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 .
Acknowledgements
This is a first office action on the merits in response to the application filed February 13, 2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claims 1-20 are examined below.
Based on a comparison of the PGPub US 2025/0182184 A1 with applicant’s originally submitted specification, the PGPub appears to be a fair and accurate record of the applicant’s specification. Therefore, references to applicant’s specification will typically be made by this examiner as references to the PGPub. Unless otherwise noted, references to applicant’s specification as published via PGPub will be in the format [####], and references to applicant’s specification as filed will be in the format ¶## or by page and line number.
The notations in the immediately preceding paragraph apply to any future office actions from this examiner.
Examiner Request
Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 USC 112(a) or 35 USC 112, 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. Examiner thanks applicant in advance. See also relevant portions of MPEP 2163.II.A:
With respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing MPEP § 2163.04 which provides that a "simple statement such as ‘applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘___’ in the application as filed’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported."); see also MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should ... specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.").
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 1, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative claim 1 recites receiving a request for someone else to pay for at least one item in a shopping cart, generating a token corresponding to the at least one item, providing the token to a user, receiving a request from another user associated with the token, using the token to identify the first user, and adding the at least one item to the other user’s shopping cart, which constitutes a certain method of organizing human activity (specifically, a commercial or legal interaction). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements beyond the abstract idea simply link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (the internet) or amount to extra-solution activity. Because the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, claim 1 is “directed to” an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements identified above represent only well-understood, routine, and conventional technology (or placeholders for such) when compared with the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). Viewing the additional elements as a combination does not add anything further than the individual elements. Therefore, the additional elements in the claim are not sufficient to amount to an inventive concept. Because claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea and fails to recite an inventive concept, it is patent ineligible.
Independent claims 9 and 17 contain limitations similar to claim 1 and are therefore rejected using the same rationale.
The dependent claims when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The additional limitations added by these claims fail to either integrate the claims into a practical application or add an inventive concept, because they serve to further narrow the abstract idea without integrating it into a practical application (claims 6, 8, 14, and 16), add additional elements that simply further link to a particular technological environment (claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20), and/or amount to additional extrasolution activity (claims 3, 11, and 19). Regarding the conventionality of the above limitations, see the references cited on the attached from 892. Viewing the additional elements of the dependent claims as a combination does not add anything further than the individual elements. Therefore, the dependent claims neither practically integrate the abstract idea nor constitute an inventive concept, and these claims are also rejected as patent ineligible.
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 statute.
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 of this title, 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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) (pre-AIA ) 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathod (US 2020/0387887 A1) in view of Sivaraman (US 2022/0198426 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17, Rathod discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising: associating at least one item with a first electronic shopping cart associated with a first user, the first electronic shopping cart associated with a merchant (the environment where user client device engaging with the merchant to pay for a merchandise; Fig.1, [0119]); receiving, from the first user, a request to initiate a share to pay operation for the at least one item associated with the first electronic shopping cart (The user can split payment among friends for a merchandise; [0226]); generating a token corresponding to the at least one item associated with the first electronic shopping cart based on the received request (The detail order of the merchandise will be included in a token where payment will be made; [0070]); providing the generated token to the first user (The merchant provide token payment to the user; [0116]); receiving, from a second user different than the first user, a request associated with the generated token (The friends of the user can request a token associated with the merchandise; [0116], [0226]); identifying, based on the generated token, an identity of the first user and the at least one item associated with the first electronic shopping cart (The token includes a user name; account, merchandise item being purchase; [0070], [0202]). Rathod fails to disclose populating a second electronic shopping cart associated with the second user with the at least one item associated with the first electronic shopping cart, wherein the second electronic shopping cart is associated with the merchant. Sivaraman discloses populating a second electronic shopping cart associated with the second user with the at least one item associated with the first electronic shopping cart, wherein the second electronic shopping cart is associated with the merchant (The second user can pay for a single item from the first user item being purchase. The second user can view the display check out page and pay for the first user item where the merchandise is shown; [0111], [0126]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Rathod to include populating a second electronic shopping cart associated with the second user with the0 at least one item associated with the first electronic shopping cart, wherein the second electronic shopping cart is associated with the merchant as taught by Sivaraman in order to increase usability of the system.
Regarding claims 2 and 10 and 18, Rathod fails to disclose wherein populating the second electronic shopping cart associated with the second user with the at least one item associated with the first electronic shopping cart comprises associating the at least one item from the first electronic shopping cart with the first user. Sivaraman discloses wherein populating the second electronic shopping cart associated with the second user with the at least one item associated with the first electronic shopping cart comprises associating the at least one item from the first electronic shopping cart with the first user (The second user can pay for a single item from the first user item being purchase; [0111]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Rathod to include populating a second electronic shopping cart associated with the second user with the at least one item associated with the first electronic shopping cart, wherein the second electronic shopping cart is associated with the merchant as taught by Sivaraman in order to increase usability.
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 19, Rathod fails to disclose wherein associating the at least one item from the first electronic shopping cart with the first user comprises visually associating the first user with each of the at least one item in a graphical user interface (GUI) presenting the second electronic shopping cart to the second user. Sivaraman discloses wherein associating the at least one item from the first electronic shopping cart with the first user comprises visually associating the first user with each of the at least one item in a graphical user interface (GUI) presenting the second electronic shopping cart to the second user (The second user can view the display check out page where the first user merchandise is shown; [0126]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Rathod to include wherein associating the at least one item from the first electronic shopping cart with the first user comprises visually associating the first user with each of the at least one item in a graphical user interface (GUI) presenting the second electronic shopping cart to the second user as taught by Sivaraman in order to increase usability.
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 20, Rathod discloses wherein providing the generated token to the first user comprises: generating a message payload associated with the requested share to pay operation, wherein the message payload includes the generated token and at least one link to a uniform resource locator (URL) corresponding to a mobile application associated with the merchant (The detail order of the merchandise will be included in a token which the payload contain the website URL where user can split payment for the merchandise; [0055], [0070], [0226]); and wherein the message payload is provided to the first user to transmit to the second user, wherein the second user is selected from a plurality of potential recipients (The merchant provide token payment to the user where the friends (second user) of the user can request a token associated with the merchandise; [0116], [0226]).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Rathod discloses wherein the generated message payload is associated with at least one thumbnail of at least one of the at least one items, wherein the at least one thumbnail is obtained from a catalog associated with the merchant (The message can include an item of the merchandise with URL which may have picture, photo and the like; [0070], [0074]).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Rathod fails to disclose receiving an indication from the second user to modify a particular item from the at least one item associated with the first electronic shopping cart included in the second electronic shopping cart and updating the second electronic shopping cart based on the received indication to modify the particular item. Sivaraman discloses receiving an indication from the second user to modify a particular item from the at least one item associated with the first electronic shopping cart included in the second electronic shopping cart (The second user can modified or accept the current item being purchase; [0121], [0122]); and updating the second electronic shopping cart based on the received indication to modify the particular item (The second user can update the merchandise on the check-out page; [0110]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method Rathod to include receiving an indication from the second user to modify a particular item from the at least one item associated with the first electronic shopping cart included in the second electronic shopping cart and updating the second electronic shopping cart based on the received indication to modify the particular item as taught by Sivaraman in order to increase usability.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Rathod fails to disclose receiving, from the second user, a request to perform a purchase operation for the populated second electronic shopping cart, wherein the purchase operation includes purchasing the at least one item associated with the first electronic shopping cart included in the second electronic 'shopping cart on behalf of the first user. Sivaraman discloses receiving, from the second user, a request to perform a purchase operation for the populated second electronic shopping cart, wherein the purchase operation includes purchasing the at least one item associated with the first electronic shopping cart included in the second electronic shopping cart on behalf of the first user (The second user can view the display check out page where the first user merchandise is shown. The second user can pay for a single item from the first user item being purchase; [0111], [0126]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Rathod to include receiving, from the second user, a request to perform a purchase operation for the populated second electronic shopping cart, wherein the purchase operation includes purchasing the at least one item associated with the first electronic shopping cart included in the second electronic shopping cart on behalf of the first user as taught by Sivaraman in order to increase usability.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Rathod fails to disclose initiating, after the purchase operation is complete, a shipping process to deliver the at least one item to the first user. Sivaraman discloses initiating, after the purchase operation is complete, a shipping process to deliver the at least one item to the first user (The purchase can be picked up at brick and mortar store or ship to the first user; [0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Rathod to include initiating, after the purchase operation is complete, a shipping process to deliver the at least one item to the first user as taught by Sivaraman in order to increase usability.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
All references listed on form PTO-892 are cited in their entirety. The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Weathersby (US 2002/0169851 A1 discloses a web publishing system that includes the capability of emailing wish lists (see [0090]).
Patel (US 2012/0254312 A1) discloses a thank you gifting service including wishlists and GUIs (see especially Fig. 3C).
Klein (US 2020/0294082 A1) discloses an online marketplace capable of generating URLs for wishlists ([0040])
Flanagan (US 11,295,364 B1) discloses a gift registry management server.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIE KUCAB whose telephone number is (571)270-3025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET. The examiner’s email address is Jamie.Kucab@USPTO.gov. See MPEP 502.03 regarding email communications. Following is the sample authorization for electronic communication provided in MPEP 502.03.II: “Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.” Without such an authorization in place, an examiner is unable to respond via email.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel, can be reached at telephone number (571) 270-1492. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/JAMIE R KUCAB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699