DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response received on 16 July 2026.
Claims 18 and 19 are amended.
Claims 1 and 9 were previously canceled.
Claims 16-17 were previously withdrawn.
Claims 2-8, 10-15, and 18-19 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 16 July 2026 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 10-15, and 18-19 recite allowable subject matter and would be allowable if the claims were amended or re-written to overcome the 101 rejection in the Office Action below.
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 2-8, 10-15, and 18-19 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 natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under step 1, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention (see MPEP 2106.03(II)). In the instant case, claims 18 & 2-8 are directed to a system, and claims 19 & 10-15 are directed to a method.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites an abstract idea of suggesting item data to a shopper. Specifically, representative claim 19 recites the abstract idea of:
maintaining item data, wherein said item data includes a plurality of item identifiers corresponding to a plurality of items available for purchase;
maintaining item grouping data, wherein said item grouping data includes one or more item groups, wherein an item group of said item groups includes a group identifier and a first one or more of said plurality of item identifiers;
maintaining purchase history data, wherein said purchase history data includes one or more shopper profiles, wherein a shopper profile of said shopper profiles includes a shopper identifier and a shopper history having a second one or more of said plurality of item identifiers, wherein said shopper history is a subset of said item grouping data;
receiving input from a shopper, said input comprising:
an item query, wherein said item query contains at least one of query term;
providing said shopper a choice between a first query mode and a second query mode , wherein upon selecting said first query mode said item query is processed against said shopper history to generate substantially real-time result data, wherein upon selecting said second query mode said item query is processed against said item grouping data to generate result data that is not restricted to said shopper history;
evaluating said query term to determine presence of a searched item group identifier;
generating said result data, wherein said result data identifies said at least one of said plurality of item identifiers present in the dataset against which said query was processed if said searched item group identifier is not present in said query term; and
communicating to said shopper suggested item data, wherein said suggested item data is derived from said result data.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in 2106.04(a) of the MPEP. Even in consideration of the analysis, the claims recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 19 recites the abstract idea of suggesting item data to a shopper, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a method of organizing human activity because it relates to sale activities since the claim limitations recite activities of maintaining the item data that includes a plurality of item identifiers corresponding to items available for purchase, receiving an item query from a shopper for at least one item identifier, maintaining the purchase history data of the shopper of at least one item identifier of an item purchased by the shopper, receiving input from the shopper, providing the shopper with a choice between two modes of search query, processing the queries, where the query generates results in real-time and does not restrict the result data to the shopper history, evaluating the query term to determine presence of a searched item group identifier, generating results, and communicate the item data to the shopper with a suggested item data that is derived from said result data, making these sales activities or behaviors.
The Examiner additionally notes that that the step of evaluating said query term to determine presence of a searched item group identifier, would fall into the enumerated grouping of mental processes. A mental process is defined as and includes “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion)” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). In this case, the step of evaluating a query term would be considered a concept performed in the human mind, such as an observation or an evaluation. Thus, representative claim 19 recites an abstract idea that also falls into the grouping of mental processes.
As such, representative claim 19 recites an abstract idea.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. In this case, representative claim 19 includes the additional elements of electronic commerce, digital-memory, and memory. These additional elements individually and in combination do not integrate the exception into the practical application because they are merely being used to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer, as defined in the MPEP 2106.04(d). 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. Claim 19 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an invention concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself), as discussed in MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements electronic, digital-memory, and memory recited in the independent claim 19 are recited and described in a generic manner and merely apply the abstract idea using a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) . As such, the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept.
As such, representative claim 19 is ineligible.
Independent claim 18 is similar in nature to representative claim 19 and Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis is the same as above for representative claim 19. It is noted that in independent claim 18 includes the additional elements a server, a processor, a memory, a communication interface, a non-transitory processor readable medium storing processor executable instructions configured to be executed by the processor. The Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the additional elements recited in claim 18, as being anything other than generic elements. Thus, the claimed additional elements of claim 18 are merely generic elements and the implement of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. As such, the additional elements of claim 1 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claim 18, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer.
As such, claim 18 is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-15, depending from claims 18 and 19, respectively, do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claims 18 and 19. The claims of 2-8 and 10-15 merely act to provide further limitations of the abstract idea and are ineligible subject matter.
It is noted that dependent claims 2 and 10 includes the additional element of digital baskets. Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the digital baskets as being anything other than a generic element. The claimed additional elements, individually and in combination do not integrate into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept because they are merely being used to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claims 2 and 10 are directed towards an abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claims 2 and 10, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because it merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. It is further noted that the remaining dependent claims 3-8 and 11-15 do not recite any further additional elements to consider in the analysis, and therefore would not provide additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and would not provide an inventive concept.
As such, claims 2-8 and 10-15 are ineligible.
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
Prior Art Considerations:
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is concluded that the totality of evidence in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the Applicant’s invention.
Regarding the independent claims, the features are as follows:
providing said shopper a choice between a first query mode and a second query mode, wherein upon selecting said first query mode said item query is processed against said shopper history to generate substantially real-time result data, wherein upon selecting said second query mode said item query is processed against said item grouping data to generate result data that is not restricted to said shopper history
The most apposite prior art of record includes Sohangir, S., et al. (PGP No. US 2013/0218687 A1), in view of Dey, A., et al. (Patent No. US 11,228,568 B1), Gold, K., et al. (PGP No. US 2005/0144084 A1), and Psota, J., et al. (PGP US 2015/0073929 A1), to teach a method for determining user interests based on user account information.
The reference of Sohangir discloses a method to determine user interests in products, where stored item data and stored user data are utilized to determine certain interests or characteristics of the user (Sohangir, paragraphs [0065] and [0076]). The personal data of users is stored in a user account, and includes information of purchase history, browsing history, passive observations of products, etc. (Sohangir, paragraphs [0031], [0065], [0077]). The interface of Sohangir allows for a user to input a query for specific content of interest, such as a place to visit and accommodations, encompassing a search query term and an item group that is identified from the query (Sohangir, paragraphs [0080] and [0082]). The method includes processing the personal information of the user that is stored in the user account, and utilizing the search query term for a specific content, and provides recommendations to the user based on the data stored and the user input (Sohangir, see: paragraphs [0031], [0081]-[0082]), where the targeted recommendations are provided to the user interface along with the list of corresponding content with names and locations that are relevant to the query and the user data (Sohangir, paragraphs [0073] and [0082]). Although Sohangir does describe a method for utilizing stored user information to determine specific interests of content to recommend to the user, Sohangir does not allow for a user to choose between two different query modes to process the selection of the mode against a shopper history, nor against item grouping data that would not be restricted to a said shopper history. Sohangir does not describe the features of the allowable subject matter indicated above.
The reference of Dey is merely relied upon to teach features that are related to a plurality of identifiers, such as item identifiers that are based on a first search query, product categories for each of the product identifiers, where the product identifiers are stored in a product catalog and extracted to identify other plurality of product identifiers relevant to search queries (Dey, Col. 6, ln. 67, Col. 7, ln. 1-3, 21-24, and Col. 9, ln. 28-31 and Claim 1). Dey does not cure the deficiencies of the prior art because Dey does not mention or describe any type of different modes of search that a user can select from, where the different modes are directed to a shopper history or item grouping data. Dey does not teach the allowable subject matter indicated above.
Next, Gold describes a virtual retail store where a merchant communicates messages to a customer who is selecting items for purchase within an online retail environment, where Gold describes the merchant identifies the items most frequently purchased at the time where a shopper has selected and placed items in a basket (Gold, see: paragraph [0025]). The method of Gold also includes that the program can retrieve historical information related to a shopper’s transaction history and what types of items were purchased (Gold, paragraph [0025]). Gold further describes for example, that if a shopper places an item in the basket, the customer will likely respond to incentive to purchase a related type of item that is recommended to the shopper (Gold, see: paragraphs [0027]-[0028]). Although Gold describes these features, Gold does not describe or discuss any of the allowable subject matter features as indicated above.
The reference of Psota teaches a method for obtaining transaction histories for users from a variety of sources, to facilitate reports related to parameters associated with buyers, and can determine types of items that may benefit a buyer or supplier by determining potential relationships between buyers and suppliers, allowing for improved bidding processes in an online marketplace (Psota, see: paragraphs [0309] and [0417]). Although Psota describes these methods, Psota does not give the options for a user to select between different search modes, such as processing a first search query mode against shopper history to generate real-time results, nor a second search query that is processed against item grouping data that would not restrict the result data to said shopper history. The reference of Psota does not cure the deficiencies of the prior art and does not describe the features of the allowable subject matter indicated above.
The Examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. Moreover, the combination of features of independent claims, would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias and resulting in an inappropriate combination.
It is hereby asserted by the Examiner, that in light of the above and in further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims recite allowable subject matter as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner’s Comment
The Examiner notes that the non-patent literature (NPL) document, titled Product Recommendations, found on nosto.com (2017), documented on PTO-892 form as reference U, and hereinafter referred to as ‘Recommendations’, describes and renders a platform for a user such as a shopper, that includes a guide for their online shopping session, providing real-time recommendations based on the shopper’s behavior, interaction, and transaction data. The platform utilizes artificial intelligence to provide the most relevant and accurate recommendations to the shopper and predicts the likelihood that the shopper will complete a transaction, which leads to improved recommendations that increase revenue for retailers. Although the reference ‘Recommendations’ describes an improved process for providing recommendations in real-time to a shopper, the reference does not disclose nor teach the allowable features that are stated above, and does not remedy the deficiencies of the noted prior art.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101, the Applicant’s remarks filed on 16 July 2026, have been fully considered and are not considered to be persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on page 7 of the remarks stating “the claims are not directed to an abstract idea,” and “Additionally, the claims are patent eligible under prong 2,” and “More than simply suggesting item data to a shopper, the claims reflect a uniquely focused and structured interface between separate data sets particularly configured to provide results oriented toward a user’s particular query preferences and requirements,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis, the amended claims are still directed to and recite an abstract idea of suggesting item data to a shopper. The abstract idea in this case, falls into the enumerated grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity because the claims specifically recite the steps of maintaining the item data that includes a plurality of item identifiers corresponding to items available for purchase, receiving an item query from a shopper for at least one item identifier, maintaining the purchase history data of the shopper of at least one item identifier of an item purchased by the shopper, receiving input from the shopper, providing the shopper with a choice between two modes of search query, processing the queries, where the query generates results in real-time and does not restrict the result data to the shopper history, evaluating the query term to determine presence of a searched item group identifier, generating results, and communicate the item data to the shopper with a suggested item data that is derived from said result data, where the steps and activities of the claims are related to sales activities or behaviors. Further, the abstract idea also falls into the grouping of a mental process. The amended claim now recites the step of evaluating said query term to determine presence of a searched item group identifier, which falls into the enumerated grouping of a mental process. As stated in the rejection above, a mental process is defined as and includes “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion)” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). In the instant case, the evaluating step could be performed in the human mind, as the evaluation of a query term is an evaluation or observation, and the determining the presence of the searched item group identifier based on the evaluation is a judgement. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the claims recite and are directed toward an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the amended claims are not eligible under the 101 eligibility analysis. Even when considering the amendments to the claims, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. When considering the claimed additional elements in combination and individually, the features are still recited in a generic manner. For example, the additional elements in representative claim 19 that are beyond the abstract idea, such as the electronic commerce, digital-memory, and memory, are recited in a generic manner. The claimed additional elements are described at a high-level of generality, and are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Although the claims recite these additional elements, the claimed additional elements are still being used to apply the abstract idea with a generically recited computer and computing components. It is also noted that the claims do not reflect any type of technological improvement, such as the claims do not recite an improvement to the computer or technology itself. Therefore the claims are not eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two of the analysis, and thus, the Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 103, the Applicant’s remarks filed on 16 July 2026, have been fully considered. In light of the Applicant’s amendments to the independents claims 18 and 19, the claims now recite allowable subject matter for reasons given above, and therefore the 103 rejection is now withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4399. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/ASHLEY D PRESTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
