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 . 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.
Status of the Claims
The pending claims in the present application are original claims 1-20 from 26 June 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08 April 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner. Also on 08 April 2026, the applicant filed a list of co-pending patents or patent applications that may be directed towards similar subject matter. The list also is being considered.
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. The paragraphs below provide rationales for the rejection. The rationales are based on the multi-step subject matter eligibility test outlined in MPEP 2106.
Step 1 of the eligibility analysis involves determining whether a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 USC 101. (See MPEP 2106.03(I).) That is, Step 1 asks whether a claim is to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. (See MPEP 2106.03(II).) The “method” of claims 1-7 constitutes a process under 35 USC 101, the “system” of claims 8-14 constitutes a machine under the statute, and the “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” of claims 15-20 constitutes a manufacture under the statute. Accordingly, claims 1-20 meet the criteria of Step 1 of the eligibility analysis. The claims, however, fail to meet the criteria of subsequent steps of the eligibility analysis, as explained in the paragraphs below.
The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2A, involves determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.04(II).) This step asks whether a claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. (See id.) Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).) Prong One and Prong Two are addressed below.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong One asks whether a claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1).) Starting with claim 1, the claim recites the following abstract idea limitations:
“A ... method for geographic-based resource allocation, the method comprising: ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... receiving a request sent ... from a user ... associated with a user account ..., the request concerning initiation of an exchange with an agent ... associated with an agent account ..., wherein the request includes a geographic location of the user ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... initiating the exchange between the user ... and the agent ..., wherein the exchange includes a request to allocate an object to the agent ..., and wherein the agent ... is within a threshold distance of the geographic location; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... querying ... to identify a promoter ... associated with the agent ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... determining a resource to allocate to the promoter ... based on a predetermined allocation schedule ..., wherein the resource is based on the exchange between the user ... and the agent ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... initiating transmission of the determined resource to the promoter ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
The above-listed limitations of claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, fall under enumerated groupings of abstract ideas outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a). For example, limitations of the claim can be characterized as: commercial interactions, including sales activities or behaviors, including allocating goods, payments, and commissions; and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including between parties to a transaction (customer, merchant, and broker), which fall under the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Limitations of the claim also can be characterized as: concepts performed in the human mind, including observation (e.g., the recited “receiving” step), evaluation (e.g., the recited “querying” step), and judgment and/or opinion (e.g., the recited “determining” step), which fall under the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Accordingly, for at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong Two asks if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2).) Continuing with claim 1, the claim recites the following additional element limitations:
The claimed “method” is “computer-implemented” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “sent” is “over a communication network” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
Each of the claimed entities (the “user,” “agent,” and “promoter”) uses a “device” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “account” is “registered with the geocentric platform” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “querying” is of “a promoter database” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “schedule” is “stored in a respective database” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The above-listed additional element limitations of claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, are analogous to: accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, mere automation of manual processes, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)); a commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, and selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform from within a range of fundamental or commonplace functions performed by the hardware, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)); a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions, and merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions, which do not qualify as a particular machine or use thereof (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)); a machine that is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(II)); use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method, which does not integrate a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(III)); transformation of an intangible concept such as a contractual obligation or mental judgment, which is not likely to provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, which courts have found to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea, a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components, and requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, which courts have found to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); mere data gathering in the form of obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify transactions and consulting and updating an activity log, which courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); and specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, which courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). For at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis.
The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2B, asks whether a claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(II).) The step involves identifying whether there are any additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions, and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept. (See id.) The ineligibility rationales applied at Step 2A, Prong Two, also apply to Step 2B. (See id.) For all of the reasons covered in the analysis performed at Step 2A, Prong Two, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B. Further, claim 1 also fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B because at least some of the additional elements are analogous to: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, and storing and retrieving information in memory, which courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). As a result, claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 2-7, the claims depend from claim 1, and expand upon limitations introduced by claim 1. The dependent claims are rejected at least for the same reasons as claim 1. For example, the dependent claims recite abstract idea elements similar to the abstract idea elements of claim 1, that fall under the same abstract idea groupings as the abstract idea elements of claim 1 (e.g., the “further comprising: receiving a registration request from the promoter ... to register the agent ...; and generating the agent account based on the registration request, wherein the agent account is stored in association with the promoter” of claim 2, the “further comprising: determining a first portion of the object to allocate ...; and initiating transmission of the first portion of the object” of claim 3, the “wherein ... a plurality of agent accounts associated with respective agent ..., wherein the plurality of agent accounts include the agent account, and further comprising: generating individual agent ... for each of the plurality of agent accounts; and enabling the individual agent ... to be accessed by the user ..., wherein the individual agent ... facilitate exchanges between an associated agent account and the user” of claim 4, the “further comprising: receiving input from ... the user ... indicating a selection of an agent ...; and generating a display of the selected agent ... for ... the user” of claim 5, the “wherein the agent ... is associated with a defined neighborhood based on at least one of the geographic location of the agent ..., an address associated with the agent account of the agent ..., and the promoter” of claim 6, and the “wherein the promoter ... is associated with a defined neighborhood based on at least one of the geographic location of the promoter ..., a residential address associated with a promoter account of the promoter ..., and a work address associated with the promoter account of the promoter” of claim 7). The dependent claims recite further additional elements that are similar to the additional elements of claim 1, that fail to warrant eligibility for the same reasons as the additional elements of claim 1 (e.g., the “computer-implemented ... device ... device with the geocentric platform; ... device” of claim 2, the “computer-implemented ... to a device associated with the geocentric platform; ... to the device” of claim 3, the “computer-implemented ... the geocentric platform is associated with ... devices, ... websites ... websites ... device, ... device” of claim 4, the “computer-implemented ... an interactive user interface of ... device ... website; ... website ... the interactive user interface of ... device” of claim 5, the “computer-implemented ... device ... device, ... device, ... device” of claim 6, and the “computer-implemented ... device ... device, ... device, ... device” of claim 7). Accordingly, claims 2-7 also are rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claims 8-14, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1-7, the claims recite limitations similar to the limitations of claims 1-7. As such, the rejection rationales applied to reject claims 1-7 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 8-14. Claims 8-14 are, therefore, also rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding pending claims 15-20, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1-14, the claims recite limitations similar to the limitations of claims 1-14. As such, the rejection rationales applied to reject claims 1-14 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 15-20. Claims 15-20 are, therefore, also rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2014/0115501 A1 to Ermilov (hereinafter referred to as “Ermilov”), in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2024/0046172 A1 to Kinsey, II et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Kinsey”).
Regarding claim 1, the combination of Ermilov and Kinsey (hereinafter referred to as “Ermilov/Kinsey”) teaches features that do not appear to be disclosed in their entirety by Ermilov, wherein the features read on the following limitations:
“A computer-implemented method for geographic-based resource allocation, the method comprising: ...” - Ermilov discloses, “A social networking platform having users grouped into multiple groups of residents based on users' geographical areas, each group representing a virtual local community representing the corresponding geographical area” and “Some of the items decorated in the 3D homepage can be activate to invoke an authorized agent which will access a goods/service provider on behalf of the resident for purchasing further items” (Abstract), and “Referring to FIG. 1, network system 100 includes an online platform 101 accessible over network 102 by a variety of entities, such as clients 103, goods/service providers 104, third-party vendors 105, and administrators 106. Platform 101 may be hosted by a server or a cluster of servers, which may be a Web server, a cloud server, an application server, a backend server, or a combination thereof. Clients 103 may present any computing devices, such as, for example, a laptop, a desktop, a tablet, a mobile phone (e.g., Smartphone), a personal digital assistant (PDA), a media player, a gaming device, or the like” (para. [0018]). The server-hosted platform for geographical area-based purchasing of goods/services, in Ermilov, reads on the recited limitation.
“... receiving a request sent over a communication network from a user device associated with a user account registered with a geocentric platform, the request concerning initiation of an exchange with an agent device associated with an agent account registered with the geocentric platform, wherein the request includes a geographic location of the user device; ...” - See the aspects of Ermilov that have been cited above. Ermilov also discloses, “Network 102 may be a wide area network (WAN) such as the Internet, a local area network (LAN), or a combination of one or more of a WAN or LANs. Network 102 may represent a wireless network, a wired network, a combination of both. Platform 101 may include or be associated with a Web interface (e.g., Web server) or an application programming interface (API) to allow other parties 103-106 to communicate and access resources or services provided by platform 101. For example, client 103 or administrator 106 can access platform 101 over network 102 using a browser application or a dedicated application associated with platform 101” (para. [0018]), “According to one embodiment, users can register with platform 101 to become members of a virtual local community. The registered users are managed by platform 101 as residents based on the geographical areas in which the users actually reside, forming different virtual local communities 107-108” (para. [0019]), “Referring to FIG. 3, buyer (e.g., a resident) 301 can invoke authorized agent 303 to reach goods/service provider 302” (para. [0041]), “Manufacturers are interested in selling their products to the residents should create 3D electronic catalogues of their products in the platform's format. A manufacturer provides its product database to be included into the platform databases” (para. [0059]), and “At block 502, a user selection of a graphical representation (e.g., icon or thumbnail) representing one of the items displayed in the 3D homepage. In response to the user selection, block 503, processing logic identifies an authorized agent associated with the selected item, where the authorized agent is provided by a third-party entity and authorized by residents of a virtual local community in which the user is associated with. The authorized agent may be previously installed and associated with the selected item by the user. Block 504 invokes the identified authorized agent to establish a communication session with one or more goods/service providers that provide the selected item to allow the user to complete a transaction with the providers” (para. [0103]). Receiving the request sent over the network from the device of the resident registered with the platform, the request concerning selecting the item the resident seeks to obtain from the goods/service provider associated with the platform, wherein the request includes identification of the local community of the resident, in Ermilov, reads on the recited “receiving a request sent over a communication network from a user device associated with a user account registered with a geocentric platform, the request concerning initiation of an exchange with an agent ..., wherein the request includes a geographic location of the user device” limitation. Kinsey discloses additional features about facilitating commercial transactions between customers and merchants (para. [0002]). Kinsey discloses, “Merchant 111 depicts a merchant who uses the system's user interface through their smart phone, e.g., an Apple® iPhone® mobile digital device, Merchant 112 depicts a merchant who uses the system's user interface through their tablet computing device, e.g., an Apple® iPad® mobile digital device, Merchant 113 depicts a merchant who uses the system's user interface through their portable laptop computer, e.g., an Apple® MacBook Pro® computer, and Merchant 114 depicts a merchant who uses the system's user interface through their desktop computer, e.g., an Apple® Mac Pro® computer” (para. [0236]), “The various attributes in the Merchant Profile 117 can include, but are not necessarily limited to, merchant identification attributes such as primary business information, business locations, the services offered, the price list for the services; resource attributes such as the personnel and equipment that the business uses for the delivery of the services they offer, the delivery layout for their locations, the standard forms that the business uses, customer list, and all customer details that are relevant to service to these customers; and preference attributes such as payment preferences” (para. [0246]), “For merchants and professionals providing services, the Merchant Profile 117 element of the system stores information relating to the various types of merchant attributes, including but not limited to: standard form templates for disclosure to customers, insurance information (e.g., for business and workers compensation), geographical locations” (para. [0247]), “The Merchant Profile Persona 117 is structured as an archive and collection of all relevant information (e.g., attributes) concerning a merchant. Merchants can use this feature of the system to register relevant information in the marketplace. For example, a merchant can desire to input as much information about their business as they can because they know that it will allow the system's task acquisition, matching, and sourcing functionalities in the Marketplace Server 100 to reach as many customers and potential customers as possible” (para. [0256]), “buyer agent” and “seller’s agent” (para. [0260]). The merchant device associated with the merchant having the merchant profile registered with the marketplace system, in Kinsey, when applied to the goods/service provider, in Ermilov, reads on the recited “an agent device associated with an agent account registered with the geocentric platform” limitation.
“... initiating the exchange between the user device and the agent device, wherein the exchange includes a request to allocate an object to the agent device, and wherein the agent device is within a threshold distance of the geographic location; ...” - See the aspects of Ermilov and Kinsey that have been cited above. Ermilov also discloses, “buyer 301 pays, via the associated account from its credit union set up within the community, a total $75 to complete the transaction according to a predefined formula, in which $65 is paid to goods/service provider 302” (para. [0041]). Kinsey also discloses, “Using the service catalogue and price list that the system maintains for each merchant in their Merchant Profile 117 and Memory 104, the system enables customers to pay for their service through the system's network” (para. [0272]), and “merchants selected for evaluation can be, for example, those merchants that are geographically proximate to the customer” (para. [0353]). Initiating payment between the device of the resident and the goods/service provider, as in Ermilov, wherein the merchant (goods/service provider in Ermilov) uses the device and is geographically proximate to the customer, as in Kinsey, reads on the recited limitation.
“... querying a promoter database to identify a promoter device associated with the agent device; ...” - See the aspects of Ermilov and Kinsey that have been cited above. Ermilov also discloses, “Platform 101 also allows one or more third-party authorized agents 119-121 to be associated with residents 115-117 or virtual local community 107. An authorized agent (AA) is associated with a particular geographical area and represents users of that geographical area to interact with a goods/service provider, for example, for the purpose of purchasing or acquiring goods or services directly from goods/service providers 104 in a collective or aggregated manner. In this example, authorized agents 119-121 may be developed by third-party entrepreneurs 105, authorized by residents 115-117, and installed within virtual local community 107” (para. [0020]), “Platform 101 further includes search facility 110 to allow a user (e.g., resident or external non-member users) to search databases such as database 118 associated with a virtual local community or to search residents or authorized agents within a virtual local community” (para. [0022]), “activating on a manufacturer name, a resident opens the list of the Paris authorized agents arranging purchases of scarves made by this manufacturer for the Paris residents. He can receive an advice on every manufacturer by contacting one of the Paris authorized agents using the communication services provided by communication service module 114” (para. [0027]), “An authorized agent may be developed by a third-party entity (e.g., third-party entrepreneur 105 of FIG. 1)” (para. [0040]), and “The platform is able to integrate computer software designed by independent software developers (e.g., third-party entrepreneurs 105 of FIG. 1) implementing different algorithms of interaction between the platform's users living in one or several geographical areas and manufacturers of goods/services/information/knowledge and other types of content as well as between the platform's users themselves. Such software depicts the algorithms of interaction between the platform's databases, consumer databases created by the residents, and databases of the manufacturers of goods/services/information/knowledge and other types of content” (para. [0056]). Kinsey also discloses, “Although FIG. 1, depicts three separate hardware devices, the Seller Matching Engine 101, the Marketplace Server 100, and the Buyer Matching Engine 102 can be implemented on a single hardware device or multiple hardware devices. In this latter configuration, functions and separations can be maintained as though the devices are separate” (para. [0234]). Searching the database to identify agents associated with the manufacturer, in Ermilov, reads on the recited “querying a promoter database to identify a promoter ... associated with the agent” limitation. The matching engine implemented on the hardware device, in Kinsey, when applied with the agent associated with the computer software designed by the software developer, in Kinsey, reads on the recited “promotor device” limitation. The merchant using the device, in Kinsey, reads on the recited “agent device” limitation.
“... determining a resource to allocate to the promoter device based on a predetermined allocation schedule stored in a respective database, wherein the resource is based on the exchange between the user device and the agent device; and ...” - See the aspects of Ermilov and Kinsey that have been cited above. Ermilov also discloses, “the agent may receive a reasonable commission based on the transaction” (para. [0020]), and “Since authorized agent 303 brings business to goods/service provider 302, goods/service provider 302 rewards a kickback of $5 to authorized agent 303 for administering databases of the goods provider 302” (para. [0041]). Determining the commission or kickback to allocate to the agent based on data on databases, wherein the commission or kickback is based on the business conducted between the resident and the goods/service provider, using the device of the resident, in Ermilov, reads on the recited “determining a resource to allocate to the promoter ... based on a predetermined allocation schedule stored in a respective database, wherein the resource is based on the exchange between the user device and the agent” limitation. The matching engine implemented on the hardware device, in Kinsey, when applied with the agent associated with the computer software designed by the software developer, in Kinsey, reads on the recited “promotor device” limitation. The merchant using the device, in Kinsey, reads on the recited “agent device” limitation.
“... initiating transmission of the determined resource to the promoter device.” - See the aspects of Ermilov and Kinsey that have been cited above. Initiating sending of the kickback or commission to the agent, in Ermilov, reads on the recited “initiating transmission of the determined resource to the promoter” limitation. The matching engine implemented on the hardware device, in Kinsey, when applied with the agent associated with the computer software designed by the software developer, in Kinsey, reads on the recited “promotor device” limitation
Kinsey discloses, “Computer-implemented systems and methods for the sale of consumer services” (Abstract), similar to the claimed invention and to Ermilov. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the networked entities of the platform, in Ermilov, to register merchants, have merchants and matching engines use devices, and to identify merchants in proximity to customers, as in Kinsey, to offer a secure marketplace environment for sourcing, marketing, sale, acquisition, etc., per Kinsey (para. [0209]). And also, to ensure objectives and tasks are matched in accordance with geographic locations where the objectives can be accomplished efficiently, per Kinsey (para. [0383]).
Regarding claim 2, Ermilov/Kinsey teaches elements that read on the following limitations:
“The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a registration request from the promoter device to register the agent device with the geocentric platform; and ...” - See the aspects of Ermilov and Kinsey that have been cited above. Ermilov also discloses, “The platform's databases of goods/services are made of 3D models corresponding to articles of the manufacturers' catalogues. According to one embodiment, 3D models in the platform's catalogues are made using a technology for creating three-dimensional images based on the photos of real objects. Databases of 3D goods/services are administered and placed on the platform by the authorized agents or companies. In order to create a 3D model databases (e.g., a three-dimensional image created based on the photos of a real object), the authorized agents use these manufacturers' databases in the format of the platform's databases” (para. [0047]). The administering of the manufacturer’s catalogue on the platform by the agent, in Ermilov, when modified to have the matching engine (agent of Ermilov) to include the registering of the merchant (manufacturer of Ermilov) with the system, via the merchant using the device, in Kinsey, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining cited references, from the rejection of claim 1, also apply to this rejection of claim 2.
“... generating the agent account based on the registration request, wherein the agent account is stored in association with the promoter device.” - See the aspects of Ermilov and Kinsey that have been cited above. Generating the manufacturer catalogue based on the actions of the agent, wherein the agent and the manufacturer are operatively linked, in Ermilov, when modified to have the merchant (manufacturer in Ermilov) and the matching engine (agent in Ermilov) use their devices, wherein the merchant ends up with the merchant profile persona on the system, per Kinsey, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the cited references, from the rejection of claim 1, also apply to this rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Ermilov/Kinsey teaches elements that read on the following limitations:
“The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a first portion of the object to allocate to a device associated with the geocentric platform; and ...” - See the aspects of Ermilov that have been cited above. Ermilov also discloses, “An authorized agent makes regular payments to the administrator of the platform for placing its databases on the platform” (para. [0061]). Determining the amount of the payment to the administrator of the platform, that utilizes the platform server, in Ermilov, reads on the recited limitation.
“... initiating transmission of the first portion of the object to the device.” - See the aspects of Ermilov that have been cited above. Causing transfer of the payment amount to the administrator of the platform, that utilizes the platform server, in Ermilov, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 4, Ermilov/Kinsey teaches elements that read on the following limitations:
“The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the geocentric platform is associated with a plurality of agent accounts associated with respective agent devices, wherein the plurality of agent accounts include the agent account, and further comprising: ...” - See the aspects of Ermilov and Kinsey that have been cited above. The platform being associated with the plurality of goods/service providers, in Ermilov, wherein the merchants (goods/service providers in Ermilov) use devices and have profile personas, as in Kinsey, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the cited references from the rejection of claim 1 also apply to this rejection of claim 4.
“... generating individual agent websites for each of the plurality of agent accounts; and ...” - See the aspects of Ermilov and Kinsey that have been cited above. Ermilov also discloses, “The search system algorithms are based on selecting the key parameters related to the location of the web site owner or the content source” (para. [0049]). Kinsey also discloses, “the consumer sees what is being offered (e.g., on a webpage or in a newspaper)” (para. [0212]). Providing the manufacturer catalogues for the platform, and accessing web sites, in Ermilov, such that they include the webpages of the offerings for the merchants (manufacturer in Ermilov) having the profile personas, in Kinsey, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the cited references from the rejection of claim 1 also apply to this rejection of claim 4.
“... enabling the individual agent websites to be accessed by the user device, wherein the individual agent websites facilitate exchanges between an associated agent account and the user device.” - See the aspects of Ermilov and Kinsey that have been cited above. Enabling the webpages of the merchants to be accessed by customers via their devices, to facilitate transactions between the merchants (and their profile personas) and the customers using their devices, in Kinsey, when applied for purposes of effecting transactions between the goods/service providers and the residents, in Ermilov, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the cited references from the rejection of claim 1 also apply to this rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Ermilov/Kinsey teaches elements that read on the following limitations:
“The computer-implemented method of claim 4, further comprising: receiving input from an interactive user interface of the user device indicating a selection of an agent website; and ...” - See the aspects of Ermilov and Kinsey that have been cited above. Ermilov also discloses, “A home interface (e.g., home page) is designed to create a personal database of a resident according to the platform's rules. A Home is opened when a browser of a resident is launched to access the platform” (para. [0045]), “The home layout is a 3D model of an individual residential house. A resident can select the 3D model from the platform's catalogue or order an individual design. A resident can change the design of his home (layouts, appearance) any time. All image elements are interactive and correspond to the manufacturers' catalogues” and “A click on every food product in the fridge will open a window with its parameters and will automatically send an order to the authorized agent for its purchase and an order to the credit union for the payment” (para. [0046]). Receiving the resident’s selection via the browser interface of the resident’s device, to indicate selection of the goods/service offered via the catalogue by the goods/service provider, in Ermilov, when modified to include access to web pages, per Kinsey, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the cited references from the rejection of claim 1 also apply to this rejection of claim 5.
“... generating a display of the selected agent website for the interactive user interface of the user device.” - See the aspects of Ermilov and Kinsey that have been cited above. Generating the display of the goods/service provider catalogue on the browser interface of the resident’s device, in Ermilov, when modified to include presenting the web page, per Kinsey, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the cited references from the rejection of claim 1 also apply to this rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Ermilov/Kinsey teaches elements that read on the following limitations:
“The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the agent device is associated with a defined neighborhood based on at least one of the geographic location of the agent device, an address associated with the agent account of the agent device, and the promoter device.” - See the aspects of Ermilov and Kinsey that have been cited above. The goods/service provider being associated with the local community, in Ermilov, based on the merchant (goods/service provider in Ermilov) being in proximity to the customer, and with the merchants and customers using their respective devices, in Kinsey, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the cited references from the rejection of claim 1 also apply to this rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Ermilov/Kinsey teaches elements that read on the following limitations:
“The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the promoter device is associated with a defined neighborhood based on at least one of the geographic location of the promoter device, a residential address associated with a promoter account of the promoter device, and a work address associated with the promoter account of the promoter device.” - See the aspects of Ermilov that have been cited above. Ermilov also discloses, “A legal entity registered on the platform is referred to as an authorized agent or authorized company” (para. [0035]), and “one of the possible variants of registration for a law firm from San Francisco: company identifier--1415XXXXXXX, where XXXXXXX is a unique company number generated automatically by the platform's registration system and corresponding to the company's office address” (para. [0036]). The agent being associated with the local community based on the location of the geographical location of the agent, including the agent’s office address, in Ermilov, in combination with the use of the hardware devices, in Kinsey, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the cited references from the rejection of claim 1 also apply to this rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claims 8-14, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1-7, the claims recite limitations similar to those recited by claims 1-7. As such, the rationales applied to reject claims 1-7 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 8-14. Claims 8-14 are, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious in view of Ermilov/Kinsey.
Regarding claims 15-20, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1-14, the claims recite limitations similar to those recited by claims 1-14. As such, the rationales applied to reject claims 1-14 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 15-20. Claims 15-20 are, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious in view of Ermilov/Kinsey.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Such prior art includes the following:
U.S. Pat. No. 9,069,934 B1 to Meeboer discloses, “A method and system for providing a user with digital content includes a user interface provided to a user for allowing the user to be presented with the digital content. The method and system includes receiving authentication information from the user and authenticating the user if the authentication method correctly corresponds with previously stored information of the user. As a result, the user has access to the digital content, wherein the digital content is information from a third party, e.g., a vendor of goods or services or information provider, based on a user profile which comprises user preferences. The digital content is then presented to the user interface” (Abstract).
U.S .Pat. App. Pub. No. 2011/0208612 A1 to Shader et al. discloses, “a method for conducting an honorary credit transaction. The method includes receiving a request to purchase an electronically transmittable item of a vendor via electronic communication network, wherein the electronically transmittable item is configured to be received via electronic transmission, providing honorary credit to a purchaser in exchange for an honorary commitment to provide payment for the electronically transmittable item to one or more agents, wherein the honorary commitment comprises a non-legally binding commitment to provide payment to the one or more agents for purchase of the electronically transmittable item, providing the electronically transmittable item to the purchaser via electronic transmission prior to receiving partial or complete payment for the electronically transmittable item, and receiving partial or complete payment for the electronically transmittable item via at least one of the one or more agents” (Abstract).
GB Pat. App. Pub. No. 2491041 A to Fugman et al. discloses, “A method of providing customer service information comprises i) determining the location of a portable electronic device 312 and a first location accuracy value associated with the portable electronic device; ii) defining a first area 302 around the portable electronic device, wherein a distance to a periphery of the first area is characterized by the first location accuracy value; iii) defining a second area 304 having a centre and associated with a physical location of a store 310, the store having associated location coordinates and a second location accuracy value; iv) determining that a portion of the first area overlaps a portion of the second area; and v) providing information associated with the store to the portable electronic device for presenting to the user. The apparatus used includes a customer service application resident on a user's portable electronic device which is used to get information about a service and also request the service offered by a store. The server sends information about various products, servers, events, or workshops offered by the store. The user can request product or service help or assistance from store employees, register for an event/workshop; or reserve a product for pickup.” (Abstract).
Delgado-de Miguel, Juan-Francisco, et al. "Proximity trade and urban sustainability: Small retailers’ expectations towards local online marketplaces." Sustainability 11.24 (2019): 7199.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS Y. HO, whose telephone number is (571)270-7918. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:30 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern.
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, Jerry O'Connor, can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/THOMAS YIH HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights