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 .
This Office Action has been issued in response to Applicant’s Communication of application S/N 18/197,309 filed on May 2, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending with the application.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1, the limitations directed towards generating a user-specific score for each user based on credit prequalification data and historical purchase data of the user; generating a classification of each user from amongst a plurality of possible classifications based on the user-specific score; generating a respective visual indication associated with each user, a comparison between one or more parameter from the user-specific data for the user and one or more parameter from the user-specific data for one or more other users, determining, for each provider, a subset of the one or more users for which at least one product parameter in the user-specific data corresponds to at least one product provided by the provider, is a process that, under its broadest reasonably interpretation, covers performance of these limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting obtaining user-specific data for one or more users, wherein the user-specific data includes, in each case, at least one product parameter set by a user and at least one purchase parameter set by the user, generating a respective visual indication associated with each user, each visual indication including one or more of: a visual element indicative of one or more parameter from the user- specific data for the user; a visual element indicative of the classification or user-specific score of the user; or a visual element indicative of a comparison, access of a portal by one or more providers via an electronic network, and causing the portal to output, to each provider, at least a portion of the respective visual indications corresponding to the subset of users, nothing in the claim precludes these steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by a human with pen and paper.
For example, but for the limitations stating obtaining user-specific data for one or more users, wherein the user-specific data includes, in each case, at least one product parameter set by a user and at least one purchase parameter set by the user, generating a respective visual indication associated with each user, each visual indication including one or more of: a visual element indicative of one or more parameter from the user- specific data for the user; a visual element indicative of the classification or user-specific score of the user; or a visual element indicative of a comparison, access of a portal by one or more providers via an electronic network, and causing the portal to output, to each provider, at least a portion of the respective visual indications corresponding to the subset of users, the mention of generating a user-specific score for each user based on credit prequalification data and historical purchase data of the user; generating a classification of each user from amongst a plurality of possible classifications based on the user-specific score; generating a respective visual indication associated with each user, a comparison between one or more parameter from the user-specific data for the user and one or more parameter from the user-specific data for one or more other users, determining, for each provider, a subset of the one or more users for which at least one product parameter in the user-specific data corresponds to at least one product provided by the provider, in the context of this claim, encompasses mentally determining data associated with a reverse-auction bid based on comparison parameter data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of these limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application by additional elements. In particular, obtaining user-specific data for one or more users, wherein the user-specific data includes, in each case, at least one product parameter set by a user and at least one purchase parameter set by the user, generating a respective visual indication associated with each user, each visual indication including one or more of: a visual element indicative of one or more parameter from the user- specific data for the user; a visual element indicative of the classification or user-specific score of the user; or a visual element indicative of a comparison, access of a portal by one or more providers via an electronic network, and causing the portal to output, to each provider, at least a portion of the respective visual indications corresponding to the subset of users. The recitation of obtaining user-specific data for one or more users, wherein the user-specific data includes, in each case, at least one product parameter set by a user and at least one purchase parameter set by the user, generating a respective visual indication associated with each user, each visual indication including one or more of: a visual element indicative of one or more parameter from the user- specific data for the user; a visual element indicative of the classification or user-specific score of the user; or a visual element indicative of a comparison, access of a portal by one or more providers via an electronic network, and causing the portal to output, to each provider, at least a portion of the respective visual indications corresponding to the subset of users is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function of search) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. obtaining user-specific data for one or more users, wherein the user-specific data includes, in each case, at least one product parameter set by a user and at least one purchase parameter set by the user, generating a respective visual indication associated with each user, each visual indication including one or more of: a visual element indicative of one or more parameter from the user- specific data for the user; a visual element indicative of the classification or user-specific score of the user; or a visual element indicative of a comparison, access of a portal by one or more providers via an electronic network, and causing the portal to output, to each provider, at least a portion of the respective visual indications corresponding to the subset of users is interpreted by the examiner to be insignificant extra solution activity and it merely confines the claim to a particular technological environment or field of use for data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea. These elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and it merely confines the claim to a particular technological environment or field of use for data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea.
This claim 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 elements, obtaining user-specific data for one or more users, wherein the user-specific data includes, in each case, at least one product parameter set by a user and at least one purchase parameter set by the user, generating a respective visual indication associated with each user, each visual indication including one or more of: a visual element indicative of one or more parameter from the user- specific data for the user; a visual element indicative of the classification or user-specific score of the user; or a visual element indicative of a comparison, access of a portal by one or more providers via an electronic network, and causing the portal to output, to each provider, at least a portion of the respective visual indications corresponding to the subset of users is recited at a high level of generality to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The recitation of obtaining user-specific data for one or more users, wherein the user-specific data includes, in each case, at least one product parameter set by a user and at least one purchase parameter set by the user, generating a respective visual indication associated with each user, each visual indication including one or more of: a visual element indicative of one or more parameter from the user- specific data for the user; a visual element indicative of the classification or user-specific score of the user; or a visual element indicative of a comparison, access of a portal by one or more providers via an electronic network, and causing the portal to output, to each provider, at least a portion of the respective visual indications corresponding to the subset of users is interpreted to be well understood, routine and conventional activity (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec (see MPEP 2106.06(d))). To further elaborate, the additional limitations of obtaining user-specific data for one or more users, wherein the user-specific data includes, in each case, at least one product parameter set by a user and at least one purchase parameter set by the user, generating a respective visual indication associated with each user, each visual indication including one or more of: a visual element indicative of one or more parameter from the user- specific data for the user; a visual element indicative of the classification or user-specific score of the user; or a visual element indicative of a comparison, access of a portal by one or more providers via an electronic network, and causing the portal to output, to each provider, at least a portion of the respective visual indications corresponding to the subset of users does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and it merely confines the claim to a particular technological environment or field of use. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claims 11 and 19 recite similar limitations as in claim 1. Therefore claims 11 and 19 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above. See claim 1 for analysis.
With respects to claims 2 and 12, the limitations are directed towards receiving at least one reverse-auction bid from at least one of the one or more providers via the portal, the at least one reverse-auction bid identifying a respective one of the one or more users. The recitation of receiving at least one reverse-auction bid from at least one of the one or more providers via the portal, the at least one reverse-auction bid identifying a respective one of the one or more users is interpreted to be well understood, routine and conventional activity (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec (see MPEP 2106.06(d))).Therefore, claims 2 and 12 do not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
With respects to claims 3 and 13 the limitations are directed towards a plurality of reverse-auction bids are received for the respective visual indication associated with a user; the computer-implemented method further comprises: determining an optimal reverse-auction bid for the user from amongst the plurality of reverse-auction bids by inputting the user-specific data for the user and the plurality of reverse-auction bids into a trained machine-learning model that has been trained on historical purchases by various users at various vendors; and causing a user interface of a user device associated with the user to display a visual indication of the optimal reverse-auction bid. The elements directed towards determining an optimal reverse-auction bid for the user from amongst the plurality of reverse-auction bids by inputting the user-specific data for the user and the plurality of reverse-auction bids into a trained machine-learning model that has been trained on historical purchases by various users at various vendors further elaborates the abstract idea and the human mind and/or with pen and paper can determine an optimal reverse-auction bid for the user from amongst the plurality of reverse-auction bids by inputting the user-specific data for the user and the plurality of reverse-auction bids into a trained machine-learning model that has been trained on historical purchases by various users at various vendors. The recitation of a plurality of reverse-auction bids are received for the respective visual indication associated with a user and causing a user interface of a user device associated with the user to display a visual indication of the optimal reverse-auction bidis interpreted to be well understood, routine and conventional activity (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec (see MPEP 2106.06(d))). Therefore, claims 3 and 13 do not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
With respects to claims 4 and 14, the limitations are directed to in response to receiving the at least one reverse-auction bid from the at least one provider, causing the portal to output an indication of one or more parameters of the at least one reverse-auction bid to at least one other provider. The recitation of in response to receiving the at least one reverse-auction bid from the at least one provider, causing the portal to output an indication of one or more parameters of the at least one reverse-auction bid to at least one other provider is interpreted to be well understood, routine and conventional activity (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec (see MPEP 2106.06(d))). Therefore, claims 4 and 14 does not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
With respects to claims 5 and 15 the limitations are directed towards receiving a response from the user corresponding to the at least one reverse- auction bid; andupdating the respective visual indication based on the response. These additional elements are interpreted to be well understood, routine and conventional activity (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec (see MPEP 2106.06(d))). Therefore, claims 5 and 15 do not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
With respects to claims 6, 16, and 20 the limitations are directed towards the portal is configured to limit an extent of time for which each visual indication is accessible to the one or more providers. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and it merely confines the claim to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, claims 6, 16, and 20 do not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
With respects to claims 7 and 17, the limitations are directed towards the respective visual indications on the portal are selectable User Interface (UI) elements that are selectable by the one or more providers to enter a reverse-auction bid. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and it merely confines the claim to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, claim 7 and 17 do not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
With respects to claims 8 and 18, the limitations are directed towards the UI elements are configured to enable a provider to edit one or more parameters of the user-specific data corresponding to the respective visual indication for entering the reverse-auction bid. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and it merely confines the claim to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, claim 8 and 18 do not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
With respects to claims 9 and 19, the limitations are directed towards the visual element includes one or more of a coloration, a border, a highlight, an accent, or a comparison. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and it merely confines the claim to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, claim 9 and 19 do not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
With respects to claim 10, the limitations are directed towards the output of the respective visual indications is visually arranged into one or more groups based on a similarity between one or more parameters. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and it merely confines the claim to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, claim 10 does not recite additional limitations which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-12, 14-20 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clay et al. (U.S. Publication No.: US 20070055616 A1) hereinafter Clay, in view of Li et al. (U.S. Publication No.: US 20240378662 A1) hereinafter Li.
As to claim 1:
Clay discloses:
A computer-implemented method for correlating reverse-auction bids for a product to user-specific data [Paragraph 0057 teaches postings for items wanted-for-purchase may include reverse-auction postings, immediate-purchase postings, and best-offer postings. Reverse-auction postings enable a reverse bidding process such as multiple sellers competing to provide an item wanted-for-purchase at the best price], comprising: obtaining user-specific data for one or more users, wherein the user-specific data includes, in each case, at least one product parameter set by a user and at least one purchase parameter set by the user [Paragraph 0155 teaches Auction description fields 1710 receive information describing the item the auction buyer would like to purchase. The depicted fields include an auction title, a description of the item-wanted, a URL for the location of an image file containing a picture of the item-wanted, and a category for the item-wanted listing. Paragraph 0173 how the item-wanted descriptor 1940 displays descriptive information regarding the item wanted by the buyer. In the depicted embodiment, the information and wording are provided by the buyer at item-wanted listing creation via the auction description field 1710 entitled "detailed description of item wanted." Note: The buyer (a user) inputting data into the system, wherein the data defines the characteristics, category, and descriptive details (the parameters) of a product to purchase reads on the claims.]; generating a classification of each user from amongst a plurality of possible classifications based on the user-specific score [Paragraph 0171 teaches the buyer information field 1920 contains information regarding the buyer, who is the auction trader listing the item-wanted. Such information may include a feedback score earned by the buyer, a percentage of the feedback score that was positive, duration of buyer's membership, or an email link to ask a question to the buyer. The information is provided to notify auction traders of possible risks or benefits of trading with the buyer. Note: A feedback score earned by the buyer for notifying the user for possible risks or benefits (classifications) reads on the claims.]; generating a respective visual indication associated with each user, each visual indication including one or more of: a visual element indicative of one or more parameter from the user- specific data for the user [Figure 19:1920 and Paragraph 0171 teaches the buyer information field 1920 contains information regarding the buyer, who is the auction trader listing the item-wanted. Such information may include a feedback score earned by the buyer, a percentage of the feedback score that was positive, duration of buyer's membership, or an email link to ask a question to the buyer. The information is provided to notify auction traders of possible risks or benefits of trading with the buyer and to supply a method of contact to clarify discrepancies or questions the auction traders may have. Note: Parameters and scores are visually displayed to users reads on the claims.]; a visual element indicative of the classification or user-specific score of the user [Figure 19:1920 and Paragraph 0171 teaches the buyer information field 1920 contains information regarding the buyer, who is the auction trader listing the item-wanted. Such information may include a feedback score earned by the buyer, a percentage of the feedback score that was positive, duration of buyer's membership, or an email link to ask a question to the buyer. The information is provided to notify auction traders of possible risks or benefits of trading with the buyer and to supply a method of contact to clarify discrepancies or questions the auction traders may have. Note: Parameters and scores are visually displayed to users reads on the claims.]; or a visual element indicative of a comparison between one or more parameter from the user-specific data for the user and one or more parameter from the user-specific data for one or more other users ;in response to access of a portal by one or more providers via an electronic network [Figure 19 and Paragraph 0174 teaches the responses module 1960 provides any auction trader with information regarding responses of auction items made to the item-wanted listing. The responses module 1960 includes an item title 1962, a price 1964, a bids field 1966, and a time field 1968. Paragraph 0175 teaches the price 1964 provides the current price of the responding item. The price may be the current bid price of the auction or a non-negotiable, for sale price. The bids field 1966 indicates how many auction traders have bid on the responding item. If the responding item contains a non-negotiable, for sale price, the bids field 1966 may indicate such. The time field 1968 indicates the remaining time the responding item has in auction. Note: The visual indicator as described and illustrated showing multiple items showing their respective product parameters reads on the claims.]: determining, for each provider, a subset of the one or more users for which at least one product parameter in the user-specific data corresponds to at least one product provided by the provider [Paragraph 0014 teaches fulfillment proposals facilitate auction sellers satisfying a set of item-wanted listings for one or more auction buyers. Paragraph 0117 teaches the display search items wanted page step 1110 obtains search parameters from the auction seller specifying attributes of items wanted records to search for in the auction database 115. Paragraph 0118 teaches the matching wanted items test 1115 determines whether items wanted listings in the auction database 115 match the parameters provided by the auction seller. Note: A searching and matching that allows sells (suppliers) to search for specific item-wanted listings (the product parameters) and view a compiled list of the buyers who requested them (the subset of users) reads on the claims.anything]; and causing the portal to output, to each provider, at least a portion of the respective visual indications corresponding to the subset of users [Paragraph 0119 teaches the display matching wanted items step 1120 displays the items wanted listings that match the search parameters provided by the auction seller. Paragraph 0052 teaches in some embodiments, the wanted items list 390 may identify the potential buyer listing the item-wanted listing. In other embodiments, the wanted items list 390 may display item-wanted listings anonymously. Anonymous display of items-wanted listings promotes communication of potential buyer demand to auction sellers. Note: Determining which users match the suppliers product parameters, it visually displays this subset of users so the supplier can evaluate the demand.]
Clay discloses some of the limitations as set forth in claim 1 but does not appear to expressly disclose generating a user-specific score for each user based on credit prequalification data and historical purchase data of the user.
Li discloses:
generating a user-specific score for each user based on credit prequalification data and historical purchase data of the user [Paragraph 0036 teaches the vehicle transaction support system 100 utilizes an artificial intelligence (AI) based grading process that is trained based on vast amounts of data representing the results of tens of thousands (or more) prior vehicle transactions. The AI model operates based on dozens of inputs (or more) from customers to produce a unique customer profile and customer prequalification data that can be used to produce a “Grade” for a customer. Paragraph 0047 teaches generating, based on the customer prequalification data and/or extended bureau data and utilizing a customer grading engine 304 having an artificial intelligence model trained via machine learning, a customer grade that predicts a likelihood of transaction default associated with a customer. Paragraph 0064 teaches reference data, e.g., historical customer prequalification data and extended bureau data, is split into a training data and a validation data set. Only accounts without a default are selected to train the auto encoders. Note: Generating a customer grade (user-specific score) based on prequalification data and prior vehicle transactions reads on the claims.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Clay, by incorporating generating a customer grade (user-specific score) based on prequalification data and prior vehicle transactions (see Li Paragraph 0036, 0047, and 0064), because both applications are directed to bidding; incorporating generating a customer grade (user-specific score) based on prequalification data and prior vehicle transactions improves the technology of automated vehicle purchasing using AI models that improve the speed, consistency and accuracy of vehicle filtering, identification, pricing and scoring (see Li Paragraph 0164).
Claim(s) 11 and 19 are similarly rejected because they are similar in scope.
As to claim 2:
Clay discloses:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving at least one reverse-auction bid from at least one of the one or more providers via the portal, the at least one reverse-auction bid identifying a respective one of the one or more users [Paragraph 0057 teaches postings for items wanted-for-purchase may include reverse-auction postings, immediate-purchase postings, and best-offer postings. Reverse-auction postings enable a reverse bidding process such as multiple sellers competing to provide an item wanted-for-purchase at the best price. Paragraph 0094 teaches the receive offer data step 840 obtains data from the auction seller concerning the offer to be made for a wanted item. In some embodiments, the receive offer data step 840 is initiated by the auction seller selecting a user interface element such as an icon, a control, a menu item, or the like. Paragraph 0095 teaches the enter offer in database step 845 records the sale offer entered by the auction seller into the auction database 115. The enter offer in database step 845 may generate an email message to notify the auction buyer who created the wanted item record that an offer has been made on the wanted item. The enter offer in database step 845 may generate an email message to notify the auction seller that a sale offer has been entered into the auction database 115 using the auction seller's account. Paragraph 0178 teaches the in-auction response panel 2020 facilitates responding to an item-wanted listing… Activation of the respond control 2024 associates the auction number from the auction number field 2022 to the responses module 1960 of the item-wanted listing 1900. Note: Receiving a reverse-auction bid from the seller (provider) using panel 2020 (portal) wherein the Figure 19 depicts reverse-auction identifying the buyer (user) reads on the claims.]
Claim 12 is similarly rejected because it is similar in scope.
As to claim 4:
Clay discloses:
The computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising :in response to receiving the at least one reverse-auction bid from the at least one provider, causing the portal to output an indication of one or more parameters of the at least one reverse-auction bid to at least one other provider [Paragraph 0057 teaches reverse-auction postings enable a reverse bidding process such as multiple sellers competing to provide an item wanted-for-purchase at the best price. Paragraph 0174 teaches the responses module 1960 provides any auction trader with information regarding responses of auction items made to the item-wanted listing. The responses module 1960 includes an item title 1962, a price 1964, a bids field 1966, and a time field 1968. Paragraph 0175 teaches the price 1964 provides the current price of the responding item... the bids field 1966 indicates how many auction traders have bid on the responding item… the time field 1968 indicates the remaining time the responding item has in auction.]
Claim 14 is similarly rejected because it is similar in scope.
As to claim 5:
Clay discloses:
The computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising: receiving a response from the user corresponding to the at least one reverse- auction bid [Paragraph 0057 teaches a best offer posting for an item wanted-for-purchase enables a buyer to select the most attractive offer or trade from a set of offers or trades based on additional factors other than price.]; and updating the respective visual indication based on the response [Paragraph 0174 teaches the responses module 1960 provides any auction trader with information regarding responses of auction items made to the item-wanted listing. The responses module 1960 includes an item title 1962, a price 1964, a bids field 1966, and a time field 1968. The item title 1962 provides the title of an item in an auction that another auction trader has responded to the item-wanted listing with. Paragraph 0175 teaches bids field 1966 indicates how many auction traders have bid on the responding item.]
Claim 15 is similarly rejected because it is similar in scope.
As to claim 6:
Clay discloses:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the portal is configured to limit an extent of time for which each visual indication is accessible to the one or more providers [Paragraph 0175 teaches the time field 1968 indicates the remaining time the responding item has in auction.]
Claims 16 and 20 are similarly rejected because they are similar in scope.
As to claim 7:
Clay discloses:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the respective visual indications on the portal are selectable User Interface (UI) elements that are selectable by the one or more providers to enter a reverse-auction bid [Paragraph 0057 teaches a best offer posting for an item wanted-for-purchase enables a buyer to select the most attractive offer or trade from a set of offers or trades based on additional factors other than price. Paragraph 0174 teaches the responses module 1960 provides any auction trader with information regarding responses of auction items made to the item-wanted listing. The responses module 1960 includes an item title 1962, a price 1964, a bids field 1966, and a time field 1968. The item title 1962 provides the title of an item in an auction that another auction trader has responded to the item-wanted listing with. Note: Also see Figure 19.]
Claim 17 is similarly rejected because it is similar in scope.
As to claim 8:
Clay discloses:
The computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein the UI elements are configured to enable a provider to edit one or more parameters of the user-specific data corresponding to the respective visual indication for entering the reverse-auction bid [Paragraph 0139 teaches the display item available element step 1340 provides an auction seller with the option of listing a sale item listing by displaying a user interface element such as a control, dialog, icon, hyperlink, or the like. The item available element may be linked to a data entry page, a form, a dialog, a wizard, or the like. The item available element may give the auction seller the option of creating a new sale item record or creating a sale item record based on an existing sale item listing, item-wanted listing, or search results listing.]
Claim 18 is similarly rejected because it is similar in scope.
As to claim 9:
Clay discloses:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the visual element includes one or more of a coloration, a border, a highlight, an accent, or a comparison [Paragraph 0060 teaches the query module 430 may provide search results in the form of listings to the browsing interface module which may format the listings for viewing. In certain embodiments, wanted-for-purchase listings are marked with an item-wanted mark in order to distinguish them from offered-for-sale listings. Examples of item-wanted marks include a label, an icon, a magnifying glass, a spyglass, a telescope, a missing poster, and a wanted poster. Paragraph 0168 teaches the item-wanted title 1834 displays the title of the item wanted. The highlighted item-wanted listing 1832 has a title of "antique rocking chair." The responses indicator 1836 displays the amount of responses an item-wanted listing has received from auction traders. The highlighted item-wanted listing 1832 indicates that two (2) responses have been made by auction traders with potential matches for the item wanted. Note: Please also see Figure 19.]
Claim 19 is similarly rejected because it is similar in scope.
As to claim 10:
Clay discloses:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the output of the respective visual indications is visually arranged into one or more groups based on a similarity between one or more parameters [Paragraph 0085 teaches the display wanted items step 768 displays the results of the matching wanted items test 764 using the search results listing 370. The items may be displayed in chronological order by the date and time they were posted, in chronological order by the auction end date and time, in numerical order by current bid, or in reverse numerical order by current bid. The display order and the auction item data fields displayed may be configurable by the auction trader.]
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clay et al. (U.S. Publication No.: US 20070055616 A1) hereinafter Clay, in view of Li et al. (U.S. Publication No.: US 20240378662 A1) hereinafter Li, and in further view of Zhou et al. (U.S. Patent No.: US 11847670 A1) hereinafter Zhou.
As to claim 3:
Clay discloses:
The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein: reverse-auction bids [Paragraph 0057 teaches postings for items wanted-for-purchase may include reverse-auction postings, immediate-purchase postings, and best-offer postings. Reverse-auction postings enable a reverse bidding process such as multiple sellers competing to provide an item wanted-for-purchase at the best price.]
Clay and Li discloses some of the limitations as set forth in claim 1 but does not appear to expressly disclose a plurality of reverse-auction bids are received for the respective visual indication associated with a user; the computer-implemented method further comprises: determining an optimal reverse-auction bid for the user from amongst the plurality of reverse-auction bids by inputting the user-specific data for the user and the plurality of reverse-auction bids into a trained machine-learning model that has been trained on historical purchases by various users at various vendors and causing a user interface of a user device associated with the user to display a visual indication of the optimal reverse-auction bid.
Zhou discloses:
a plurality of bids are received for the respective visual indication associated with a user; the computer-implemented method further comprises: determining an optimal bid for the user from amongst the plurality of reverse-auction bids by inputting the user-specific data for the user and the plurality of bids into a trained machine-learning model that has been trained on historical purchases by various users at various vendors [Column 19 Lines 45-53 teaches after receiving the bid price from each content provider, recommendation model 412 may be configured to provide as output a sorted ranking of multiple content providers not only based on the bidding price, but also based on their content effectiveness, the viewing users' satisfaction, publisher's brand safety, ad conflicts, etc. Selected content 512 may be selected based at least in part on identifying a highest ranked content provider from the output provided by the recommendation model 412. Column 24 Lines 26-32 teaches the recommendation model may be previously trained (e.g., using offline training system 400 of FIG. 4) to recommend a winning bid (e.g., one of the responses from the content providers) based at least in part on identifying that bid as optimizing the inventory provider's objective (e.g., maximizing revenue, increasing the viewing users' satisfaction, etc.). Note: Training the machine learning model using with user data to select a bid from the plurality of bids such as the highest ranked bids reads on the claims.]; and causing a user interface of a user device associated with the user to display a visual indication of the optimal reverse-auction bid [Column 5 Lines 57-60 teach at 136, the selected content (e.g., selected content 124 or selected content 134, depending on the selected process 120) may be provided to the requesting device (e.g., user device 128) in response to the content request 116. Column 7 Lines 19-21 teaches once selected, the content may be displayed at the digital space corresponding to the request (e.g., a portion of the inventory provider's webpage). Note: Once the recommendation model selects the winning bid, taking the digital item tied to the bid displays the bid and bid associated content reads on the claims.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Clay and Li, by incorporating once the recommendation model selects the winning bid, taking the digital item tied to the bid displays the bid and bid associated content (see Li Paragraph Column 5 Lines 57-60, Column 7 Lines 19-21, Column 19 Lines 45-53, and Column 24 Lines 26-32), because the three applications are directed to bidding; incorporating once the recommendation model selects the winning bid, taking the digital item tied to the bid displays the bid and bid associated content provides an improved inventory management platform (see Li Column 2 Line 41).
Claim 13 is similarly rejected because it is similar in scope.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EARL LEVI ELIAS whose telephone number is (571)272-9762. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (IFP).
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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.
/EARL LEVI ELIAS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2169
/SHERIEF BADAWI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2169
