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 .
Priority
This application is a CON of US Application No. 17/855,974 (filed 07/01/2022), which claims priority as a CON to US Application No. 16/997,305 (filed 08/19/2020), which claims priority as a CON to US Application No. 16/138,484 (filed 09/21/2018), which claims priority as a CON to US Application No. 14/626,373 (filed 02/19/2015), which claims priority to the following US Provisional Application Nos.:
61/943,242 filed 02/21/2014, 62/017,781 filed 06/26/2014, 62/017,793 filed 06/26/2014, 62/017,783 filed 06/26/2014, 62/017,795 filed 06/26/2014, 62/017,787 filed 06/26/2014, and 62/017,776 filed 06/26/2014.
US Provisional Application No. 61/943,242 filed 02/21/2014 does not provide adequate support for the claimed invention because it does not disclose determining that the compound consumer input data corresponds to the share command comprises determining that the share command is associated with a selected communication channel of a plurality of communication channels and based on the selected communication channel associated with the share command, triggering a communication object to be sent on behalf of the consumer in accordance with one or more parameters of the selected communication channel as claimed.
This application is thereby examined with a priority date of 06/26/2014, which is the earliest priority date the claimed subject matter is supported in the line of Provisionals.
Claims Status
Claims 1-117 are cancelled.
Claims 118-137 are newly added.
Claims 118-137 are pending and stand rejected.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 118, 122, 126-127, 128, 132, and 136-137 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,409,431.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims above recite substantially similar scope as recited in ‘431.
Regarding claim 128, ‘431 discloses a system comprising at least a processor, and a memory associated with the processor having computer coded instructions therein, with the computer coded instructions configured to, when executed by the processor, cause the system to (see: claim 1, preamble):
receive, from a computing device associated with a consumer, compound consumer input data, wherein the compound consumer input data are generated based on an indication of a compound consumer input performed by the consumer at a touchscreen visual display of the computing device with respect to a representation of an item displayed on a consumer interface (see: claim 1: col. 58 lines 22-25; claim 3);
determine that the compound consumer input data correspond to a share command associated with the item based on one or more properties of the received compound consumer input data (see: claim 1: col. 58 lines 26-30; claim 3), wherein determining that the compound consumer input data corresponds to the share command comprises determining that the share command is associated with a selected communication channel of a plurality of communication channels (see: claim 1: col. 58 lines 26-30 (third party applications); claim 4); and
based on the selected communication channel associated with the share command,
trigger a communication object to be sent on behalf of the consumer in accordance with one or more parameters of the selected communication channel (see: claim 1: col. 58 lines 31-33; claim 4), the communication object comprising an impression of the item (see: claim 1: col. 58 lines 19-21).
Regarding claims 131, 136 and 137, the scope of these claims is rendered obvious over at least claims 1, 10, and 3 of ‘431.
Regarding claims 118, 121 and 126-127, these claims recite substantially similar limitations and scope as recited in claims 128, 131 and 136-137 such that similar analysis would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill. Accordingly, these claims are rejected under at least similar rationale as set forth above over the corresponding method claims of ‘431 (e.g., claims 12-22).
Claims and 119-120 and 129-130 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,470,431 as discussed above in view of Munisamy (US 2014/0316884).
Regarding claim 129, ‘431 discloses all of the above but does not expressly claim wherein the selected communication channel is an email application (see: 0018, 0021, 0023).
To this accord, Munisamy teaches wherein the selected communication channel is an email application (see: 0018, 0021, 0023).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of ‘431 to have utilized known because each individual element, including various types of communication channels, are shown in the prior art, and the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the communication channels of Munisamy for those of ‘431. Furthermore, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, the simple substitution of one known element of for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
130. The system claim 128, wherein the selected communication channel is an electronic text application (see: Munisamy: 0018, 0021, 0023).
Regarding claims 119-120, these claims recite substantially similar limitations and scope as recited in claims 129-130 such that similar analysis would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill. Accordingly, these claims are rejected under at least similar rationale as set forth above over the corresponding method claims of ‘431.
Claims and 122-125 and 132-135 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,470,431 as discussed above in view of claims 1-16 of US Patent No. 12,346,555.
Regarding claim 132, ‘431 teaches all of the above including a social networking application (e.g., claim 10), but does not teach wherein the computer coded instructions are further configured to, when executed by the processor, cause the system to:
connect with the social networking application and access the social networking application on behalf of the consumer, and wherein triggering the communication object to be sent on behalf of the consumer comprises providing the impression of the item to at least one social network user associated with a social networking application account of the consumer.
To this accord, ‘555 teaches a system configured to connect with the social networking application and access the social networking application on behalf of the consumer, and wherein triggering the communication object to be sent on behalf of the consumer comprises providing the impression of the item to at least one social network user associated with a social networking application account of the consumer (see: claim 9: col. 58 line 64-col. 59 line 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of ‘431 to have utilized the known technique of ‘555 in order to have facilitated promotion management via an intuitive interface and, more particularly, to facilitated consumer interactions with promotions and impressions of promotions via an improved mobile device (see: ‘555: col. 1 lines 45-49)
133. The system of claim 132, wherein the computer coded instructions are further configured to, when executed by the processor, cause the system to:
connect with a promotion and marketing service account and accessing the promotion and marketing service account on behalf of the consumer, wherein the promotion and marketing service account is configured to access data associated with the consumer from the social networking application account (see: ‘555, claim 9: col. 58 lines 61-63, col. 59 lines 2-5).
134. The system of claim 133, wherein the computer coded instructions are further configured to, when executed by the processor, cause the system to:
monitor, by the promotion and marketing service account and via a concurrent connection with the promotion and marketing service account and the social networking application account, for interaction with the impression of the item by one or more of the at least one social network users via the social networking application (see: ‘555, claim 10).
135. The system of claim 134, wherein the interaction with the impression of the item comprises the one or more of the at least one social network users endorsing the impression or resending the impression via the social networking application (see: ‘431: claim 22).
Regarding claims 122-125, these claims recite substantially similar limitations and scope as recited in claims 132-135 such that similar analysis would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill. Accordingly, these claims are rejected under at least similar rationale as set forth above over the corresponding method claims of ‘431.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 118-121, 126-127, 128-131 and 136-137 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Munisamy (US 2014/0316884).
Regarding claim 119, Munisamy discloses a computer-executable method, the method comprising:
receiving, from a computing device associated with a consumer, compound consumer input data (e.g., Fig. 3 (306), 0020, Fig. 4 (402-410, 414), 0022)), wherein the compound consumer input data are generated based on an indication of a compound consumer input performed by the consumer at a touchscreen visual display of the computing device with respect to a representation of an item displayed on a consumer interface (see: Fig. 5 (502-504), 0024, 0021);
Note: Other gestures disclosed by Munisamy may also be considered a compound input (e.g., inputting an “@” symbol, motioning a finger over an advertisement, inputting a “+” symbol, tapping three times, etc. Note Applicant’s specification, 0008.
determining that the compound consumer input data correspond to a share command associated with the item based on one or more properties of the received compound consumer input data, wherein determining that the compound consumer input data corresponds to the share command comprises determining that the share command is associated with a selected communication channel of a plurality of communication channels (see: Fig. 5 #506, 0024 (identify the anticipated gesture), 0021 (determined gesture may cause a social media application to post the advertisement or a link to the advertisement to a social media profile), 0023 (providing a blank or partially authored field for an email, online post (e.g., a social media post), text message, or voice message, for audio and/or visual presentation to the advertiser or another organization, business, or person));
Note: each of the social media application, email, online post, text message, voice message, etc. represents a communication channel through which the advertisement may be shared.
based on the selected communication channel associated with the share command,
triggering a communication object to be sent on behalf of the consumer in accordance with one or more parameters of the selected communication channel, the communication object comprising an impression of the item (see: Fig. 5#508, 0024 (perform an action associated with the identified gesture; interaction with a second application associated with the gesture), 0021 (determined gesture may cause a social media application to post the advertisement or a link to the advertisement to a social media profile), 0042 (social media application)).
119. The computer-executable method of claim 118, wherein the selected communication channel is an email application (see: 0018, 0021, 0023).
Note: communication may take the form of email messaging/services.
120. The computer-executable method of claim 118, wherein the selected communication channel is an electronic text application (see: 0018, 0021, 0023)..
Note: the use of IM, MMS, SMS, and text messages
121. The computer-executable method of claim 118, wherein the selected communication channel is a social networking application (see: 0018, 0021, 0023).
Note: online posting (e.g., a social media post) such as on Facebook.
126. The computer-executable method of claim 118, wherein the compound consumer input includes one or more of:
a checkmark selection, a touchscreen press action, a touchscreen tap action, a touchscreen press and hold action, a touchscreen drag and drop action, a touchscreen pinch action, a touchscreen unpinch action, a touchscreen swipe action, a touchscreen writing action, or a touchscreen drawing or writing motion (see: 0020-0022, Fig. 3-4).
Note: inputting an “@” symbol, motioning a finger over an advertisement, inputting a “+” symbol, tapping three times, patterns of clicks/swipes, etc.
127. The computer-executable method of claim 118, wherein the method further comprises: initiating an instance of the selected communication channel (see: 0024, Fig. 5 (508)).
Regarding claims 128-131 and 136-137, these claims recite substantially similar limitations and scope as recited in claims 118-121 and 126-127 such that similar analysis would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill. Accordingly, these claims are rejected under at least similar rationale as set forth 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, 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) 122-124 and 132-134 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munisamy in view of Maenpaa (US 2017/0270498).
Regarding claim 122, Munisamy discloses all of the above but does not disclose:
connecting with the social networking application and accessing the social networking application on behalf of the consumer, wherein triggering the communication object to be sent on behalf of the consumer comprises providing the impression of the item to at least one social network user associated with a social networking application account of the consumer .
To this accord, Maenpaa teaches:
connecting with the social networking application and accessing the social networking application on behalf of the consumer (see: 0028, 0033, 0043, 0052 (entries 212 stored in social media database comprise account profiles), Fig. 4B (402b)),
wherein triggering the communication object to be sent on behalf of the consumer comprises providing the impression of the item to at least one social network user associated with a social networking application account of the consumer (see: 0020, 0034, 0037, 0053-0054, 0073).
Note: followers represent at least one social network user associated
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have applied the known technique of connecting and sharing impressions through a social media application, as taught by Maenpaa, to the social media posting of Munisamy in order to have enabled individuals to have promoted and shared their purchases with their networks, thereby providing an easier way for merchants to promote and sell their products (see: Maenpaa: 0105).
123. The computer-executable method of claim 122, wherein the method further comprises:
connecting with a promotion and marketing service account and accessing the promotion and marketing service account on behalf of the consumer (see: Maenpaa: Fig. 1 #1-2, 104, & 106, 0063, 0073, 0082);
wherein the promotion and marketing service account is configured to access data associated with the consumer from the social networking application account (see: 0051, Fig. 2 (208)).
Note: Notably, “concurrent” is understood as “occurring or existing simultaneously or side by side (see Response to Arguments, above). Fig. 1 shows a concurrent connection (i.e., one that exists at the same time), between the provider server, the social media network, and the merchants (promotion and marketing service). This includes accessing account profiles on the merchant, which may include a consumer identifier and reward data.
124. The computer-executable method of claim 123, wherein the method further comprises:
monitoring, by the promotion and marketing service account and via a concurrent connection with the promotion and marketing service account and the social networking application account, for interaction with the impression of the item by one or more of the at least one social network users via the social networking application (see: Maenpaa: 0082 (consumer 308b is rewarded for posting and additionally for all purchases made using the link they posted), 0088 (rewarded for posting and also for the sale that results from that posting), Fig. 3B (348n-350b).
Regarding claims 132-134, these claims recite substantially similar limitations and scope as recited in claims 122-124 such that similar analysis would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill. Accordingly, these claims are rejected under at least similar rationale as set forth above.
Subject Matter Allowable Over the Prior Art
Claim 125 and parallel claim 135 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
wherein the interaction with the impression of the item comprises the one or more of the at least one social network users endorsing the impression or resending the impression via the social networking application.
That is, it is the at least one social network users (i.e., the user to which the impression is provided/shared from the consumer) via the social networking application.
Munisamy discloses various features in relation to the compound input functionality discussed above. Namely, Munisamy discloses various gestures including swipe, @ symbol, + symbol, etc. that provides an indication for sharing content such as an advertisement using a social media application resident on the device. Munisamy is silent with respect to monitoring as claimed in claim 124, and subsequently fails to disclose the more specific monitoring in claim 125.
Although Maenpaa teaches monitoring, such as by providing reqards to the original posting by the consumer, these rewards are for posting or additionally for all purchases made using the link they posted – not the specific interactions of endorsing the impression or resending the impression, which is by the at least one social network users (i.e., the user to which the impression is provided/shared from the consumer).
Here again, the Examiner reiterates the emphasized limitations in combination with the compound consumer input-based sharing technique that is claimed. The Examiner hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence neither anticipates nor renders obvious the particular combination of elements as claimed above when considering claim 125 and parallel claim 135 in combination with their respective intervening claims. That is, the Examiner emphasizes claims 125 and 135 as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for combining or otherwise modifying the available prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of the evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PTO form 892-U discusses post-adoption of touch-based interfaces including investigating user behavior (see: Introduction, Sections 3.2, 4.2).
Roundtree (US 20130167085) discloses an input processing system for advertisements that allows for single compound gestures (see: 0037, 0043, 0091, Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 9).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
WILLIAM J. ALLEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/WILLIAM J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights