behavior; and business relations. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claim 9 does recite additional elements:
a memory; and
one or more processors coupled to the memory, the one or more processors configured to perform operations comprising
activating a buyer interface of the gift transaction system, wherein the buyer interface;
at the buyer interface
via the buyer interface
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment. The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs 119-139 indicate that while exemplary general purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). As indicated above, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea
Further, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Independent Claims 1 and 15 are parallel in scope to claim 9 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Regarding Claims 2-8, 10-14, 16-21
The dependent claims set forth embellishments to the abstract idea of facilitating gift transactions, including facilitating interaction between consumers and businesses. These embellishments are applied to additional elements similar to the additional limitations in claim 9, as they no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As such, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
2. Claims 2-3, 8-10, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brooks (US 20140201031 A1).
Regarding Claim 2
Brooks discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
determining, at a gift transaction system, a gift intent associated with a buyer input; (see at least ¶11o: giver performs search for gifts).
activating a buyer interface of the gift transaction system, wherein the buyer interface facilitates access to an inventory database of a first merchant; (see at least ¶135: gift giver may browse imported e-commerce retailer item information)
receiving, at the buyer interface, a gift selection indication including a product identifier and a merchant identifier (see at least fig. 6, ¶137: add product to cart)
receiving, via the buyer interface, a recipient contact identifier; (see at least fig. 8)
generating, at the gift transaction system, a gift alert of a gift transaction based on the recipient contact identifier and the product identifier, wherein the gift alert provides access to an interactive gift notification via a recipient interface, and wherein the gift alert is received at a first merchant, the gift alert facilitates access to an inventory database of the first merchant;(see at least ¶120-121)
processing payment associated with the product identifier, wherein processing is in response to receiving an acceptance of the gift alert (see at least ¶130)
Regarding Claims 9, 15
Claims 9 and 15 are parallel in scope to Claim 2 and are rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding Claims 3, 10, 16
Brooks further discloses:
wherein determining the gift intent includes registering an interaction with a link in an email reminder or with mobile phone application (see at least ¶120-121)
Regarding Claim 8
Brooks further disclose:
wherein the recipient interface is associated with a recipient account (see at least ¶120-122)
3. Claims 4-5, 11-12, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks in view of Savilia et al. (US 20110251925 A1, hereinafter Savilia).
Brooks does not explicitly disclose, but Savilia teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the gift selection indication includes product identifiers from different partner merchants indicating a global gift bundle (Savilia: see at least ¶64-66)
wherein the buyer interface includes an Application Programming Interface (API) to allow the buyer interface to interact with an inventory database of a first merchant and wherein the recipient interface facilitates access to the inventory database via the API (Savilia: see at least abstract, ¶44-49)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have Brooks with the features of Savilia, since such a modification would have removed the inconvenience of gift registrants having to diligently update the multi-retailer registry themselves, e.g., after making changes to a gift item or making a purchase from a retailer-specific registry. (Savilia: see ¶4)
4. Claims 6-7, 13-14, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks in view of of Burr et al. (US 20130268413 A1, hereinafter Burr).
Regarding Claims 6, 13, 19, 20
Brooks does not explicitly disclose, but Burr teaches in a similar environment:
determining a stored value associated with gift selection; receiving an exchange notification, wherein when the exchange notification is received from a recipient interface, the exchange notification includes an indication of determining an intent to use the stored value; and facilitating access to second merchant inventory associated with a second merchant, wherein access is facilitated using the recipient interface, wherein the second merchant inventory includes an exchange item, wherein the exchange item is associated with an exchange item price (Burr: see at least ¶80)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have Brooks with the features of Burr, since such a modification would have provided the gift card holder with other options in the event that the retailer or service provider associated with a gift card is undesirable or otherwise provides little or no benefit to the gift card holder. (see at least ¶5 of Burr)
Regarding Claims 7, 14, 21
Brooks does not explicitly disclose, but Burr teaches in a similar environment:
receiving a selection notification, wherein when the selection notification is received from the recipient interface, the selection notification includes an input corresponding to a selection of the exchange item; and processing payment of the exchange item price to the second merchant, wherein processing payment includes updating a gift recipient account based on a difference between the stored value and the exchange item price (Burr: see at least ¶80)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the patent with the features of Burr, since such a modification would have provided the gift card holder with other options in the event that the retailer or service provider associated with a gift card is undesirable or otherwise provides little or no benefit to the gift card holder. (see at least ¶5 of Burr)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ren (US 20140156511 A1) discloses a method and apparatus for providing
exchange of gift cards, including determining a second gift card for a second merchant
for trade.
Joa et al. (US 20130254074 A1) discloses a gift card exchange marketplace, including allowing a option for a user to exchange a gift card with remaining balance for an available second gift card from a second merchant.
Nicolaidis et al. (US 20120123832 A1) discloses a stored value exchange method and apparatus, including allowing a user to convert a balance on one gift card
into a gift card for a second merchant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A MISIASZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-6961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday. 8:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571272-6763. 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.
/MICHAEL MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights