DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 31 March 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 11 June 2025, has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites the system of claim 2, which appears to be a typographical errors. Claim 3 is dependent off of claim 2, which is a method claim. The claims should be recited as the method of claim 2 Appropriate correction is required.
.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea without significantly more).
Under step 1, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention (see MPEP 2106.03(II)). In the instant case, claims 1-10 are directed to a method and claims 11-20 are directed to a system (stored on one or more non-transitory computer readable storage mediums).
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites an abstract idea of multiple-brand shopping. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
configuring a micro-store of a host store, the micro-store including a first description of a first product offered for sale to a user for a first price, wherein the first product is produced by a first company;
including a second description of a second product offered for sale to the user at a second price, wherein the second product is a third-party product produced by a second company;
configuring a cart as part of the host store, the cart being configured to display an order including a first listing of the first product being purchased and a second listing of a second product being purchased, the cart also displaying a total order cost including the first price of the first product and the second price of the second product;
prompting the user a checkout page to make a purchase-input;
executing a single transaction in response to the purchase-input for the first product and the second product, the single transaction including the total order cost as payment for the first product and the second product; and
allocating a first portion of the total order cost to the first company and a second portion of the total cost to the second company.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in 2106.04(a) of the MPEP. Even in consideration of the analysis, the claims recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of multiple-brand shopping as noted above. This concept is considered to be a method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity because it relates to sale activities since the claims specifically recite the steps of a configured micro-store that hosts a store, that includes a first description of a first product offered for sale to a user for a firs price that is produced by a first company, including a second description of a second product offered for sale to the user at a second price that is offered by a third-party by a second company, configuring a car as part of the host store, displaying the order including first and second listings of the first and second product and their prices, prompting the user to checkout and make a purchase for the products, executing one single transaction in response to the purchase input for the first and second products, where the single transaction includes the total cost as payment for the first and second products, and allocating a first potion of the total order to the first company and a second portion of the total cost to the second company, thereby making these steps sales activities or behaviors.
It is also noted that the abstract idea of multiple-brand shopping, is related to managing personal behavior, or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as stated in MPEP 2106.04(c), as the claims are directly related to managing the shopping for multiple brands. For instance, the step of prompting the user a checkout page to make a purchase-input, is a step that would be considered interactions between people or managing personal behaviors, such as prompting a user to checkout and make a purchase would be managing a personal behavior. Therefore, the claims are related to managing personal behaviors or interactions between people.
Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements: internet online shopping, webstore, and on-line cart.
Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., multiple-brand shopping) being applied on a general-purpose computer using general purpose computer technology. MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements internet online shopping, webstore, and on-line cart recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘ad[d] nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’… [and] [v]iewed as a whole…[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Independent claim 11 is similar in nature to representative claim 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis is the same as above for representative claim 1. It is noted that in independent claim 11 includes the additional elements of one or more non-transitory computer readable storage mediums. The Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of one or more non-transitory computer readable mediums in claim 11, as being anything other than generic elements. Thus, the claimed additional elements of claim 11 are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. As such, the additional elements of claim 11 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claim 11, considered individually and in combination with other claimed features, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer.
As such, claim 11 is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20, depending from claims 1 and 11 respectively, do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claims 1 and 11. The claims 2-10 and 12-20 merely act to provide further limitations of the abstract idea and are ineligible subject matter.
It is noted that dependent claims include the additional elements of a website (claims 2, 3, 12, & 13), a link (claims 3 & 13), web developer (claims 4, 5, 14, & 15), and a landing page (claims 5 and 15). Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the claimed additional elements in claims 2-5 and 12-15 as being anything other than a generic element. The claimed additional elements, individually and in combination do not integrate into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept because they are being used to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claims 2-5 and 12-15 are directed towards an abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claims 2-5 and 12-15 considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. It is further noted that the remaining dependent claims 6-10 and 16-20 do not recite any further additional elements to consider in the analysis, and therefore would not provide additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and would not provide an inventive concept.
As such, the dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 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, 6-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhosle, A., et al. (Patent No. US 9,189,811 B1), in view of Tarvydas, M., et al. (Patent No. US 7,305,355 B2).
Claim 1-
Bhosle discloses a method of multiple-brand internet online shopping (Bhosle, Col. 3, ln. 1-2 disclosing “network-accessible merchant sites”) comprising:
configuring a micro-store as part of a host webstore, the micro-store including a first description of a first product offered for sale to a user for a first price, wherein the first product is produced by a first company (Bhosle, see: Col. 4, ln. 5-7 disclosing “electronic marketplace 110 may be hosted by servers 116 that make a catalog 118 of items from the catalog” and ln. 9-10 disclosing “each include unique electronic marketplace” and ln. 14-15 disclosing “the users 112 identifies a product, service, or other element (collectively an ‘item’)” and ln. 16 & 18-21 disclosing “user may select the item” and “The merchant (e.g., the first merchant 106(1)) may then transmit information via the network 108 to the host 102…with respective item information”);
including a second description of a second product offered for sale on-line to the user at a second price, wherein the second product is a product produced by a second company Col. 4, ln. 18-23 disclosing “transmit information via the network 108 to the host 102…with respective item information. The user may select items from other merchants 106(2)-n (i.e., second company] and ultimately place selected items in the cart”);
configuring an on-line cart as part of the host webstore, the on-line cart being configured to display an order including a first listing of the first product being purchased and a second listing of the second product being purchased (Bhosle, see: Col. 3, ln. 4-9 disclosing “user may visit a first site and select an item for inclusion in the cart, then visit a second site that is hosted by a different merchant than the first site and add a second item into the cart” and see: Col. 6, ln. 1-12 disclosing “the interface 300 may include cart links 304” and “a view-cart link 308” and “transmission from the merchant to the host to populate the cart with the respective item” and “view the cart 104 and any items listed in the cart”),
the on-line cart also displaying an order cost including the first price of the first product and the second price of the second product (Bhosle, see: Col. 3, ln. 4-9 disclosing “user may visit a first site and select an item for inclusion in the cart, then visit a second site that is hosted by a different merchant than the first site and add a second item into the cart. When the user is finished shopping, the user may purchase the items in the cart in a single transaction”; Also see FIG. 6 displaying the interface that includes item-view section to see what items have been added to the cart and which merchants they were ordered from and prices for each item in the cart.);
prompting the user a checkout page to make a purchase-input (Bhosle, see FIG. 6 displaying the interface with the items in the cart from each merchant, along with prices for each item, as well as the ‘PROCEED TO CHECKOUT’ button prompting the user to checkout for the items selected. Also see Col. 8, ln. 27-30);
executing a single transaction in response to the purchase-input for the first product and the second product, the single transaction including the order cost as payment for the first product and the second product (Bhosle, see: Col. 3, ln. 7-9 disclosing “When the user is finished shopping, the user may purchase the items in the cart in a single transaction” and ln. 9-11 disclosing “A host of the cart may then transmit payment information to the merchants associated with the respective purchased items”; Also see: FIG. 6 displaying the interface with the items in the cart from each merchant, along with prices for each item, as well as the ‘PROCEED TO CHECKOUT’ button.); and
allocating a first portion of the total order cost to the first company and a second portion of the total order cost to the second company (Bhosle, see: Col. 3, ln. 9-11 disclosing “may then transmit payment information to the merchants associated with the respective purchased items”).
Although Bhosle does disclose a plurality of items sold by a plurality of merchants that can be purchased in a single transaction, and discloses prices for each item selected for each merchant, Bhosle does not specifically detail that the second product is a third-party product, and does not disclose a total order cost for the entire order. Bhosle does not disclose:
a third-party product;
a total order cost;
the total order cost;
the total order cost;
Tarvydas, however, does teach:
a third-party product (Tarvydas, see: Col. 11, ln. 33-34 teaching “All of the products, whether retrieved from an affiliated site or a non-affiliated site, are displayed in the same manner to the consumer” and see: Col. 12, ln. 36-40 teaching “accesses the product information directly the shopping site” and “may also be maintained on products carried by non-affiliate merchants”);
a total order cost (Tarvydas, see: Cols. 18-19 ln. 67 and 1-3 teaching “shipping costs are added to a running total for the order”; Also see: FIG. 23);
the total order cost (Tarvydas, see: Cols. 18-19 ln. 67 and 1-3 teaching “shipping costs are added to a running total for the order”; Also see: FIG. 23);
the total order cost (Tarvydas, see: Cols. 18-19 ln. 67 and 1-3 teaching “shipping costs are added to a running total for the order”; Also see: FIG. 23).
This step of Tarvydas is applicable to the method of Bhosle, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to universal shopping carts. 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 Bhosle, to include the features of a third-party product, and a total order cost, as taught by Tarvydas. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Bhosle, to improve a customer experience while shopping from multiple merchants, using a universal shopping cart, by allowing non-affiliated merchants to also sell products to the consumer (Tarvydas, see at least the Abstract).
Claim 2-
Bhosle in view of Tarvydas teach the method of claim 1, as described above.
Bhosle discloses further comprising: configuring a merchant website of a merchant business, the merchant website including a listing of the first product offered for sale at the first price, wherein the first product is a product of the merchant business (Bhosle, see: Col. 4, ln. 55-56 disclosing “items in the cart that are offered at a lower price”; and see: Col. 5, ln. 60-64 disclosing “a merchant's electronic marketplace to provide access to the cart 104” and “may include catalog information 302 for a catalog (e.g., the catalog 118, etc.) for an item or other information related to the electronic marketplace” and see: Col. 6, ln. 49-51 disclosing “made available to the user inside of the merchant's electronic marketplace” and “provided in a webpage on the merchant's electronic marketplace”).
Bhosle does not disclose:
a third-party product,
Tarvydas, however, does teach:
a third-party product (Tarvydas, see: Col. 11, ln. 33-34 teaching “All of the products, whether retrieved from an affiliated site or a non-affiliated site, are displayed in the same manner to the consumer” and see: Col. 12, ln. 36-40 teaching “accesses the product information directly the shopping site” and “may also be maintained on products carried by non-affiliate merchants”);
This step of Tarvydas is applicable to the method of Bhosle, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to universal shopping carts. 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 Bhosle, to include the features of a third-party product, as taught by Tarvydas. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Bhosle, to improve a customer experience while shopping from multiple merchants, using a universal shopping cart, by allowing non-affiliated merchants to also sell products to the consumer (Tarvydas, see at least the Abstract).
Claim 3-
Bhosle in view of Tarvydas teach the system of claim 2, as described above.
Bhosle discloses further comprising: providing a first link on the merchant website included in the listing of the first product, the first link being configured to redirect the user to the micro-store on the host webstore (Bhosle, see: Col. 5, ln. 64-67 disclosing “The catalog information may include navigational information…links, or data to enable the user 112 to interact with the catalog of one of the merchants 106”).
Claim 6-
Bhosle in view of Tarvydas teach the method of claim 1, as described above.
Bhosle discloses wherein the total order cost includes a first shipping cost for shipping the first product from the first company to the user and a second shipping cost for shipping the second product from the second company to the user (Bhosle, see: Col. 13, ln. 60-62 disclosing “the user may select an item that has lowest total cost while considering additional costs such as shipping, handling, and tax, among other possible additional costs”).
Claim 7-
Bhosle in view of Tarvydas teach the method of claim 6, as described above.
Bhosle discloses wherein the single transaction results in a first payment to the first company and a second payment to the second company (Bhosle, see: Col. 3, ln. 9-11 disclosing “may then transmit payment information to the merchants associated with the respective purchased items”).
Bhosle does not disclose:
a first credit card payment;
a second credit card payment;
Tarvydas, however, does teach:
a first credit card payment (Tarvydas, see FIG. 19, rendering the interface for a user input the credit card payment information, such as a credit card type, card number, etc.; also see: Col. 19, ln. 1-3 teaching “The process then repeats itself for each merchant who has any product(s) in the consumers USC”);
a second credit card payment (Tarvydas, see FIG. 19, rendering the interface for a user input the credit card payment information, such as a credit card type, card number, etc.; also see: Col. 19, ln. 1-3 teaching “The process then repeats itself for each merchant who has any product(s) in the consumers USC”);
This step of Tarvydas is applicable to the method of Bhosle, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to universal shopping carts. 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 Bhosle, to include the features of a first credit card payment and a second credit card payment, as taught by Tarvydas. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Bhosle, to improve a customer experience while shopping from multiple merchants, using a universal shopping cart, by allowing non-affiliated merchants to also sell products to the consumer (Tarvydas, see at least the Abstract).
Claim 8-
Bhosle in view of Tarvydas teach the method of claim 6, as described above.
Bhosle discloses wherein the single transaction results in a single credit card payment to the host webstore, and the host webstore sends the first of the single payment to the first company and sends the second of the single payment to the second company (Bhosle, see: Col. 3, ln. 9-11 disclosing “may then transmit payment information to the merchants associated with the respective purchased items”).
Bhosle does not disclose:
first portion of the payment;
second portion of the payment;
Tarvydas, however, does teach:
first portion of the payment (Tarvydas, see: Col. 19, ln. 5-12 teaching “billing details” and “determination is made in block 2405 as to how many products in the cart come from different merchants” and “determines in block 2410 the minimum number of payments that are needed to pay all the merchants for all of the products”);
second portion of the payment (Tarvydas, see: Col. 19, ln. 5-12 teaching “billing details” and “determination is made in block 2405 as to how many products in the cart come from different merchants” and “determines in block 2410 the minimum number of payments that are needed to pay all the merchants for all of the products”).
This step of Tarvydas is applicable to the method of Bhosle, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to universal shopping carts. 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 Bhosle, to include the features of a first portion of the payment and second portion of the payment, as taught by Tarvydas. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Bhosle, to improve a customer experience while shopping from multiple merchants, using a universal shopping cart, by allowing non-affiliated merchants to also sell products to the consumer (Tarvydas, see at least the Abstract).
Claim 9-
Bhosle in view of Tarvydas teach the method of claim 8, as described above.
Bhosle discloses further comprising: prompting the user to enter user information at a cart page, the user information including a user name and user email address (Bhosle, see: Col. 6, ln. 40-41 and 43-44 disclosing “may provide a sign-in selector 402 to enable the user 112 to sign in via a sign in button 404” and “providing a username, email, etc.”).
Bhosle does not disclose:
a user shipping address;
Tarvydas, however, does teach:
a user shipping address (Tarvydas, see FIG. 19 displaying the interface for a consumer to input billing and shipping information, such as a shipping address of the consumer. Also see: Col. 21, ln. 18-20 teaching “a section of a form could be considered a state, such as Billing Address, or Shipping Address”);
This step of Tarvydas is applicable to the method of Bhosle, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to universal shopping carts. 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 Bhosle, to include the features of a user shipping address, as taught by Tarvydas. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Bhosle, to improve a customer experience while shopping from multiple merchants, using a universal shopping cart, by allowing non-affiliated merchants to also sell products to the consumer (Tarvydas, see at least the Abstract).
Claim 10-
Bhosle in view of Tarvydas teach the method of claim 9, as described above.
Bhosle does not disclose:
further comprising: sending a first package containing the first product from the first company to the user at the user shipping address; and sending a second package containing the second product from the second company to the user at the user shipping address
Tarvydas, does teach:
further comprising: sending a first package containing the first product from the first company to the user at the user shipping address; and sending a second package containing the second product from the second company to the user at the user shipping address (Tarvydas, see: Col. 9, ln. 16-21 teaching “Afte the order status changes (e.g., from ‘on order’ to ‘shipped’) the merchant server(s) 600 send an updated order status”; and Col 14, ln. 53-55 teaching “information may include such things as whether the merchant shipped the product within the time they promised”; and see: FIG. 19 displaying the interface for a consumer to input shipping address of the consumer.).
This step of Tarvydas is applicable to the method of Bhosle, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to universal shopping carts. 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 Bhosle, to include the features of sending a first package containing the first product from the first company to the user at the user shipping address; and sending a second package containing the second product from the second company to the user at the user shipping address, as taught by Tarvydas. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Bhosle, to improve a customer experience while shopping from multiple merchants, using a universal shopping cart, by allowing non-affiliated merchants to also sell products to the consumer (Tarvydas, see at least the Abstract).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is directed to a system. Claim 11 recites limitations that are similar in nature to those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a method. It is noted that claim 11 also includes the features of one or more non-transitory computer readable storage mediums (Bhosle, see: Col. 9, ln. 35-39 disclosing “processor(s) 702 and memory” and “having instructions”). Further, claim 11 also includes the feature of an allocator calculator, which is not disclosed by Bhosle. The reference of Tarvydas does however teach an allocator calculator (Tarvydas, see: Col. 16, ln. 4-5 teaching “Pricing information and details are then collected and calculated” and see: Col. 19, ln. 5-12 teaching “billing details” and “determination is made in block 2405 as to how many products in the cart come from different merchants” and “determines in block 2410 the minimum number of payments that are needed to pay all the merchants for all of the products”).
This step of Tarvydas is applicable to the method of Bhosle, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to universal shopping carts. 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 Bhosle, to include the features of an allocator calculator, as taught by Tarvydas. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Bhosle, to improve a customer experience while shopping from multiple merchants, using a universal shopping cart, by allowing non-affiliated merchants to also sell products to the consumer (Tarvydas, see at least the Abstract).
Claim 11 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is directed to a system. Claim 12 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 2 which is directed towards a method. Claim 12 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is directed to a system. Claim 13 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 3 which is directed towards a method. Claim 13 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is directed to a system. Claim 16 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 6 which is directed towards a method. Claim 16 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is directed to a system. Claim 17 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 7 which is directed towards a method. Claim 17 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is directed to a system. Claim 18 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 8 which is directed towards a method. Claim 18 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 8.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is directed to a system. Claim 19 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 9 which is directed towards a method. Claim 19 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is directed to a system. Claim 20 recites limitations that are similar in nature to those addressed above for claim 10 which is directed towards a method. It is noted that claim 20 differs slightly from claim 10, as claim 10 recites sending a first package and sending a second package. Claim 20 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 10.
Claims 4-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhosle, A., et al. (Patent No. US 9,189,811 B1), in view of Tarvydas, M., et al. (Patent No. US 7,305,355 B2), and Woo, K., et al. (PGP No. US 2016/0110798 A1).
Claim 4-
Bhosle in view of Tarvydas teach the method of claim 3, as described above.
Although Bhosle does disclose the host webstore (Bhosle, see: Col. 5, ln. 59-60 and 61-62 disclosing “a merchant’s electronic marketplace” and “may include catalog information” and “links…to enable the user 112 to interact with the catalog”), Bhosle does not disclose:
wherein the host webstore is a web developer,
Woo, however, does teach:
wherein the host webstore is a web developer (Woo, see: paragraph [0020] teaching “a merchant web site that can be a retailer” and “merchant web site uses a third party shopping cart application 112” and “A third shopping cart application 112 is an application external to the online payment service 110 that is developed by an external developer/company to allow a merchant…to host a shopping cart on its web site”).
This step of Woo is applicable to the method of Bhosle, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to a virtual shopping cart. 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 Bhosle to include the features of the host webstore is a web developer, as taught by Woo. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Bhosle to improve the integration of consumer payment services with a virtual shopping cart to allow more merchants to sell products via online marketplaces (Woo, see: paragraphs [0003]-[0004]).
Claim 5-
Bhosle in view of Tarvydas teach the method of claim 1, as described above.
Bhosle discloses further comprising:
configuring a landing page as part of the host webstore (Bhosle, see: Col. 5, ln. 59-60 and 61-62 disclosing “a merchant’s electronic marketplace” and “may include catalog information” and “links…to enable the user 112 to interact with the catalog”); and
providing identifying information of the merchant business on the landing page (Bhosle, see: Col. 6, ln. 49-53 disclosing “the interface 400 may be made available to the user inside of the merchant's electronic marketplace”).
Bhosle does not disclose:
the web developer webstore;
Woo, however, does teach:
the web developer webstore (Woo, see: paragraph [0020] teaching “a merchant web site that can be a retailer” and “merchant web site uses a third party shopping cart application 112” and “A third shopping cart application 112 is an application external to the online payment service 110 that is developed by an external developer/company to allow a merchant…to host a shopping cart on its web site”).
This step of Woo is applicable to the method of Bhosle, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to a virtual shopping cart. 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 Bhosle to include the features of the web developer webstore, as taught by Woo. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Bhosle to improve the integration of consumer payment services with a virtual shopping cart to allow more merchants to sell products via online marketplaces (Woo, see: paragraphs [0003]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is directed to a system. Claim 14 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 4 which is directed towards a method. Claim 14 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is directed to a system. Claim 15 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 5 which is directed towards a method. Claim 15 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Balan, R., (PGP No. US 2021/0192595 A1), describes a series of associated merchant websites or respective merchant websites each selling narrowly defined product categories to shoppers who browse to select products for placement into a shopping cart.
NPL document, titled Universal Shopping Cart: Purchase Multiple Products at Once, published on Rythumsoftware.com (2023), renders a website for users that would like to use a universal shopping cart platform for their own online businesses, where their consumers can make purchases in bulk through one portal and allows for adding a plurality of products for one transaction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4399. 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/ASHLEY D PRESTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights