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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 28 March 2025.
Claims 1-11 are currently pending 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.
Claims 1-9; 10; and 11 are rejected under 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-9; 10; 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Representative claim 1 recites displaying an object associated with a post; detecting the first user to have selected the object; transmitting a purchase comment from a second user and related to the post. Therefore, the claim as a whole is directed to “order management”, which is an abstract idea because it is a method of organizing human activity. “Order management” is considered to be a method of organizing human activity because it is a commercial interaction in the form of a sales activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the following additional element(s): a plugin; a website; and a first server that is different from the second server. The additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application because they merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) individually and in combination merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-9 merely further limit the abstract idea and are thereby considered to be ineligible.
Claim(s) 10; and 11 are parallel in nature to claim 1. Accordingly claim(s) 10; and 11 are rejected as being directed towards ineligible subject matter based upon the same analysis above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stubbs (US 2019/0095976 A1) in view of Ono (US 2022/0141749 A1).
Claim 1 –
As per claim 1, Stubbs discloses a method for order management through a plugin, comprising:
displaying an object associated with a post on a website supported by a first server [“social media platform 122” in Fig. 1B] on a user terminal [“shopping apparatus 104” in Fig. 1A] of a first user; (see “social media post 402” and “one or more items 406” in paragraph [0101]; “comments 408” in paragraph [0102]; Fig. 4)
detecting the first user to have selected the object; (see “comment 408c by John Doe states “Buy 123 qty 2”” in paragraph [0104]; Fig. 4-5)
wherein the first server is different from the second server. (see “online sales platform 120” and “social media platform 122” in Fig. 1B)
Stubbs does not explicitly disclose:
transmitting a purchase comment from a second user and related to the post to a second server transmitting a purchase comment from a second user and related to the post to a second server,
Ono teaches transmitting a purchase comment from a second user and related to the post to a second server transmitting a purchase comment from a second user and related to the post to a second server (see “The text “Thank you for your order, Sachiko” is an example of the character string indicating that the order for the target product has been accepted in paragraph [0088]; Fig. 12 of Ono). This step of Ono is applicable to the method of Stubbs as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to purchasing products by utilizing comments in a two server system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Stubbs to include transmitting a purchasing comment by a second user as taught by Ono. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Stubbs in order to sell products to a large number of users (see paragraph [0002] of Ono).
Claim 3 –
Stubbs in view of Ono teach the method of claim 1 as described above.
Stubbs further discloses a method:
wherein the object is displayed along with the post on the website. (see “comments 408” in paragraph [0102]; Fig. 4)
Claim 4 –
Stubbs in view of Ono teach the method of claim 1 as described above.
Stubbs discloses a method, further comprising:
determining a content on the website to have met a predetermined criterion; (see “if there is enough inventory in the host's inventory, the cart module 206 would add two of item “123” to the user's online shopping cart” in paragraph [0104]) and
performing an action on the object in response to determining the content to have met the predetermined criterion. (see paragraph [0104])
Stubbs does not explicitly disclose:
displaying the object in response to determining the content to have met the predetermined criterion.
Ono teaches displaying the object in response to determining the content to have met the predetermined criterion (see paragraph [0086] of Ono). This step of Ono is applicable to the method of Stubbs as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to purchasing products by utilizing comments in a two server system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of performing an action on the object as disclosed by Stubbs to be a display of the object as taught by Ono). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Stubbs in order to sell products to a large number of users (see paragraph [0002] of Ono).
Claim 5 –
Stubbs in view of Ono teach the method of claim 4 as described above.
Stubbs discloses a method, further comprising:
obtaining an identifier from the first user, the identifier associated with the website and the second server, (see “comment 408c by John Doe states “Buy 123 qty 2”” in paragraph [0104]; Fig. 4-5)
wherein the displaying the object associated with the post on the website is in response to the obtaining the identifier. (see “cart module 206 would add two of item “123” to the user's online shopping cart” in paragraph [0104])
Claim 6 –
Stubbs in view of Ono teach the method of claim 1 as described above.
Stubbs discloses a method, further comprising:
determining a portion of the purchase comment to be inconsistent with a set of items; (see paragraph [0106]; Fig. 4)
determining a first item in the set of items to be correlated with the portion of the purchase comment; (see paragraph [0106]; Fig. 4) and
generating a confirmation comment with respect to the post, wherein the confirmation comment includes the first item. (see paragraphs [0106] and [0109]; Fig. 5)
Claim 7 –
Stubbs in view of Ono teach the method of claim 6 as described above.
Stubbs does not disclose the method below. However, Ono teaches a method, further comprising:
determining a confirmation result with respect to the confirmation comment has been generated by the second user on the website; (see paragraph [0091] of Ono) and
transmitting the confirmation result to the second server. (see paragraph [0096] of Ono)
The motivation for making this modification to the disclosure of Stubbs is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 8 –
Stubbs in view of Ono teach the method of claim 1 as described above.
Stubbs discloses a method, further comprising:
obtaining stock data from the second server; (see paragraph [0104])
performing a comparison between multiple purchase comments, from multiple users and related to the post, and the stock data; (see paragraphs [0102] and [0104]) and
generating a result of the performing the comparison on the website. (see paragraph [0104])
Claim 9 –
Stubbs teaches the method of claim 1 as described above.
Stubbs further discloses a method:
wherein the first server is a social media server, and the second server is an order management server. (see “online sales platform 120” and “social media platform 122” in Fig. 1B)
Claims 2; 10; and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stubbs (US 2019/0095976 A1) in view of Ono (US 2022/0141749 A1) and further in view of Schubert et al. (US 2022/0277370 A1).
Claim 2 –
Stubbs in view of Ono teach the method of claim 1 as described above.
Stubbs in view of Ono does not teach a method:
wherein the website is accessed by an application of the user terminal of the first user, and the plugin is installed into the application.
Schubert teaches wherein the website is accessed by an application of the user terminal of the first user, and the plugin is installed into the application (see paragraph [0093] of Schubert). This step of Schubert is applicable to the method of Stubbs as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to online purchases. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined method of Stubbs in view of Ono to include a plugin as taught by Schubert. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the combination of Stubbs in view of Ono in order to monitor a user’s activity on a browser or particular website (see paragraph [0094] of Schubert).
Claim 10 –
Claim 10 is directed to a terminal. Claim 10 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a method. Claim 10 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Furthermore, claim 10 recites one or a plurality of processors execute a browser plugin to perform the steps recited in claim 1. Paragraph [0093] of Schubert teaches a browser plugin and paragraph [0148] teaches a processor capable to execute the plugin to perform the steps recited in claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the combination of Stubbs in view of Ono in order to monitor a user’s activity on a browser or particular website (see paragraphs [0094] of Schubert).
Claim 11 –
Claim 11 is directed to a medium. Claim 11 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a method. Claim 10 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Furthermore, claim 11 recites a plugin program that causes one or a plurality of computers execute the steps recited in claim 1. Paragraph [0093] of Schubert teaches a browser plugin and paragraph [0148] teaches a processor capable to execute the plugin to perform the steps recited in claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the combination of Stubbs in view of Ono in order to monitor a user’s activity on a browser or particular website (see paragraphs [0094] of Schubert).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RESHA DESAI whose telephone number is (571)270-7792. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
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.
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights