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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on June 26, 2025. The applicant’s claim for benefit of provisional application 63664495, filed June 26, 2024, has been received and acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed April 8, 2026, have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites “a communication interface that communications over a communication network”. It is unclear what is meant by “that communications.” Is this intended to recite “that receives and transmits communications” or is this intended to recite “that communicates”? for purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this portion of claim 8 as reciting “that receives and transmits communications over a communication network.”
Claims 9-14 inherit the deficiencies of claim 8.
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.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite a method, a system, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium for initiating an exchange. With respect to claim 1, claim elements querying one or more databases, identifying one or more agent devices, initiating an exchange, and determining a resource, as drafted, illustrate steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a mental process. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind.
Claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite receiving and transmitting data. These limitations are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, claim 8 recites a processor, a communication interface, and a memory. These elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite receiving and transmitting data. Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), elements such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, using the Internet to gather data, and storing and retrieving information in memory are considered to be computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. V. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPG2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., Inc., V. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. V. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)).
Further, as discussed above, claim 8 recites a processor, a communication interface, and a memory. These elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to the abstract idea.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 depend from claims 1, 8, and 15. Claims 2, 9, and 16 are directed to the type of data in the database and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 3, 10, and 17 are directed to querying a database and updating a database and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 3, 10, and 17 are further directed to receiving data which, as discussed above, is an activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Claims 4, 11, and 18 are directed to generating a display and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 4, 11, and 18 are further directed to receiving data which, as discussed above, is an activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Claims 5, 12, and 19 are directed to facilitating delivery and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 5, 12, and 19 are further directed to transmitting data which, as discussed above, is an activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Claims 6, 13, and 20 are directed to the type of exchange and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 7 and 14 are directed to the type of resource and are further directed to the abstract idea.
Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
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.
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 US 2002/0038255 A1 to Tarvydas et al. (hereinafter “Tarvydas”), in view of US 2017/0148046 A1 to Akbarpour Mashadi et al. (hereinafter “Akbarpour Mashadi”).
Claims 1, 8, and 15: Tarvydas discloses a “universal shopping cart…that obtains and orders products and services from different merchants located on the Internet.” (See Tarvydas, at least Abstract). Tarvydas further discloses one or more processors; a communication interface that communications over a communication network; and a memory that stores instructions executable by the one or more processors (See Tarvydas, at least FIG. 4 and associated text, processing unit, network interface, memory). Tarvydas further discloses:
receiving a request sent over a communication network from a user device associated with a user account registered with a geocentric platform server, 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 one or more objects (See Tarvydas, at least para. [0052], purchase process is initiated when consumer accesses the shopping site via the Internet using the web browser installed on a consumer device; para. [0054], consumer accesses the shopping site; once consumer has been authenticated, consumer’s universal shopping cart is retrieved from database; para. [0055], once the Universal Shopping Cart has been created or retrieved, consumer browses or searches through products and selects those products they wish to purchase; para. [0067], product database includes affiliated merchants who have business relationship with the shopping site; para. [0088], a copy of each page on a merchant's site is stored using different account information);
querying one or more databases for data associated with the objects (See Tarvydas, at least para. [0055], search engine of the website searches a product database stored on the e-commerce server containing a list of currently available products from many different merchants; search engine also searches external databased that are not contained on the e-commerce server but that are located on remote computers);
identifying one or more agent devices associated with the objects, wherein the agent devices are configured to provide the objects to the user device (See Tarvydas, at least FIG. 12 and associated text, website lists merchants for a particular product; para. [0064], consumer is presented with detailed description of product along with a list of prices and handling details from different merchants);
initiating the exchange between the user device and the agent devices, wherein the exchange includes a request to allocate the objects to the user device (See Tarvydas, at least FIG. 18 and associated text; para. [0063], consumer initiates check out process; para. [0087], order injection gateway determines whether the order is from an affiliate. If the order is from an affiliate, the order is sent directly to the affiliate; otherwise, the order is placed with the non-affiliated site).
Tarvydas does not expressly disclose determining a resource to allocate to the user 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 devices; and initiating transmission of the resource to the user device.
However, Akbarpour Mashadi discloses a “method and system that facilitates a platform for online purchasing and account management comprising: a universal shopping cart.” (See Akbarpour Mashadi, at least Abstract). Akbarpour Mashadi further discloses:
determining a resource to allocate to the user 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 devices (See Akbarpour Mashadi, at least FIGs. 7-10 and associated text; para. [0175], user selects five items 701, 702, 703, 704, 705 from various merchants from the multitude of products in the shopping cart of the various retailers; para. [0177], system recommends to the user a potential coupon 900 of 10% available to the user if the user can spend $100 more in the same shopping session with additional product(s). Furthermore, the system will also provide recommendations of potential products 901 that will satisfy the condition(s) of the suggested coupons and that are products that the user desires and would purchase. In this instance, five coupons 902 are applied to this current shopping trip; para. [0178], upon the selection of one 1000 of the recommended products that both the user desires and that satisfies the conditions of the suggested coupon, the product 1000 is added to the cart and the suggested coupon is applied to the purchase, resulting in six coupons 1001 being applied to the shopping trip); and
initiating transmission of the resource to the user device (See Akbarpour Mashadi, at least FIGs. 7-10 and associated text; para. [0178], upon the selection of one 1000 of the recommended products that both the user desires and that satisfies the conditions of the suggested coupon, the product 1000 is added to the cart and the suggested coupon is applied to the purchase, resulting in six coupons 1001 being applied to the shopping trip).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the universal shopping cart system and method of Tarvydas the ability of determining a resource to allocate to the user 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 devices; and initiating transmission of the resource to the user device as disclosed by Akbarpour Mashadi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide “a system that can search and locate the best deals for the user considering all the products the user wishes to purchase and can apply all available VEs [Value Elements] automatically as to optimize the deal as well as the purchasing process.” (See Akbarpour Mashadi, at least para. [0021]).
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 2, 9, and 16: The combination of Tarvydas and Akbarpour Mashadi discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 discussed above.
Tarvydas further discloses wherein the databases include a local database that stores available objects in association with respective agents (See Tarvydas, at least para. [0067], product database includes affiliated merchants who have business relationship with the shopping site; para. [0088], a copy of each page on a merchant's site is stored using different account information).
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 3, 10, and 17: The combination of Tarvydas and Akbarpour Mashadi discloses all the limitations of claims 2, 9, and 16 discussed above.
Tarvydas further discloses:
receiving a notification that the local database is unable to retrieve data associated with a portion of the objects (See Tarvydas, at least para. [0069], parent SKU is a SKU that defines the product in its basic form, for example "Levi's Jeans" a child SKU has modifiers to the parent SKU, for example "Blue, size 32 waist 34 length; para. [0070], SKU is checked to see if it is "static" (e.g. residing in the product database); para. [0068], if product is not static, system searches for the product amongst the non-static shopping pages; an example of a product with a non-static SKU is a magazine, which has a different SKU for each issue; In one embodiment of the invention, this product information is obtained by scraping a non-affiliated merchant server's Web site);
querying an external database associated with one or more third-party agent devices for the data associated with the portion of the objects (See Tarvydas, at least para. [0070], SKU is checked to see if it is "static" (e.g. residing in the product database); para. [0068], if product is not static, system searches for the product amongst the non-static shopping pages; an example of a product with a non-static SKU is a magazine, which has a different SKU for each issue; In one embodiment of the invention, this product information is obtained by scraping a non-affiliated merchant server's Web site); and
updating the local database with the data associated with the portion of the objects, wherein the data associated with the portion of the objects is stored in association with a local agent (See Tarvydas, at least para. [0068], once enough product information has been gathered to determine the SKU, the SKU information is then stored and information on the product is updated in the system after successful scraping of a merchant server's Web site).
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 4, 11, and 18: The combination of Tarvydas and Akbarpour Mashadi discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 discussed above.
Tarvydas further discloses:
generating a display of an interactive user interface for the user device, the display including the data associated with the objects and one or more options for fulfilling the request to initiate the exchange (See Tarvydas, at least FIG. 12 and associated text, website lists merchants for a particular product and includes a “Buy” button next to each option; para. [0064], consumer is presented with detailed description of product along with a list of prices and handling details from different merchants); and
receiving an interaction via the interactive user interface of the user device indicating an option selected from among the options (See Tarvydas, at least FIG. 12 and associated text, website lists merchants for a particular product and includes a “Buy” button next to each option; para. [0064], consumer is presented with detailed description of product along with a list of prices and handling details from different merchants; para. [0065], after selecting a product in Web page 1100 and a merchant in Web Page 1200, subroutine 1300 proceeds to add the selected product to the USC).
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 5, 12, and 19: The combination of Tarvydas and Akbarpour Mashadi discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 discussed above.
Tarvydas further discloses:
transmitting a notification to the agent devices that includes exchange data, information pertaining to the objects, and instructions to deliver the objects to the user device (See Tarvydas, at least para. [0087], order injection gateway receives the order; order is parsed to determine the merchant ID for each product ordered, the list of products to order, consumer data necessary to order the products, shipping information, and billing information; if order is from an affiliate, order is sent directly to the affiliate; if order is from a non-affiliated site, order is placed with the non-affiliated site); and
facilitating delivery of the objects to the user device (See Tarvydas, at least para. [0087], order injection gateway receives the order; order is parsed to determine the merchant ID for each product ordered, the list of products to order, consumer data necessary to order the products, shipping information, and billing information; if order is from an affiliate, order is sent directly to the affiliate; if order is from a non-affiliated site, order is placed with the non-affiliated site).
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 6, 13, and 20: The combination of Tarvydas and Akbarpour Mashadi discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 discussed above.
Tarvydas does not expressly disclose wherein the exchange includes a first object associated with a first agent device and a second object associated with a second agent device.
However, Akbarpour Mashadi discloses wherein the exchange includes a first object associated with a first agent device and a second object associated with a second agent device (See Akbarpour Mashadi, at least FIGs. 7-10 and associated text; para. [0175], user selects five items 701, 702, 703, 704, 705 from various merchants from the multitude of products in the shopping cart of the various retailers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the universal shopping cart system and method of Tarvydas the ability wherein the exchange includes a first object associated with a first agent device and a second object associated with a second agent device as disclosed by Akbarpour Mashadi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide “a system that can search and locate the best deals for the user considering all the products the user wishes to purchase and can apply all available VEs [Value Elements] automatically as to optimize the deal as well as the purchasing process.” (See Akbarpour Mashadi, at least para. [0021]).
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 7 and 14: The combination of Tarvydas and Akbarpour Mashadi discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 discussed above.
Tarvydas does not expressly disclose wherein the resource is an update of progress to achieve delivery of an incentive.
However, Akbarpour Mashadi discloses wherein the resource is an update of progress to achieve delivery of an incentive (See Akbarpour Mashadi, at least FIGs. 7-10 and associated text; para. [0175], user selects five items 701, 702, 703, 704, 705 from various merchants from the multitude of products in the shopping cart of the various retailers; para. [0177], system recommends to the user a potential coupon 900 of 10% available to the user if the user can spend $100 more in the same shopping session with additional product(s)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the universal shopping cart system and method of Tarvydas the ability wherein the resource is an update of progress to achieve delivery of an incentive as disclosed by Akbarpour Mashadi since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide “a system that can search and locate the best deals for the user considering all the products the user wishes to purchase and can apply all available VEs [Value Elements] automatically as to optimize the deal as well as the purchasing process.” (See Akbarpour Mashadi, at least para. [0021]).
Claim 14 is rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE MARIE GEORGALAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1258 E.S.T.. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached on 571-272-6764. 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.
/Anne M Georgalas/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights