DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-A/A or A/A Status
1. 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
2. 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.
3. Claims 1–20 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.
In sum, claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process (claims 1–18) and a machine (claims 19–20), where the machine is substantially directed to the subject matter of the process. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.03). Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1. Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of receiving user request information to generate a gift card and send it to another person by:
receiving an audio input comprising a natural language request from a user for a digital gift card;
determining request information based on the audio input;
determining, by querying a database of available gift cards, a proposed gift card based on the request information;
generating a digital representation of the proposed gift card; and
transmitting the digital representation of the digital gift card to a recipient,…,
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and commercial or legal interactions (e.g., receiving user request information to generate a gift card and send it to another person).
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a “device,” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, paragraph [0034] of the specification). Independent claims 19 and 20 are nearly identical to claim 1 so the same analysis applies to those claims as well. Claim 20 contains additional elements not found in claims 1 and 19 such as “memory” and “processor.” These additional elements are being used to implement the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2–18 have all been considered and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Dependent claim 2 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as it describes querying a large language model for the audio analysis. Dependent claim 3 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as it describes that the request information comprises speech-to-speech processing. Dependent claim 4 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as it describes how the request information is determined (using a “natural language processing model”). Dependent claim 5 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as it describes what the speech-to-speech processing comprises. Dependent claim 6 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as it describes determining ambiguities in detecting the language in the audio input by the user and resolving these. Dependent claim 7 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as it describes that the request information comprises translating the audio input into another language. Dependent claim 8 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as it describes determining a personalized message from context information gathered. Dependent claim 9 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as it describes that the request information comprises one or more user preferences. Dependent claim 10 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as it describes that the request information comprises recipient information. Dependent claim 11 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as it describes generating a visual or audio interface. Dependent claim 12 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as it describes determining the proposed gift card comprises matching the grit card type with an available gift card based on the request information. Dependent claim 13 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as it describes ranking the plurality of available gift cards based on relevance. Dependent claim 14 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as it describes receiving feedback associated with the proposed gift card and updating the query to the database of gift cards based on the feedback obtained. Dependent claim 15 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as it describes verifying recipient information that is associated with the recipient device and transmitting it to the recipient device based on this verification. Dependent claim 16 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as it describes that the digital representation for the digital gift card comprises a personalized message. Dependent claim 17 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as it describes that the digital gift card is sent via a particular means. Dependent claim 18 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 as it describes transmitting a confirmation message to the user.
The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., simply claiming the use of a computer and/or computer system to implement the abstract idea).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over PANDE et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0184539) (hereinafter “Pande”) in view of Glass et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0386413) (hereinafter “Glass”).
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 20, Pande discloses receiving an audio input comprising a natural language request from a user. Pande states that “In use, a user may elect to provide voice input to the application such as “Add frozen peas to my cart.” The user may alternatively elect to provide voice input such as “Add Archer Farms frozen peas to my cart.” It is noted that, in instances where a voice input to the application indicates two or more possible products (e.g., where a voice input does not indicate a brand or size of product selected and multiple brands or sizes are available), the application may receive an indication that multiple items may be indicated, and may present more than one item to the user. The items can be, for example, ordered based on a likelihood of user selection (e.g., based on prior user purchases of similar items) for ease of selection by the user. The user may then provide a secondary input (e.g., by touch selection of the desired item, or scanning an item bar code, etc.) to select the one desired item from among the identified possible items.” (See paragraph [0066]).
Pande may not describe the use of a digital gift card as the request from the user. However, Glass teaches the use of a digital gift card as a request from the user. Glass states that “As discussed further below, via GUI 204, gifting user 206 may input various parameters for dynamically creating a gift card to gift to recipient user 208. In some embodiments, the parameters comprise information about recipient user 208 and the selected merchant or merchant categories. Recipient user 208 may refer to a singular recipient or to a plurality of recipients. To select a merchant and/or merchant category for the gift card at which the gift card may be used, gift card engine 202 may dynamically retrieve merchant information directly from a search service, such as search service 212. In such embodiments, information is not stored in a database, such as database 210 discussed below. For example, upon receiving a query from a user, gift card engine 202 may request information directly from search service 212 through API calls instead of from database 210. Generally, the search service 212 provides a social interaction API for retrieving merchant information.” (See paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pande to incorporate the teachings of Glass to include the use of a digital gift card requested by a user. Doing so would allow for a wider amount of available items to purchase for the user and a greater ease of purchasing these items.
Pande discloses determining request information based on the audio input. Pande states that “In use, a user may elect to provide voice input to the application such as “Add frozen peas to my cart.” The user may alternatively elect to provide voice input such as “Add Archer Farms frozen peas to my cart.” It is noted that, in instances where a voice input to the application indicates two or more possible products (e.g., where a voice input does not indicate a brand or size of product selected and multiple brands or sizes are available), the application may receive an indication that multiple items may be indicated, and may present more than one item to the user. The items can be, for example, ordered based on a likelihood of user selection (e.g., based on prior user purchases of similar items) for ease of selection by the user. The user may then provide a secondary input (e.g., by touch selection of the desired item, or scanning an item bar code, etc.) to select the one desired item from among the identified possible items.” (See paragraph [0066]).
Pande may not describe determining, by querying a database of available gift cards, a proposed gift card based on the request information. However, Glass teaches determining, by querying a database of available gift cards, a proposed gift card based on the request information. Glass states that “In some embodiments, to select a merchant and/or merchant category for the gift card at which the gift card may be used, gift card engine 202 comprises one or more databases, such as database 210, that are searchable by the gifting user 206. At a high level, database 210 stores information about a plurality of merchants and/or merchant categories. The information stored by database 210 may include any information now known or later developed that is relevant to merchants, including, but not limited to, name, address, pricing, category, rating, menu, business type, and the like. In some embodiments, the database 210 stores information obtained from one or more search services 212. For example, the search service 212 may be a social media website on which users post reviews and images of various merchants (e.g., YELP, GOOGLE, etc.). In this example, the reviews and images may be retrieved by gift card engine 202 from search service 212 for storing in database 210. In some embodiments, the information is dynamically rendered or retrieved from the search services 212 into the database 210, and then may be further processed before providing results to the user. For example, the search service 212 may be searched for data based on a query provided by the gifting user 206. Once the matching data is retrieved, database 210 may filter or otherwise process the data. For example, as discussed above, it may be desired to only provide gift cards for local merchants, and national retailers that meet the search criteria may be filtered. Similarly, merchants below a threshold rating or otherwise not meeting a certain criteria (which may be indicated by the gifting user 206 or otherwise predefined by system 200) may be filtered before search results are presented to the gifting user 206 for selecting a merchant to obtain a gift card for. Filtering the search results is discussed further below.” (See paragraph [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pande to incorporate the teachings of Glass to include determining, by querying a database of available gift cards, a proposed gift card based on the request information. Doing so would allow for the user to have a greater pool of gift cards to purchase from a variety of merchants.
Pande may not describe generating a digital representation of the proposed gift card and transmitting the digital representation of the digital gift card to a recipient device. Glass teaches generating a digital representation of the proposed gift card and transmitting the digital representation of the digital gift card to a recipient device. Glass states that “Accordingly, gift card engine 202 may then generate a personalized gift card with a link containing the issued PAN usable at the selected merchant. As such, recipient user 208 may receive the gift card information directly from the issuing financial institution through the link. The gift card may be any entity now known or later developed that is capable of storing value. In some embodiments, the gift card is configured as a preloaded debit card. In some embodiments, the gift card is configured to be non-reloadable.” (See paragraph [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pande to incorporate the teachings of Glass to include generating a digital representation of the proposed gift card and transmitting the digital representation of the digital gift card to a recipient device. Doing so would allow for the user to easily obtain a gift card and send it to another person seamlessly.
Regarding claim 2, Pande discloses determining the request information comprises querying a large language model. Pande states that “The natural language understanding processor 906 can be implemented using various techniques. In some embodiments, the digital cart application 210 can access a third party natural language processing library via an API; such a library may be incorporated into the mobile application or accessed remotely. To ensure reliable processing even where a network connection might be unreliable, the library may be managed locally.” (See paragraph [0087]).
Regarding claim 3, Pande discloses determining the request information comprises speech-to-speech processing. Pande states that “In general, a voice based smart checkout system enables guests to enhance their in-store shopping and checkout experience. Aspects of the in-store shopping experience include assisting guests with locating items in the store through a retailer application (using voice-based or text input commands), identifying items placed in the guest's physical shopping cart (using RFID tags, bar code scans, text input, or voice input), providing item recommendations (based on items in the guest's shopping cart, shopping list, or previous purchases), and mapping the guest's shopping route in the store (based on, for example, the customer's shopping list).” (See paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 4, Pande discloses that the request information is determined by a natural language processing model and the natural language processing model is trained with one or more grounding parameters and one or more tuning parameters. Pande states that “The natural language understanding processor 906 can be implemented using various techniques. In some embodiments, the digital cart application 210 can access a third party natural language processing library via an API; such a library may be incorporated into the mobile application or accessed remotely. To ensure reliable processing even where a network connection might be unreliable, the library may be managed locally.” (See paragraph [0087]).
Regarding claim 5, Pande discloses that the speech-to-speech processing comprises detecting one or more nuances associated with the natural language request. Pande states that “The natural language understanding processor 906 can be implemented using various techniques. In some embodiments, the digital cart application 210 can access a third party natural language processing library via an API; such a library may be incorporated into the mobile application or accessed remotely. To ensure reliable processing even where a network connection might be unreliable, the library may be managed locally.” (See paragraph [0087]).
Regarding claim 6, Pande discloses determining one or more ambiguities associated with the natural language request, wherein determining the request information comprises resolving the one or more ambiguities. Pande states that “The natural language understanding processor 906 can be implemented using various techniques. In some embodiments, the digital cart application 210 can access a third party natural language processing library via an API; such a library may be incorporated into the mobile application or accessed remotely. To ensure reliable processing even where a network connection might be unreliable, the library may be managed locally.” (See paragraph [0087]).
Regarding claim 7, Pande discloses determining the request information comprises translating the audio input into a different language. Pande states that “The natural language understanding processor 906 can be implemented using various techniques. In some embodiments, the digital cart application 210 can access a third party natural language processing library via an API; such a library may be incorporated into the mobile application or accessed remotely. To ensure reliable processing even where a network connection might be unreliable, the library may be managed locally.” (See paragraph [0087]).
Regarding claim 8, Pande discloses determining a personalized message based on contextual information extracted from the natural language request. Pande states that “The NLU processor 906 communicates with a digital cart webhook 908. The digital cart webhook 908 provides an interface between the digital cart application 210 and a plurality of server APIs that assist with item identification, processing, and checkout. In the embodiment shown, the digital cart webhook 208 facilitates communication with a search API 910 to find identify the correct item, a cart builder API 912 to add the item to the digital cart, and a personalization API 914 to link the digital cart to the appropriate user. The search API 910 functions to find the correct item to be added to the digital cart. The cart builder API 912 maintains all items added to the digital cart until a time at which the user completes the checkout process. The personalization API 914 maintains customer information and default settings for the user.” (See paragraph [0088]).
Regarding claim 9, Pande discloses the request information comprises one or more user preferences. Pande states that “The preferences data 408 saves information about a user's preferences while using the digital cart management system 130. Preferences can be saved for items, brands, categories of items, store locations, delivery modes, payment methods, and delivery addresses. Some preferences can be set directly by a user in a preferences page. Some preferences can be inferred from the shopping history data 402.” (See paragraph [0058]).
Regarding claim 10, Pande may not describe that the request information comprises recipient information associated with the recipient device. Glass teaches that the request information comprises recipient information associated with the recipient device. Glass states that “As discussed further below, via GUI 204, gifting user 206 may input various parameters for dynamically creating a gift card to gift to recipient user 208. In some embodiments, the parameters comprise information about recipient user 208 and the selected merchant or merchant categories. Recipient user 208 may refer to a singular recipient or to a plurality of recipients. To select a merchant and/or merchant category for the gift card at which the gift card may be used, gift card engine 202 may dynamically retrieve merchant information directly from a search service, such as search service 212. In such embodiments, information is not stored in a database, such as database 210 discussed below. For example, upon receiving a query from a user, gift card engine 202 may request information directly from search service 212 through API calls instead of from database 210. Generally, the search service 212 provides a social interaction API for retrieving merchant information.” (See paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pande to incorporate the teachings of Glass to include that the request information comprises recipient information associated with the recipient device. Doing so would allow for the user to easily send the gift card to the intended recipient.
Regarding claim 11, Pande discloses generating a visual or audio interface comprising instructions associated with the natural language request. Pande states that “The GUI can receive and process inputs various ways. In a first example, the GUI includes functionalities to scan QR codes or bar codes on items to be added to the digital cart. In another example, the GUI includes buttons that a user can select to add items to the digital cart or press to complete the checkout process. Still further, the GUI can include functionalities to process audio inputs from a user.” (See paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claim 12, Pande may not describe determining the proposed gift card comprises matching a gift card type associated with the request information with an available gift card of the available gift cards. Glass teaches determining the proposed gift card comprises matching a gift card type associated with the request information with an available gift card of the available gift cards. Glass states that “In some embodiments, to select a merchant and/or merchant category for the gift card at which the gift card may be used, gift card engine 202 comprises one or more databases, such as database 210, that are searchable by the gifting user 206. At a high level, database 210 stores information about a plurality of merchants and/or merchant categories. The information stored by database 210 may include any information now known or later developed that is relevant to merchants, including, but not limited to, name, address, pricing, category, rating, menu, business type, and the like. In some embodiments, the database 210 stores information obtained from one or more search services 212. For example, the search service 212 may be a social media website on which users post reviews and images of various merchants (e.g., YELP, GOOGLE, etc.). In this example, the reviews and images may be retrieved by gift card engine 202 from search service 212 for storing in database 210. In some embodiments, the information is dynamically rendered or retrieved from the search services 212 into the database 210, and then may be further processed before providing results to the user. For example, the search service 212 may be searched for data based on a query provided by the gifting user 206. Once the matching data is retrieved, database 210 may filter or otherwise process the data. For example, as discussed above, it may be desired to only provide gift cards for local merchants, and national retailers that meet the search criteria may be filtered. Similarly, merchants below a threshold rating or otherwise not meeting a certain criteria (which may be indicated by the gifting user 206 or otherwise predefined by system 200) may be filtered before search results are presented to the gifting user 206 for selecting a merchant to obtain a gift card for. Filtering the search results is discussed further below.” (See paragraph [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pande to incorporate the teachings of Glass to include determining the proposed gift card comprises matching a gift card type associated with the request information with an available gift card of the available gift cards. Doing so would allow for the user to have the correct gift card that is requested.
Regarding claim 13, Pande may not describe ranking a plurality of available gift cards based on relevance to the request information. However, Glass teaches ranking a plurality of available gift cards based on relevance to the request information. Glass states that “Upon receiving the filters 214 and retrieving the query results from the search service 212, gift card engine 202 may display the results to the gifting user 206 via GUI 204. In some embodiments, gift card engine 202 is configured to analyze the results and provide one or more suggestions therefrom to gifting user 206. For example, gift card engine 202 may recommend a new restaurant that has recently been receiving rave reviews. In some embodiments, the results are sortable, such as by highest rating, most reviews, menu price, and the like. In some embodiments, suggested merchants and/or merchant categories may be presented to gifting user 206 before gifting user 206 inputs filters 214 and/or a search. The suggested merchants may be based on gifting user 206, recipient user 208, the merchant, a common location between recipient user 208 and the merchant, or the like.” (See paragraph [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pande to incorporate the teachings of Glass to include ranking a plurality of available gift cards based on relevance to the request information. Doing so would allow for the user to have a variety of gift card options based on user criteria.
Regarding claim 14, Pande may not describe receiving feedback associated with the proposed gift card and updating the query to the database of available gift cards based on the feedback. Glass teaches receiving feedback associated with the proposed gift card and updating the query to the database of available gift cards based on the feedback. Glass states that “Upon receiving the filters 214 and retrieving the query results from the search service 212, gift card engine 202 may display the results to the gifting user 206 via GUI 204. In some embodiments, gift card engine 202 is configured to analyze the results and provide one or more suggestions therefrom to gifting user 206. For example, gift card engine 202 may recommend a new restaurant that has recently been receiving rave reviews. In some embodiments, the results are sortable, such as by highest rating, most reviews, menu price, and the like. In some embodiments, suggested merchants and/or merchant categories may be presented to gifting user 206 before gifting user 206 inputs filters 214 and/or a search. The suggested merchants may be based on gifting user 206, recipient user 208, the merchant, a common location between recipient user 208 and the merchant, or the like.” (See paragraph [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pande to incorporate the teachings of Glass to include receiving feedback associated with the proposed gift card and updating the query to the database of available gift cards based on the feedback. Doing so would allow for the user to have the best possible gift card option.
Regarding claim 15, Pande may not describe verifying recipient information associated with the recipient device, wherein the digital representation of the digital gift card is transmitted to the recipient device based the verification of the recipient information. Glass teaches verifying recipient information associated with the recipient device, wherein the digital representation of the digital gift card is transmitted to the recipient device based the verification of the recipient information.
Glass states that “As discussed further below, via GUI 204, gifting user 206 may input various parameters for dynamically creating a gift card to gift to recipient user 208. In some embodiments, the parameters comprise information about recipient user 208 and the selected merchant or merchant categories. Recipient user 208 may refer to a singular recipient or to a plurality of recipients. To select a merchant and/or merchant category for the gift card at which the gift card may be used, gift card engine 202 may dynamically retrieve merchant information directly from a search service, such as search service 212. In such embodiments, information is not stored in a database, such as database 210 discussed below. For example, upon receiving a query from a user, gift card engine 202 may request information directly from search service 212 through API calls instead of from database 210. Generally, the search service 212 provides a social interaction API for retrieving merchant information.” (See paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pande to incorporate the teachings of Glass to include verifying recipient information associated with the recipient device, wherein the digital representation of the digital gift card is transmitted to the recipient device based the verification of the recipient information. Doing so would allow for the user to securely send the gift card to the correct recipient.
Regarding claim 16, Pande may not describe the digital representation of the digital gift card comprises a personalized message. Glass teaches that the digital representation of the digital gift card comprises a personalized message. Glass states that “Gift card 300 may also comprise personalization region 304. Personalization region 304 may display information specific to recipient user 208. For example, as shown, personalization region 304 displays the name of recipient user 208, the name of gifting user 206, a personalized message, the value of the card, or any combination thereof. Various other information may be added to personalization region 304 as will be appreciated by one of skill in the art. For example, in some embodiments, an image may be displayed in personalization region 304, such as an image of gifting user 206 and recipient user 208. The gifting user 206 may upload any imagery or other personalization information to gift card engine 202, which may be stored in one or more databases associated with gift card engine 202. As another example, an animation may be added to personalization region 304. For example, animated text of “Happy Birthday” may be displayed and the text animation may play whenever recipient user 208 views the gift card 300.” (See paragraph [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pande to incorporate the teachings of Glass to include that the digital representation of the digital gift card comprises a personalized message. Doing so would allow for the user to easily send a message to the intended recipient regarding the gift card being sent.
Regarding claim 17, Pande may not describe that the digital representation of the digital gift card is transmitted via email, SMS, or a messaging application. Glass teaches that the digital representation of the digital gift card is transmitted via email, SMS, or a messaging application. Glass states that “In some embodiments, the communications message comprises a message sent directly from gifting user 206 to recipient user 208. For example, gift card engine 202 may be configured to create a SMS for gifting user 206 that originates from the phone of the gifting user 206 and is sent to the gifting user 206. The SMS may comprise the unique link for activating the gift card 300 as discussed above. By generating an SMS that is sent by gifting user 206, instances of fraud may be reduced because recipient user 208 receives a message from a known phone number (i.e., the phone number of gifting user 206). Likewise, gift card engine 202 may be configured to generate an email that gifting user 206 can send from a personal email to the email of recipient user 208, which may also reduce fraud and the likelihood that the email message is sent to a spam folder and potentially not seen by recipient user 208.” (See paragraph [0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pande to incorporate the teachings of Glass to include that the digital representation of the digital gift card is transmitted via email, SMS, or a messaging application. Doing so would allow for the user to seamlessly send the gift card using readily available methods for the user.
Regarding claim 18, Pande discloses transmitting a confirmation message to the user. Pande states that “The contact information 406 includes mailing addresses, billing addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, and other contact information for a user that is stored in a user account. In some embodiments, the mailing address or billing address is also a delivery address for same-day delivery orders. The email address can be used to login to the user account. The user can also receive confirmation messages, receipts, and other account information at the email addresses associated with the user account. The phone numbers can be landline or cellular phone numbers at which a user or users associated with a user account can be contacted.” (See paragraph [0057]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to AMIT PATEL whose telephone number is (313) 446-4902. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday, 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM 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, Matthew Gart can be reached at (571) 272-3955. The Examiner’s fax number is (571) 273-6087. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Amit Patel/
Examiner
Art Unit 3696
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696