DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is in response to Application 19/268,819 filed on 07/14/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and addressed below.
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 9-14 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 9 recites the limitation “receiving a plurality of purchase offers from a plurality of users, each purchase offer indicating a time limit that the user is willing to wait to make a purchase is available for sale in the semi-opaque offer.” However, it is unclear what is meant by “a time limit that the user is willing to wait to make a purchase is available for sale in the semi-opaque offer.” The wording of the above limitation renders it unclear. Therefore, claim 9 is indefinite for failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Claims 10-14 are also rejected based on their dependency.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a nature phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-20 is/are directed towards a statutory category (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (Step 1, Yes).
Step 2A Prong One:
Claim 1 recites (additional elements underlined):
A method, comprising:
identifying, via a processor, a first item from a third party, wherein the first item is available at a discount price;
identifying a second item, wherein the second item is comparable to the first item and is not available at the discount price;
displaying a semi-opaque offer comprising the first item, the second item, and the discount price, wherein the semi-opaque offer does not identify which of the first item and the second item is available for sale in the semi-opaque offer;
receiving, from a user, a purchase offer indicating a time limit that the user is willing to wait to make a purchase;
submitting the purchase offer and the time limit to the third party;
receiving, within the time limit, an acceptance of the purchase offer from the third party;
disclosing the first item as the item actually purchased after receiving the acceptance; and
removing the semi-opaque offer from display.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations outlined above that describe or set forth the abstract idea, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s). That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified below, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed in the mind. These limitations are considered a mental process because the limitations include an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. These limitations are also similar to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” and/or “collecting and comparing known information” which were determined to be mental processes in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified above do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Therefore, the claim recite a mental process (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth an advertising/marketing activity. Advertising/marketing fall within the certain method of organizing human activity enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a fundamental economic principle or practice because advertising/marketing is related to commerce and economy. The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a commercial interaction (e.g., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations). The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth the managing of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Therefore, the claim recites a certain method of organizing human activity (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
Step 2A Prong Two:
In Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) outlined above are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional element(s) amount adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) does not integrate the judicial exception similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. The Examiner notes that “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter" (see pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., in a computer environment). The courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, improves any other technology or technical field, applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, applies the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation (Step 2A Prong Two, No).
Step 2B:
In Step 2B, the additional elements also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong Two. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A Prong Two overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation (Step 2B, No).
Claim(s) 2-8 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 1 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes).
Claims 2-7 do not recite any other additional elements. Therefore, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claims 2-7 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 8 recites the additional element “a dialog interface.” However, this additional element also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 9 recites (additional elements underlined):
A system, comprising:
a processor; and
a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which, when executed by the processor, configure the processor to:
transmit, via the processor, a semi-opaque offer for display on a user interface of a user device, the semi-opaque offer comprising a first item from a third party at a discount price, and a second item comparable to the first item, wherein the semi-opaque offer does not identify which of the first item and the second item;
receive a plurality of purchase offers from a plurality of users, each purchase offer indicating a time limit that the user is willing to wait to make a purchase is available for sale in the semi-opaque offer;
submit the plurality of purchase offers and the time limits to the third party;
receive, from the third party, an acceptance of one purchase offer of the plurality of purchase offers, wherein the acceptance is received within the time limit associated with the purchase offer;
disclose the first item as the item actually purchased after receiving the acceptance; and
remove the semi-opaque offer from display.
For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 9 also recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong 1. For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 9 also does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim(s) 10-14 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 9 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes).
Claims 10-13 recites the additional element “wherein the instructions further configure the processor to.” However, this additional element also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 14 does not recite any other additional elements. Therefore, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 9, claim 14 also does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 15 recites (additional elements underlined):
A non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions for presenting a semi-opaque offer to a user, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by a processor, configure a computer system to:
identify a first item from a third party, wherein the first item is available at a discount price;
identify a second item, wherein the second item is comparable to the first item and is not available at the discount price;
display the semi-opaque offer comprising the first item, the second item, and the discount price, wherein the semi-opaque offer does not identify which of the first item and the second item is available for sale in the semi-opaque offer;
receive, from a user, a purchase offer indicating a time limit that the user is willing to wait to make a purchase;
submit the purchase offer and the time limit to the third party;
receive, within the time limit, an acceptance of the purchase offer from the third party;
disclose the first item as the item actually purchased after receiving the acceptance; and remove the semi-opaque offer from display.
For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 15 also recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong 1. For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 15 also does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim(s) 16-20 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 15 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes).
Claims 16-17 recites the additional element “wherein the instructions further configure the processor to.” Claims 18 and 20 recite the additional element “wherein the instructions further configure the computer system to.” However, this additional element also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 19 does not recite any other additional elements. Therefore, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 15, claim 19 also does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11, 13, 15-16, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bous (US 2010/0262482 A1, hereinafter “Bous”) in view of Walker (US 2012/0123946 A1, hereinafter “Walker”).
As per claim 1, Bous teaches A method, comprising (¶ 13 “Disclosed are systems, computer-implemented methods, and tangible computer-readable storage media for conducting sales.”):
identifying, via a processor, a first item from a third party, wherein the first item is available at a discount price (¶ 13 “Disclosed are systems, computer-implemented methods, and tangible computer-readable storage media for conducting sales transactions. An example method embodiment for conducting sales includes receiving an inquiry with at least one parameter from a user associated with a sale of an item, identifying a discount item from a class of items that satisfies the inquiry, dynamically identifying at least one comparable item to the discount item at nondiscount rates using real-time data, presenting a comparable group to the user including the discount item and the at least one comparable item, furthering the sales process based on user input responding to the presented comparable group, and wherein the presented comparable group does not identify to the user which is the discount item and which is the at least one comparable item. Also disclosed herein is a method further including receiving a request from the user for multiple sub-items associated with the item, and engaging in a dialog with the user to enable payment for each of the multiple sub-items with one of a multiple payment types.”);
identifying a second item, wherein the second item is comparable to the first item and is not available at the discount price (¶ 13 “Disclosed are systems, computer-implemented methods, and tangible computer-readable storage media for conducting sales transactions. An example method embodiment for conducting sales includes receiving an inquiry with at least one parameter from a user associated with a sale of an item, identifying a discount item from a class of items that satisfies the inquiry, dynamically identifying at least one comparable item to the discount item at nondiscount rates using real-time data, presenting a comparable group to the user including the discount item and the at least one comparable item, furthering the sales process based on user input responding to the presented comparable group, and wherein the presented comparable group does not identify to the user which is the discount item and which is the at least one comparable item. Also disclosed herein is a method further including receiving a request from the user for multiple sub-items associated with the item, and engaging in a dialog with the user to enable payment for each of the multiple sub-items with one of a multiple payment types.”);
displaying a semi-opaque offer comprising the first item, the second item, and the discount price, wherein the semi-opaque offer does not identify which of the first item and the second item is available for sale in the semi-opaque offer (¶ 13 “Disclosed are systems, computer-implemented methods, and tangible computer-readable storage media for conducting sales transactions. An example method embodiment for conducting sales includes receiving an inquiry with at least one parameter from a user associated with a sale of an item, identifying a discount item from a class of items that satisfies the inquiry, dynamically identifying at least one comparable item to the discount item at nondiscount rates using real-time data, presenting a comparable group to the user including the discount item and the at least one comparable item, furthering the sales process based on user input responding to the presented comparable group, and wherein the presented comparable group does not identify to the user which is the discount item and which is the at least one comparable item. Also disclosed herein is a method further including receiving a request from the user for multiple sub-items associated with the item, and engaging in a dialog with the user to enable payment for each of the multiple sub-items with one of a multiple payment types.” ¶ 47 “When the sorted and filtered comparable groups 228 are presented to the user, in order to achieve semi-opaque results, any discount items 216 preferably remain unidentified as the discount item so that the user does not know which items can actually be offered and which, if any, items are merely comparable items 218. All items in the comparable group can be displayed at full retail price or the user can also be allowed to select a number of items in the comparable group that the user is interested in, and receive a price quote for each selected item in the comparable group.” Also see at least Figure 5.);
disclosing the first item as the item actually purchased … (¶ 49 “In one variation, the system does not disclose the purchased discount item until a predetermined date or time after the user has agreed to purchase. The predetermined date or time can be absolute or relative. An example of an absolute predetermined date or time is that the system reveals the purchased items sold between March 1 and March 7 on March 10. A relative predetermined date or time can be withholding the identity of the purchased discount item until ten days after the purchase. The system can time-delay in this manner to prevent users from "gaming" the system where one individual commits to a sale for the purpose of discovering which item in the comparable group is a discount item and spreading that information to others, negating the semi-opaque aspect.” Also see at least Figures 5-6.); and
removing the semi-opaque offer from display (Figure 5 shows a semi-opaque offer being displayed. Figure 6 shows a confirmation web page which is displayed after a user has committed to purchase on Figure 5. Therefore, Figure 6 shows the semi-opaque offer being removed from display.).
While Bous teaches all of the above limitations, Bous does not appear to explicitly teach receiving, from a user, a purchase offer indicating a time limit that the user is willing to wait to make a purchase; submitting the purchase offer and the time limit to the third party; receiving, within the time limit, an acceptance of the purchase offer from the third party; and [disclosing] after receiving the acceptance.
However, Walker teaches receiving, from a user, a purchase offer indicating a time limit that the user is willing to wait to make a purchase (¶ 60 “In a preferred embodiment, the present invention provides a method and apparatus for prospective buyers of goods or services to communicate a binding purchase offer globally to potential sellers, for sellers conveniently to search for relevant buyer purchase offers, and for sellers to bind a buyer to a contract based on the buyer's purchase offer. Additionally, the present invention can effectuate performance of the agreement between the buyer and seller by guaranteeing buyer payment for the purchase. The present invention is therefore a highly effective bilateral buyer-driven commerce system which improves the ability of buyers to reach sellers capable of satisfying the buyer's purchasing needs and improves sellers' ability to identify interested buyers.” ¶ 61 “In one embodiment of this invention, communications between buyers and sellers are conducted using an electronic network and central controller. A buyer who wishes to make a purchase accesses the central controller located at a remote server. The buyer will then create a conditional purchase offer ("CPO") by specifying the subject of the goods he wishes to purchase, a description of the goods he wishes to obtain, and any other conditions the buyer requires. For example, a typical CPO could specify that the buyer wants to purchase a block of four airline tickets from Chicago's O'Hare Airport to Dallas, Tex., the tickets must be from any of the six largest U.S. carriers, the buyer is willing to change planes no more than once so long as the scheduled layover is less than two hours, and the buyer is willing to pay $180 per ticket, plus any applicable taxes.” ¶ 124 “At step 540, the buyer adds an expiration date to CPO 100, if desired. This allows a buyer to post CPO 100 without worrying that he will later be bound after his needs have changed. At step 550, the buyer enters a price. In a CPO 100 for a rental car, for example, the buyer may enter a price of fifty dollars for a three day rental. At step 560, the buyer attaches his name or a unique user ID number to CPO 100. This ID number is received from central controller 200 when the buyer registers for the service, or is chosen by the buyer and then registered with central controller 200 by phone. Central controller 200 maintains a database of buyer ID numbers in buyer database 255, and issues (or allows) only unique numbers. If less security is required, the user's telephone number could serve as the ID number since it has the advantages of being both unique and easily remembered. If additional security is required, those procedures described in the cryptographic embodiment may be implemented.” Claim 1 “A method of electronically consummating a binding contract between a remote prospective buyer and a remote potential seller, which comprises the steps of: electronically receiving from the prospective buyer a purchase offer containing at least one condition; electronically making available the purchase offer to a plurality of potential sellers; electronically receiving from at least one of the potential sellers an unconditional acceptance of the offer; and determining the first unconditional acceptance to be received and the identity of the corresponding first-accepting seller.” Claim 5 “wherein the purchase offer includes an expiration date and is non-revocable prior to that date.” Claim 6 “wherein the purchase offer expires if it is not accepted within a predetermined time period.” Claim 7 “further comprising the step of notifying the buyer that its purchase offer has lapsed if the purchase offer expires without being accepted.” Also see at least Figures 5-6, 8, and 10.);
submitting the purchase offer and the time limit to the third party (¶¶ 60-61 and 124 and Claims 1 and 5-7. Also see Figures 5-6, 8, and 10.);
receiving, within the time limit, an acceptance of the purchase offer from the third party (¶¶ 60-61 and 124 and Claims 1 and 5-7. Also see Figures 5-6, 8, and 10.); and
[disclosing] after receiving the acceptance (Claim 3. Also see at least ¶¶ 60-61 and 124, Claims 1 and 5-7, and Figures 5-6, 8, and 10.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine receiving, from a user, a purchase offer indicating a time limit that the user is willing to wait to make a purchase; submitting the purchase offer and the time limit to the third party; receiving, within the time limit, an acceptance of the purchase offer from the third party; and [disclosing] after receiving the acceptance as taught by Walker, into Bous. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for the advantage of allowing a buyer to post purchase offers without worrying that he will later be bound after his needs have changed (Walker, ¶ 124). The claimed invention is also 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 (KSR Rationale A).
As per claim 2, Bous teaches further comprising:
receiving purchase inquiry parameters from the user (Figure 3 and ¶¶ 41-44. Also see at least Claim 1.); and
selecting the first item and the second item based on the purchase inquiry parameters (Figure 3 and ¶¶ 41-44. Also see at least Claim 1.).
As per claim 3, Bous teaches further comprising: … displaying additional details associated with purchasing the first item (Figure 6 and ¶ 63. Also see Figure 5.).
While Bous displays additional details associated with purchasing the first item, Bous does not appear to explicitly teach after receiving the acceptance of the purchase offer.
However, Walker teaches after receiving the acceptance of the purchase offer (Claims 2-3. Also see Claim 1.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine after receiving the acceptance of the purchase offer as taught by Walker, into Bous. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for the advantage of notifying the buyer that their purchase offer was accepted by the first-accepting seller (Walker, Claims 3-4), and that further purchase offers are not needed from the buyer for the desired product. The claimed invention is also 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 (KSR Rationale A).
As per claim 4, Bous teaches further comprising: displaying additional details describing the first item to the user at a predetermined time … (Figure 6 shows additional details describing the first item to the user at a predetermined time after the user has made the purchase on Figure 5. Also see at least ¶¶ 59-63.)
While Bous displays additional details associated with purchasing the first item, Bous does not appear to explicitly teach after the acceptance of the purchase offer.
However, Walker teaches after the acceptance of the purchase offer (Claims 2-3. Also see Claim 1.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine after the acceptance of the purchase offer as taught by Walker, into Bous. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for the advantage of notifying the buyer that their purchase offer was accepted by the first-accepting seller (Walker, Claims 3-4), and that further purchase offers are not needed from the buyer for the desired product. The claimed invention is also 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 (KSR Rationale A).
As per claim 5, Bous teaches wherein the first item comprises lodging at a first hotel, and the second item comprises lodging at a second hotel (The Examiner notes that the above italicized and underlined limitation is not given patentable weight because it is nonfunctional descriptive material that merely describes what the first and second items are. However, see at least Figure 5.).
As per claim 7, Bous teaches wherein the semi-opaque offer is an offer to use the first item and the second item at a future date (The Examiner notes that the above italicized and underlined limitation is not given patentable weight because it is nonfunctional descriptive material that merely describes what the first and second items are. However, see at least Figures 5-6.).
As per claim 8, Bous teaches … providing a dialog interface for the user to enable payment for the first item (¶ 62 “ If a user decides to purchase but wants to reserve the right to back out of the purchase, the user can click the hedge button 518. In this example, the hedge button offers the user an option to cancel the transaction later for a flat rate of $50, for free, or for a percentage of any of the full retail prices or the discount price. This feature is an optional part of the web page and can be presented in ways other than a simple button. For example, the system can present a popup window just as the user starts to enter credit card information, or via any other presentation means known in the art.” ¶ 70 “a dialog or interactive window enables the user to enter separate information for each room.” ¶ 72 “The system can engage in a dialog with the user to enable payment.” Also see at least Figure 5.).
While Bous provides a dialog interface for the user to enable payment for the first item, Bous does not appear to explicitly teach further comprising: upon acceptance of the purchase offer.
However, Walker teaches further comprising: upon acceptance of the purchase offer (Claims 2-3. Also see Claim 1.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine further comprising: upon acceptance of the purchase offer as taught by Walker, into Bous. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for the advantage of notifying the buyer that their purchase offer was accepted by the first-accepting seller (Walker, Claims 3-4), and that further purchase offers are not needed from the buyer for the desired product. The claimed invention is also 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 (KSR Rationale A).
As per claim 9, Bous teaches A system, comprising (¶ 13 “Disclosed are systems, computer-implemented methods, and tangible computer-readable storage media for conducting sales.”):
a processor (¶¶ 13, 33-34, and Figure 1); and
a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which, when executed by the processor, configure the processor to (¶¶ 13, 33-34, and Figure 1):
transmit, via the processor, a semi-opaque offer for display on a user interface of a user device, the semi-opaque offer comprising a first item from a third party at a discount price, and a second item comparable to the first item, wherein the semi-opaque offer does not identify which of the first item and the second item (¶¶ 13, 47, and 49. Also see at least Figures 3-6);
[make a purchase is available for sale] in the semi-opaque offer (¶¶ 13, 47, and 49. Also see at least Figures 3-6);
disclose the first item as the item actually purchased … (¶ 49 “In one variation, the system does not disclose the purchased discount item until a predetermined date or time after the user has agreed to purchase. The predetermined date or time can be absolute or relative. An example of an absolute predetermined date or time is that the system reveals the purchased items sold between March 1 and March 7 on March 10. A relative predetermined date or time can be withholding the identity of the purchased discount item until ten days after the purchase. The system can time-delay in this manner to prevent users from "gaming" the system where one individual commits to a sale for the purpose of discovering which item in the comparable group is a discount item and spreading that information to others, negating the semi-opaque aspect.” Also see at least Figures 5-6.); and
remove the semi-opaque offer from display (Figure 5 shows a semi-opaque offer being displayed. Figure 6 shows a confirmation web page which is displayed after a user has committed to purchase on Figure 5. Therefore, Figure 6 shows the semi-opaque offer being removed from display.).
While Bous teaches all of the above limitations, Bous does not appear to explicitly teach receive a plurality of purchase offers from a plurality of users, each purchase offer indicating a time limit that the user is willing to wait to make a purchase is available for sale …; submit the plurality of purchase offers and the time limits to the third party; receive, from the third party, an acceptance of one purchase offer of the plurality of purchase offers, wherein the acceptance is received within the time limit associated with the purchase offer; and [disclosing] after receiving the acceptance.
However, Walker teaches receive a plurality of purchase offers from a plurality of users, each purchase offer indicating a time limit that the user is willing to wait to make a purchase is available for sale … (¶ 91 “The present invention receives conditional purchase offers from buyers, makes them available for viewing by potential sellers, and allows sellers to bind them.” ¶ 95 “receiving and transmitting CPOs 100 generated by buyers.” ¶ 133 “At step 920, the potential seller browses the list of available CPOs 100 [i.e., seller receives a plurality of purchase offers from a plurality of users].” Figure 9 shows a seller logging on to the central controller and browsing a list of available CPOs from a plurality of buyers. Claim 5 “wherein the purchase offer includes an expiration date and is non-revocable prior to that date.” Claim 6 “wherein the purchase offer expires if it is not accepted within a predetermined time period.” Claim 7 “further comprising the step of notifying the buyer that its purchase offer has lapsed if the purchase offer expires without being accepted.” Also see at least ¶¶ 60-61 and 124, Claim 1 and Figures 5-6, 8, and 10.);
submit the plurality of purchase offers and the time limits to the third party (¶ 91 “The present invention receives conditional purchase offers from buyers, makes them available for viewing by potential sellers, and allows sellers to bind them.” ¶ 95 “receiving and transmitting CPOs 100 generated by buyers.” ¶ 133 “At step 920, the potential seller browses the list of available CPOs 100 [i.e., seller receives a plurality of purchase offers from a plurality of users].” Figure 9 shows a seller logging on to the central controller and browsing a list of available CPOs from a plurality of buyers. Claim 5 “wherein the purchase offer includes an expiration date and is non-revocable prior to that date.” Claim 6 “wherein the purchase offer expires if it is not accepted within a predetermined time period.” Claim 7 “further comprising the step of notifying the buyer that its purchase offer has lapsed if the purchase offer expires without being accepted.” Also see at least ¶¶ 60-61 and 124, Claim 1 and Figures 5-6, 8, and 10.);
receive, from the third party, an acceptance of one purchase offer of the plurality of purchase offers, wherein the acceptance is received within the time limit associated with the purchase offer (¶¶ 60-61, 91, 95, 124, 133, and Figure 9. Also see at least Claims 1 and 5-7 and Figures 5-6, 8, and 10.); and
[disclosing] after receiving the acceptance (Claim 3. Also see at least ¶¶ 60-61 and 124, Claims 1 and 5-7, and Figures 5-6, 8, and 10.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine receive a plurality of purchase offers from a plurality of users, each purchase offer indicating a time limit that the user is willing to wait to make a purchase is available for sale; submit the plurality of purchase offers and the time limits to the third party; receive, from the third party, an acceptance of one purchase offer of the plurality of purchase offers, wherein the acceptance is received within the time limit associated with the purchase offer; and [disclosing] after receiving the acceptance as taught by Walker, into Bous. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for the advantages of allowing a buyer to post purchase offers without worrying that he will later be bound after his needs have changed (Walker, ¶ 124), notifying a buyer that their purchase offer was accepted (Walker, Claim 3), and that further purchase offers are not needed from the buyer for the desired product. The claimed invention is also 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 (KSR Rationale A).
As per claims 10 and 16, they recite substantially similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore, claims 10 and 16 are rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 11, Bous does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the instructions further configure the processor to: upon expiration of a time limit, rescind the corresponding purchase offer of the plurality of purchase offers from the third party.
However, Walker teaches wherein the instructions further configure the processor to: upon expiration of a time limit, rescind the corresponding purchase offer of the plurality of purchase offers from the third party (¶¶ 127 “At step 640, the expiration date of CPO 100 is checked to see if it has already expired. If it has expired, CPO 100 is rejected at step 650 and returned to the buyer. If CPO 100 has not yet expired, it is accepted at step 660.” Also see at least ¶¶ 60-61, 91, 95, 124, 133, Figures 5-6, 8, and 9, and Claims 1 and 5-7.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine wherein the instructions further configure the processor to: upon expiration of a time limit, rescind the corresponding purchase offer of the plurality of purchase offers from the third party as taught by Walker, into Bous. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for the advantage of allowing a buyer to post purchase offers without worrying that he will later be bound after his needs have changed (Walker, ¶ 124). The claimed invention is also 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 (KSR Rationale A).
As per claims 13 and 18, they recite substantially similar limitations as claim 3. Therefore, claims 13 and 18 are rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it recites substantially similar limitations as claim 8. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected using the same rationale.
Claim(s) 6, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bous in view of Walker, in further view of Chambers (US 2014/0330663 A1, hereinafter “Chambers”).
As per Claim 6, Bous teaches wherein removing the semi-opaque offer from display comprises … (¶¶ 13, 47, and Figure 5.).
While the Bous discloses the semi-opaque offer, the combination of Bous/Walker do not appear to explicitly teach deactivating the purchase offer from acceptance from an additional party.
However, Chambers teaches deactivating the purchase offer from acceptance from an additional party (¶¶ 31-32 and 35.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine deactivating the purchase offer from acceptance from an additional party as taught by Chambers, into the combination of Bous/Walker. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for the advantage of preventing the user from making a duplicate purchase for a single desired item. The claimed invention is also 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 (KSR Rationale A).
As per claims 14 and 19, they recite substantially similar limitations as claim 6. Therefore, claims 14 and 19 is rejected using the same rationale.
Claim(s) 12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bous in view of Walker, in view of Liang et al. (US 2010/0287062 A1, hereinafter “Liang”), in further view of Burney (US 2012/0047076 A1, hereinafter “Burney”).
As per Claim 12, Bous teaches wherein the instructions further configure the processor to (¶¶ 33-38. Also see Figure 1).
While the combination of Bous/Walker teach claim 9, they do not appear to explicitly teach before receiving acceptance of the one purchase offer of the plurality of purchase offers, provide an option for the user to cancel; and receive a cancellation from the user.
However, Liang teaches before receiving acceptance of the one purchase offer of the plurality of purchase offers, provide an option for the user to cancel (¶ 12. Also see at least ¶ 42);
receive a cancellation from the user (¶ 12. Also see at least ¶ 42).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine before receiving acceptance of the one purchase offer of the plurality of purchase offers, provide an option for the user to cancel and receive a cancellation from the user as taught by Liang, into the combination of Bous/Walker. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for the advantage of providing a buyer with the freedom of modifying or deleting their purchase offer (Liang, ¶ 12), and the advantage of allowing a buyer to post purchase offers without worrying that he will later be bound after his needs have changed (Walker, ¶ 124).The claimed invention is also 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 (KSR Rationale A).
While the combination of Bous/Walker/Liang teach all of the above limitations, they do not appear to explicitly teach transmit a notification to the third party that the purchase offer is rescinded.
However, Burney teaches transmit a notification to the third party that the purchase offer is rescinded (¶ 92. Also see Figures 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine transmit a notification to the third party that the purchase offer is rescinded as taught by Burney, into the combination of Bous/Walker/Liang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for the advantage of releasing a preauthorization amount paid by a buyer (Burney, ¶¶ 88, 92, and 96). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for the advantages of notifying buyers and sellers that an offer is rescinded (Burney, ¶ 92), and allowing a buyer to post purchase offers without worrying that he will later be bound after his needs have changed (Walker, ¶ 124). The claimed invention is also 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 (KSR Rationale A).
As per Claim 17, it recites substantially similar limitations as claim 12. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected using the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Boyd (US 2013/0110611 A1) teaches a method and system for conducting semi-opaque sales transactions associated with a loyalty program. In one preferred embodiment, the method may include the steps of receiving from the loyalty program, an identification of an inventory item eligible for discount; receiving from the loyalty program, a discounted cash price of the inventory item; determining a pricing factor corresponding to at least one of the inventory item, the discounted cash price, and a user; converting, in a manner hidden from the user, the discounted cash price of the inventory item into a number of loyalty program points having an equivalent value to the discounted cash price based on the pricing factor; and displaying the number of loyalty program points having an equivalent value to the discounted cash price while obscuring the discounted cash price. The system may include a controller, a rules engine, a processor, and a user interface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAM REFAI whose telephone number is (313)446-4822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. 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.
/SAM REFAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights