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 Claims
Claims 38-74 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
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.
Claim(s) 38-71 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 38-74, the independent claims (claims 38, 46) are directed, in part, to a method and an apparatus for generating a resource offer set. Step 1 – First pursuant to step 1 in the subject matter eligibility analysis, claims 38-45 are directed to a method comprising a series of steps which falls under the statutory category of a process and claims 46-53 are directed to an apparatus which falls under the statutory category of a machine. However, these claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process which includes observations or evaluations.
As per Step 2A - Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed, in part, to generating a resource offer set; retrieving at least one resource offer generation input data set; receiving a benchmark and portfolio target data set…; generating a resource offer set… to a resource offer generation model, wherein the generated resource offer set satisfies the benchmark and portfolio target data set; generating a control signal causing a renderable object comprising an offer adjustment interface… and configured for updating the resource offer set to create an adjusted resource offer set, the offer adjustment interface comprising an indication of the resource offer set; receiving a completion control signal…; in response to the completion control signal, generating an approval request control signal… wherein the approval interface comprises an indication of the adjusted resource offer set; receiving… an offer approval control signal comprising an offer status indicator; and storing the resource offer set associated with the offer status indicator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers an observation or evaluation, then it falls under the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per Step 2A - Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional elements: “one or more client devices”; “a control signal”; “an offer adjustment interface”; “a completion control signal”; “an approval request control signal”; “an approval interface”; “an approval control signal”; “an apparatus”; “one processor” “one memory”; “computer program code”. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function of receiving and storing data) such that these elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in at least figures 1 and 2 and related text and [0093-0095] to understand that the invention may be implemented in a generic environment that “Regardless of the manner in which the apparatus 200 is embodied, the apparatus of an example embodiment is configured to include or otherwise be in communication with a processor 202 and a memory device 204 and optionally the input/output circuitry 206 and/or a communications circuitry 208. In some embodiments, the processor (and/or co-processors or any other processing circuitry assisting or otherwise associated with the processor) may be in communication with the memory device via a bus for passing information among components of the apparatus. The memory device may be non-transitory and may include, for example, one or more volatile and/or non-volatile memories. In other words, for example, the memory device may be an electronic storage device (e.g., a computer readable storage medium) comprising gates configured to store data (e.g., bits) that may be retrievable by a machine (e.g., a computing device like the processor). The memory device may be configured to store information, data, content, applications, instructions, or the like for enabling the apparatus to carry out various functions in accordance with an example embodiment of the present disclosure. For example, the memory device could be configured to buffer input data for processing by the processor. Additionally or alternatively, the memory device could be configured to store instructions for execution by the processor. As described above, the apparatus 200 may be embodied by a computing device. However, in some embodiments, the apparatus may be embodied as a chip or chip set. In other words, the apparatus may comprise one or more physical packages (e.g., chips) including materials, components and/or wires on a structural assembly (e.g., a baseboard). The structural assembly may provide physical strength, conservation of size, and/or limitation of electrical interaction for component circuitry included thereon. The apparatus may therefore, in some cases, be configured to implement an embodiment of the present disclosure on a single chip or as a single "system on a chip." As such, in some cases, a chip or chipset may constitute means for performing one or more operations for providing the functionalities described herein. The processor 202 may be embodied in a number of different ways. For example, the processor may be embodied as one or more of various hardware processing means such as a coprocessor, a microprocessor, a controller, a digital signal processor (DSP), a processing element with or without an accompanying DSP, or various other processing circuitry including integrated circuits such as, for example, an ASIC (application specific integrated circuit), an FPGA (field programmable gate array), a microcontroller unit (MCU), a hardware accelerator, a special- purpose computer chip, or the like. As such, in some embodiments, the processor may include one or more processing cores configured to perform independently. A multi-core processor may enable multiprocessing within a single physical package. Additionally or alternatively, the processor may include one or more processors configured in tandem via the bus to enable independent execution of instructions, pipelining and/or multithreading.”
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. When considered individually, these claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements and the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea. These claims do not provide a meaningful linking to the judicial exception. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as by describing the nature and content of the data that is received/sent. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 38, 40-46, 48-53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2014/0006132 (hereinafter; Barker) in view of US Pub. No. 2002/0077954 (hereinafter; Slaight).
Regarding claims 38 and 46, Barker discloses:
A computer-implemented method; and apparatus for generating a resource offer set, the method; apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory comprising computer program code, the at least one memory and computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to:
retrieving at least one resource offer generation input data set; Barker [0036-0037]; Fig. 3A disclose an offer input portion and merchant offer set-up; merchant input portion 302 may include any suitable input fields for obtaining merchant information. As shown, the merchant input portion 302 includes fields for a name (e.g., 304a), address, phone number, fax number, login name (e.g., 304b), password, payment information (e.g., credit/debit card or bank account information). The voucher management system may present any suitable number of offer input portions for entering data for multiple offers. Additionally, the voucher system GUI or other interface may be arranged to allow each merchant to enter information for each offer or to enter information for all or a portion of their offers at one time.
receiving a benchmark and portfolio target data set in response to an input by an offer control user via one or more client devices; Barker [0087-0088] disclose offers can be associated with a specific reward rule; Any number and type of reward rules may be automatically defined by the voucher platform and/or specified by one or more merchants (e.g., during an offer set up). There may be a calculation for whether to remit a reward to a particular user or a group of users and how much to remit based on one or more metrics, such as voucher purchase count or total monetary amount for the particular user, voucher purchase count for the particular user's social group, good or service purchase count or total monetary amount for the particular user or particular user's social group, etc. Each voucher and associated offer can be associated with a specific reward rule for such particular voucher and offer. In a decreasing amount example, the first 100 users to buy a particular offer will receive 15% back; the next 100 will receive 10% back; and everyone else will receive 5% back. In an increasing amount example: if 100 customers buy a particular offer, then everyone will receive 5% back; and if 200 customers buy this offer, then everyone receives 10% back; etc. In both of the above decreasing and increasing discount cases, the reward is remitted either concurrently or in the future once certain targets are met.
generating a resource offer set by applying at least one of the at least one resource offer generation input data set and the benchmark and portfolio target data set to a resource offer generation model, wherein the generated resource offer set satisfies the benchmark and portfolio target data set; Barker [0087] discloses any number and type of reward rules may be automatically defined by the voucher platform and/or specified by one or more merchants (e.g. during an offer set up); [0089] discloses reward rules may also pertain to certain activity thresholds being met by a single user.
receiving a completion control signal from the first of the one or more client devices; Barker [0018] discloses a plurality of users of a platform that is accessible via a mobile communications network or a data network for completion of merchant transactions; [0097]; Fig. 2 disclose multiple client devices in communication with the network.
Although Barker discloses a system for generating a resource offer set, Barker does not specifically disclose adjustment data objects. However, Slaight discloses the following limitations:
generating a control signal causing a renderable object comprising an offer adjustment interface displayed at a first of the one or more client devices and configured for updating the resource offer set to create an adjusted resource offer set, the offer adjustment interface comprising an indication of the resource offer set; Slaight [0116] disclose an interface that may enable the implementor to change or modify bids as requested by the vendors and approved by the purchaser.
in response to the completion control signal, generating an approval request control signal causing a second renderable data object comprising an approval interface to be displayed at a second of the one or more client devices, wherein the approval interface comprises an indication of the adjusted resource offer set; Slaight [0116] discloses an interface that may enable the implementor to change or modify bids as requested by the vendors and approved by the purchaser. The system may also enable the implementor: (i) to send email or screen messages to one or more purchasers or vendors using the electronic mail device and view a log of all messages sent; (ii) view vendor and purchaser passwords and logon ID's; or (iii) forcibly end the auction if desired. The system sends appropriate messages and sounds to all the vendors and the purchaser at the beginning and prior to end of auction.
receiving, from the second of the one or more client devices, an offer approval control signal comprising an offer status indicator; Slaight [0116] discloses the interface changes or modifies bids as approved by the purchaser; [0131] discloses an auction manager that monitors the status of all the auctions in the system.
and storing the resource offer set associated with the offer status indicator. Slaight [0131] discloses an auction manager that monitors the status of all the auctions in the system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for managing promotional offers of Barker with the auction system that receives multiple parameter bids in real-time in order to allow allows an entity to purchase products using an auction process that takes into account a variety of variables of interest to the purchaser other than price (Slaight abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claims 40 and 48, although Barker discloses a system for generating a resource offer set, Barker does not specifically disclose adjustment data objects. However, Slaight discloses the following limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 38, the method further comprising; the apparatus of claim 46, the at least one memory and the computer program code further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: receiving control signals, from the first of the one or more client devices, comprising one or more adjustment data objects; Slaight [0034] discloses an example purchaser accessible interface which enables the purchaser to view bids entered by the vendors on the multiple parameters, make adjustments thereto during the auction and select other features provided to the purchaser by the system;
and updating the resource offer set based on the one or more adjustment data objects to create the adjusted resource offer set. Slaight [0034] discloses an example purchaser accessible interface which enables the purchaser to view bids entered by the vendors on the multiple parameters, make adjustments thereto during the auction and select other features provided to the purchaser by the system; [0127] discloses The purchaser uses at least one purchaser computer 152 (which may be remotely located) to communicate with the CAMS 150 (via the internet 154 or other suitable communication methods) to access the auction, view the bidding process in real-time and make adjustments.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for managing promotional offers of Barker with the auction system that receives multiple parameter bids in real-time in order to allow allows an entity to purchase products using an auction process that takes into account a variety of variables of interest to the purchaser other than price (Slaight abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claims 41 and 49, although Barker discloses a system for generating a resource offer set, Barker does not specifically disclose adjustment data objects or adjusted resource offer set. However, Slaight discloses the following limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 38; the apparatus of claim 46, wherein the adjusted resource offer set comprises the resource offer set. Slaight [0123] discloses the system may provide a purchaser accessible interface 130 which enables the purchaser to view high-level bid information, view total savings by supplier and make total cost adjustments by supplier to test different scenarios.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for managing promotional offers of Barker with the auction system that receives multiple parameter bids in real-time in order to allow allows an entity to purchase products using an auction process that takes into account a variety of variables of interest to the purchaser other than price (Slaight abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claims 42 and 50, although Barker discloses a system for generating a resource offer set, Barker does not specifically disclose adjustment data objects or adjusted resource offer set. However, Slaight discloses the following limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 38, wherein retrieving the at least one resource offer generation input data set comprises; the apparatus of claim 46, wherein, to retrieve the at least one resource offer generation input data set, the computer program code configures the apparatus to: retrieve at least one updated resource offer generation input data set, wherein the at least one resource offer generation input data set comprises the at least one updated resource offer generation input data set. Slaight [0005] discloses allowing a purchaser to efficiently take multiple parameters into account when making a purchase so as to obtain a more desirable outcome when purchasing products; [0034] discloses an interface which enables the purchaser to view bids entered by the vendors on the multiple parameters, make adjustments thereto during the auction and select other features provided to the purchaser by the system. [0123] discloses the system may provide a purchaser accessible interface 130 which enables the purchaser to view high-level bid information, view total savings by supplier and make total cost adjustments by supplier to test different scenarios. Figs. 7-8 disclose an input interface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for managing promotional offers of Barker with the auction system that receives multiple parameter bids in real-time in order to allow allows an entity to purchase products using an auction process that takes into account a variety of variables of interest to the purchaser other than price (Slaight abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claims 43 and 51, Baker discloses:
The computer-implemented method of claim 38, wherein retrieving the at least one resource offer generation input data set comprises; the apparatus of claim 46, wherein, to retrieve the at least one resource offer generation input data set, the computer program code configures the apparatus to determining at least one resource offer generation input data set satisfies an untrustworthiness threshold; Barker discloses multiple thresholds that need to be satisfied by the offer in at least [0045]; [0077]; [0079]; [0089].
Although Barker discloses a system for generating a resource offer set, Barker does not specifically disclose adjustment data objects or adjusted resource offer set. However, Slaight discloses the following limitations:
and retrieving an updated resource offer generation input data set for the at least one resource offer generation input data set for including in the resource offer generation input data set. Slaight [0123] discloses the system may provide a purchaser accessible interface 130 which enables the purchaser to view high-level bid information, view total savings by supplier and make total cost adjustments by supplier to test different scenarios. Figs. 7-8 disclose an input interface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for managing promotional offers of Barker with the auction system that receives multiple parameter bids in real-time in order to allow allows an entity to purchase products using an auction process that takes into account a variety of variables of interest to the purchaser other than price (Slaight abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claims 44 and 52, Barker discloses:
The computer-implemented method of claim 38; the apparatus of claim 46, wherein the benchmark and portfolio target data set comprises at least one data object representing a boundary condition, and wherein the resource offer set satisfies the benchmark and portfolio target data set by satisfying the at least one boundary condition. Barker [0087] discloses any number and type of reward rules may be automatically defined by the voucher platform and/or specified by one or more merchants (e.g. during an offer set up); [0089] discloses reward rules may also pertain to certain activity thresholds being met by a single user.
Regarding claims 45 and 53, although Barker discloses a system for generating a resource offer set, Barker does not specifically disclose adjustment data objects or adjusted resource offer set. However, Slaight discloses the following limitations:
The computer-implemented method of claim 38; the apparatus of claim 46, wherein the offer adjustment interface further comprises an indication of an offer analytics data set generated based on the resource offer set and at least one of the at least one resource offer generation input data set. Slaight [0116] discloses using the interface for calculations and analysis. Fig. 25; [0120]; [0122] disclose the bidding interface includes an analysis section that allows viewing of pre-selected real-time graphs and reports about bidding information; the system also provides auction information and parameters including current best comparable total cost.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for managing promotional offers of Barker with the auction system that receives multiple parameter bids in real-time in order to allow allows an entity to purchase products using an auction process that takes into account a variety of variables of interest to the purchaser other than price (Slaight abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Claim 39 and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barker in view of Slaight, further in view of US Pub. No. 2018/0018732 (hereinafter; Wang).
Regarding claims 39 and 47, Barker discloses:
The computer-implemented method of claim 38, the method further comprising; the apparatus of claim 46, the at least one memory and the computer program code further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: receiving a region-program identifier via one or more client devices; Barker [0009] discloses a location of the first user is determined, and the first voucher is provided to the computing device of the first user based on determining that a place of business for the good or service of the first voucher is proximate to the location of such first user; [0041] discloses specifying a particular geographical location requirement, such as postal code, neighborhood, city, state, and/or country.
Although Barker discloses a system for generating a resource offer set, Barker does not specifically disclose a collection period data associated with a timestamp. However, Wang discloses the following limitations:
receiving a collection period data object associated with the region-program identifier via the one or more client devices; Wang [0017] discloses receiving bids within a certain time frame; [0097] discloses geographic location as part of the information to be collected.
and validating the collection period data object by comparing the collection period data object to a valid timestamp range object, - 142-Attorney Docket No: 006128/539395 LEGAL02/39348954v1wherein the apparatus is configured to storing the resource offer set associated with the offer status indicator, the collection period data object, and the region-program identifier. Wang discloses timestamps associated with information collected in at least [0046]; [0048]; [0054]; [0055] discloses using timestamp to track status of the bid; [0097] discloses geographic location as part of the information to be collected.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for managing promotional offers of Barker with the system for bid auctions that collects information associated with timestamps of Wang in order to increase the probability of obtaining a sufficiently low, fair and reasonable bid within a certain time frame (Wang [0006]) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) 38-74 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 6, 9, 11, 14 of Pat. No. 11,915,174.
Claims of Instant Application
Claims of US Pat. No. 11,915,174
38, 45, 46, 72, 73, 74
1, 9, 16
42, 43, 50, 51
6, 14
40, 48
11
45, 53
8
44, 52
15
The chart above maps claims of the instant application to corresponding claims of US Pat. No. 11,915,174 that are patentably indistinct, though not identical. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the slight differences between the claim language of the corresponding claims as being directed towards intention, slight variations in terminology, or obvious variants of claim elements, and therefore these claims are not patentably distinct from one another despite these slight differences.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 72-74 are allowable over prior art but have other pending rejections as indicated above. Although the prior art made of record discloses systems and methods for rendering offers and providing offer adjustments, the prior art does not specifically disclose the sequence of steps as recited in the claims: “…wherein the offer analysis table is configured for navigating, by an offer control user of the client device, the received resource offer set, and wherein each resource offer data object is configured for receiving user input of an adjusted resource offer data object in real-time; dynamically rendering, in a first region non-overlapping with the offer analysis table, a dashboard for accessing one or more analysis interfaces, the one or more analysis interfaces configured based on the resource offer set; dynamically rendering, in a second region non-overlapping with the offer analysis table and the dashboard, an indication of an offer analytics data object, wherein the offer analytics data object is based on the resource offer set…”.
The claims would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office Action.
Conclusion
The following is prior art made of record but not relied upon:
US Pub. No. 2017/0161783 (Nair): discloses lending offers in an electronic commerce marketplace.
US Pub. No. 2018/0240148 (Georgoff et al.): discloses tracking offers across multiple channels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS Z SANTIAGO-MERCED whose telephone number is (571)270-5562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-4:30pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRIAN EPSTEIN can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/FRANCIS Z. SANTIAGO MERCED/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights