DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response received on 17 October 2025.
Claims 1 and 9 have been 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Claims 16-17 were previously withdrawn.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 .
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 second one or more of said plurality of item identifiers;
receiving input from a shopper, said input comprising:
an item query, wherein said item query contains at least one of query term;
evaluating said query term to determine presence of a searched item group identifier;
processing said item query to generate result data, wherein said result data identifies at least one of said plurality of item identifiers associated with said searched item group identifier if said item group identifier is present in said query term, wherein said result data identifies said at least one of said plurality of item identifiers present in a shopper profile associated with said shopper 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 offering to a shopper, new items to be purchased, 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, processing the query to generate the result that identifies the item identifiers present in the purchase history data, 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. Thus, 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, 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 18, 3-5, 7, 19, 11-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sohangir, S., et al. (PGP No. US 2013/0218687 A1), in view of Dey, A., et al. (Patent No. US 11,228,568 B1).
Claim 18-
Sohangir discloses a server system, comprising:
a processor (Sohangir, see: paragraph [0037] “processor”);
a memory (Sohangir, see: paragraph [0041] disclosing “database 180”);
a communication interface (Sohangir, see: paragraph [0036] “network interface”); and
a non-transitory processor readable medium storing processor executable instructions configured to be executed by the processor, the processor executable instructions (Sohangir, see: paragraph [0038] disclosing “non-transitory machine-readable medium”) for:
maintaining in said memory item data, wherein said item data includes a plurality of items corresponding to a plurality of items available for purchase (Sohangir, see: paragraph [0065] disclosing “database 180” and “determined interest”; and see: paragraph [0076] disclosing “User interface 600 may include, for example, a product list 605” and “list of product categories, and products available for sale by an entity”; Also see FIG. 6 demonstrating an interface with a catalog of items that are listed for a user to select from.);
maintaining in said memory 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 and a first one or more of said plurality of items (Sohangir, see: paragraph [0065] disclosing “determined interest and/or characteristic…may be stored [i.e., grouping data], for example, database 180”; and see: paragraph [0076] disclosing “a product list 605” and “list of product categories [i.e., item groups]”);
maintaining in said memory 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 (Sohangir, see: paragraph [0031] disclosing “Personal information source 160 may be any source of information enabled to store…a user account [i.e., shopper profiles]” and “information that is passively observed (e.g., Web site browsing history or online purchasing history [i.e., purchase history data])” and paragraph [0065] disclosing “user profile…may be stored in, for example, database 180”; and paragraph [0077] disclosing “use identifying information and/or credentials [i.e., shopper identifier] associated with a user account”);
receiving input from a shopper (Sohangir, see: paragraph [0082] disclosing “a search term is entered”), the input comprising:
an item query, wherein said item query contains at least one query term (Sohangir, see: paragraph [0082] disclosing “user interface 900 includes a list of travel categories 910” and “a search term is entered [i.e., query term]” and “the search term ‘Las Vegas’ was entered” and “corresponding list 920 includes the names and locations of various hotels available”);
evaluating said query term to determine presence of a searched item group (Sohangir, see: paragraph [0082] disclosing “user interface 900 includes a list of travel categories 910” and “a search term is entered [i.e., query term]” and “the search term ‘Las Vegas’ was entered” and “corresponding list 920 includes the names and locations of various hotels [i.e., item group] available”);
processing said item query to generate result data, wherein said result data identifies at least one of said plurality of items associated with said searched item group if said item group is present in said query term, wherein said result data identifies said at least one of said plurality of items present in shopper profile associated with said shopper if said searched item group identifier is not present in said query term (Sohangir, see: paragraph [0031] disclosing “Personal information source 160 may be any source of information enabled to store…a user account” and “information that is passively observed (e.g., Web site browsing history or online purchasing history)”; and see: paragraph [0081] disclosing “recommendation to the user based on an interest, or interests, or characteristic(s) associated with the user” [0082] disclosing “user interface 900 includes a list of travel categories 910” and “the search term ‘Las Vegas’ was entered and corresponding list 920 includes the names and locations of various hotels available in Las Vegas”) (Examiner’s note: It is interpreted that the item group in this case is the hotels, and the results include the hotels that are found in Las Vegas. The results include the item group for hotels even though the user did not search the term “hotels”, and therefore the results include both the items that are associated with the search term itself, and also includes results that are not present in the search term, such as the term of hotels.); and
communicating to said shopper suggested item data, wherein said suggested item data is derived from said result data (Sohangir, see: paragraph [0073] disclosing “provide targeted advertising to the user, provide a personalized offer for the purchase of a product or service to the user” and “analysis of user profile or a user's social graph data--such as their brand affinities, friends' demographics, and/or other relevant data” and see: paragraph [0082] disclosing “a search term is entered, a list of suggested items 920 corresponding to the search term may be provided on user interface 900” and “corresponding list 920 includes the names and locations of various hotels available in Las Vegas”).
Although Sohangir discloses group data that includes one or more item groups, for one or more items, Sohangir does not specifically disclose that the item groups have identifiers, and that the items have specific identifiers for more than one item. Sohangir does not disclose:
item identifiers;
a group identifier;
plurality of item identifiers;
a second one or more of said plurality of item identifiers;
item identifiers;
searched item group identifier;
plurality of item identifiers;
item group identifiers;
Dey, however, does teach:
item identifiers (Dey, see: Col. 6, ln. 67 and Col. 7, ln. 1-3 teaching “may determine a first search query performed by a user account during a time interval…may include a first product identifier”);
a group identifier (Dey, see: Col. 7, ln. 21-24 teaching “the first search query includes a first product identifier, the first computer system may determine a first product category identifier” and Col. 9, ln. 30-31 teaching “product categories of the product identifiers”);
plurality of item identifiers (Dey, see: Col. 9, ln. 28-31 teaching “The set of search queries may be, for example, product identifiers in a product catalog, and the keywords may be product categories of the product identifiers”);
a second one or more of said plurality of item identifiers (Dey, see: Claim 1 teaching “query comprising a second product identifier” and “determining that a product category identifier of the second product identifier”);
item identifiers (Dey, see: Col. 9, ln. 30-31 teaching “product categories of the product identifiers”);
searched item group identifier (Dey, see: Col. 7, ln. 21-24 teaching “the first search query includes a first product identifier, the first computer system may determine a first product category identifier” and Col. 9, ln. 30-31 teaching “product categories of the product identifiers”);
plurality of item identifiers (Dey, see: Col. 9, ln. 28-31 teaching “The set of search queries may be, for example, product identifiers in a product catalog, and the keywords may be product categories of the product identifiers”);
item group identifiers (Dey, see: Col. 9, ln. 30-31 teaching “product categories of the product identifiers”).
This step of Day is applicable to the system of Sohangir, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to user history and product information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reference of Sohangir, to includes the features of item identifiers, a group identifier, plurality of item identifiers, a second one or more of said plurality of item identifiers, item identifiers, searched item group identifier, plurality of item identifiers, and item group identifiers, as taught by Dey. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Sohangir to provide improved presentation of data to customers regarding products (Dey, see: at least Col. 5).
Claim 3-
Sohangir in view of Dey teach the server system of claim 18, as described above.
Sohangir further discloses:
wherein said suggested item data is offered based on brand affinity (Sohangir, see: paragraph [0073] disclosing “provide targeted advertising to the user, provide a personalized offer for the purchase of a product or service to the user” and “analysis of user profile or a user's social graph data--such as their brand affinities, friends' demographics, and/or other relevant data” and “more or less steeply discounted offer for an item, may be made to the user, as appropriate, based upon her price sensitivity”.
Claim 4-
Sohangir in view of Dey teach the server system of claim 18, as described above.
Sohangir discloses:
wherein said suggested item data is offered based on price sensitivity (Sohangir, see: paragraph [0073] disclosing “more or less steeply discounted offer for an item, may be made to the user, as appropriate, based upon her price sensitivity”). .
Claim 5-
Sohangir in view of Dey teach the server system of claim 18, as described above.
Sohangir does not disclose:
wherein said suggested item data is offered based on archetype determined for the shopper.
Gold, however, does teach:
wherein said suggested item data is offered based on archetype determined for the shopper (Gold, see: paragraph [0027] teaching “places a package of hot dogs, hot dog buns, and a bottle of soda in a basket” and “the customer is likely to respond to an incentive to purchase potato chips” and “the merchant sees in real-time the items that the customer has placed in the basket and can generate and deliver a reminder to buy potato chips”).
This step of Gold, is applicable to the system of Sohangir as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to analyzing customer behavior to recommend offers to a customer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sohangir to include the feature of the new items are offered based on archetype determined for the shopper, as taught by Gold. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Sohangir to improve recommendations by analyzing shopping session data for customers and offer more relevant products (Gold, see: paragraph [0007]).
Claim 7-
Sohangir in view of Dey teach the server system of claim 18, as described above.
Sohangir discloses:
wherein said suggested item data is offered based on profit margin associated with the new items (Sohangir, see: paragraph [0006] disclosing “maximize the revenues generated”).
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is directed to a method. Claim 19 recites limitations that are similar in nature to those addressed above for claim 18, which is directed to a system. It is noted that claim 19 further recites the features of electronic commerce and digital-memory, which is disclosed by Sohangir (Sohangir, see: paragraph [0037] disclosing “processor 205 (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), or both), a main memory 215”; and see: paragraph [0062] disclosing “website”). Claim 19 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 18.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is directed to a method. Claim 11 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 3, which is directed towards a system. Claim 11 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is directed to a method. Claim 12 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 4, which is directed towards a system. Claim 12 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is directed to a method. Claim 13 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 5, which is directed towards a system. Claim 15 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 5.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is directed to a method. Claim 15 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 7, which is directed towards a system. Claim 15 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 7.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sohangir, S., et al., in view of Dey, A., et al., and Gold, K., et al. (PGP No. US 2005/0144084 A1).
Claim 2-
Sohangir in view of Dey teach the server system of claim 18, as described above.
Although Sohangir discloses purchase history data (Sohangir, see: paragraph [0031] disclosing “information that is passively observed (e.g., Web site browsing history or online purchasing history)”), Sohangir does not disclose:
wherein said input further comprises creating a plurality of archetype digital baskets based on said purchase history, each archetype basket corresponding to a subset of said item data.
Gold, however, does teach:
wherein said input further comprises creating a plurality of archetype digital baskets based on said purchase history, each archetype basket corresponding to a subset of said item data.
(Gold, see: paragraph [0025] teaching “if the merchant wanted to identify the items most frequently purchased at the same time as the types of items that are currently in the customer's basket, the analytical program would instruct the system to retrieve from the database historical information about transactions in which those types of items were purchased”; and see: paragraph [0027] teaching “places a package of hot dogs, hot dog buns, and a bottle of soda in a basket” and “the customer is likely to respond to an incentive to purchase potato chips”; and see: paragraph [0028] teaching “online clothing merchant during mid-January in preparation for a trip to Hawaii” and “places a swimsuit and a beach towel in the virtual shopping cart” and “detect almost immediately that the customer is buying for a warmer climate and would generate purchases offers tailored to meet the customer's travel needs”).
This step of Gold, is applicable to the system of Sohangir as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to analyzing customer behavior to recommend offers to a customer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sohangir to include the feature of wherein the input further comprises creating a plurality archetype digital baskets based on said purchase history, each archetype basket corresponding to a subset of the item, as taught by Gold. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Sohangir to improve recommendations by analyzing shopping session data for customers and offer more relevant products (Gold, see: paragraph [0007]).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is directed to a method. Claim 10 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 2, which is directed towards a system. Claim 10 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 2.
Claims 6, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sohangir, S., et al., in view of Dey, A., et al., and Psota, J., et al. (PGP US 2015/0073929 A1).
Claim 6-
Sohangir in view of Dey teach the server system of claim 18, as described above.
Although Sohangir discloses wherein said suggested item data is offered (Sohangir, see: paragraph [0073] disclosing “provide targeted advertising to the user, provide a personalized offer for the purchase of a product or service to the user”), Sohangir does not disclose that the items offered are based on a supplier relationship. Sohangir does not disclose:
items are offered based on supplier relationships.
Psota, however, does teach:
items are offered based on supplier relationships (Psota, see: paragraph [0309] teaching “a type of item may benefit buyers, suppliers, and the like by identifying potential new relationships between buyers and suppliers”; and see: paragraph [0417] teaching “Suppliers participating in the marketplace system may provide bids for supplying the products as specified by the buyers in their buyer inquiries” and “allowing the suppliers and buyers to bid through the marketplace system”).
This step of Psota, is applicable to the system of Sohangir as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to transactions based on a buyer’s history. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sohangir to include the feature of items are offered based on supplier relationships, as taught by Psota. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Sohangir to improve relationships between suppliers and buyers based on previous transactions (Psota, see: paragraph [0012]).
Claim 8-
Sohangir in view of Dey teach the server system of claim 18, as described above.
Sohangir does not disclose the limitations:
wherein said processor executable instructions further comprise instructions for: determining that said purchase history data is insufficient;
prompting for at least targeted question; and
based on that map or associate said shopper to one or more representative personas.
Psota, however, does teach:
wherein said processor executable instructions further comprise instructions for: determining that said the purchase history data is insufficient (Psota, see: paragraph [0190] teaching “a buyer that otherwise had little transaction history may trigger an indication that the buyer should be activated for use in ratings of buyers, suppliers”);
prompting for at least targeted question (Psota, see: paragraph [0459] teaching “set of recommended questions for buyers…may also be provided, which may be automatically inserted into messages” and “Using these recommended questions, the users may give feedback on responses”); and
based on that map or associate said shopper to one or more representative personas (Psota, see: paragraph [0268] teaching “assessment of the potential for new business opportunities determined from customs transaction data” and “can identify potential business opportunities such as to establish a new relationship”; and see: paragraph [0035] teaching “a new buyer of a particular product starts buying in/from a particular region which may help the supplier to target the new buyer”).
This step of Psota, is applicable to the system of Sohangir as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to transactions based on a buyer’s history. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sohangir to include the features of wherein said processor executable instructions further comprise instructions for: determining that said purchase history data is insufficient, prompting for at least targeted question, and based on that map or associate said shopper to one or more representative personas, as taught by Psota. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Sohangir to improve relationships between suppliers and buyers based on previous transactions (Psota, see: paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is directed to a method. Claim 14 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 6, which is directed towards a system. Claim 14 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 6.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101, the Applicant’s remarks filed on 17 October 2025, have been fully considered and are not considered to be persuasive.
In light of the Applicant’s arguments found on pages 6-7 of the remarks stating “Claims 18 and 19 do not simply recite item suggestion but rather, at a minimum, defines a system and approach having particularized sets of structured data set to interface with a dynamically evolving record of a user upon that user’s input of a query,” and “The claims are not directed to an abstract idea,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis, the claims are 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, processing the query to generate the result that identifies the item identifiers present in the purchase history data, 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. Therefore the Examiner maintains that the claims are directed to the abstract idea.
In light of the Applicant’s arguments found on page 7 of the remarks stating “the claims are patent eligible under prong 2” and “The limitations contemplate specific data architectures as shown in the association of item-related and user-related data sets,” and further “This is more than simply a recitation to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer” and “claims fall precisely within patent eligible subject matter under prong 2 as they recite, at a minimum, a practical application by describing a system specially structured and configured to achieve a stated object,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis, the claimed additional elements, when considered individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not eligible subject matter. For example, the additional elements that are considered to be beyond the abstract idea, of electronic commerce, digital-memory, and memory, are recited in a generic manner, such as they are described at a high-level of generality, and are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements are merely being used to apply the abstract idea by using generic computing components and even when considered in combination with each other do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore the claims do not recite eligible subject matter and 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 17 October 2025, have been fully considered, and are not persuasive.
In light of the Applicant’s arguments found on page 8 of the remarks regarding claims 18-19, and page 9 of the remarks regarding the dependent claims, stating “Dey fails to disclose, teach, or suggest at least ‘maintaining in a digital-memory item data, wherein said item data includes a plurality of item identifiers corresponding to a plurality of items available for purchase’ and ‘wherein a shopper profile of said shopper profiles includes a shopper identifier and a second one or more of said plurality of item identifiers.’,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims, as interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation, are taught by Sohangir in view of Dey. For example, the limitation of maintaining in said memory item data, wherein said item data includes a plurality of items corresponding to a plurality of items available for purchase, is disclosed by Sohangir. The reference of Sohangir provides explanation of a system utilizing existing data, stored in a database, accessed by the system while a user is using the interface (Sohangir, paragraph [0065]). The reference describes the user interface displays lists of products and product categories that are of interest to the user, including availability for purchase by certain merchants so that the user has options to select the items desired (Sohangir, see: paragraphs [0065], [0076], and FIG. 6). Sohangir also discloses the limitation of wherein a shopper profile of said shopper profiles includes a shopper identifier. For example, Sohangir describes that the personal information of the user, which is stored in a user account with identifiable information regarding the user, is used to store the user’s credentials associated with that account (Sohangir, see: paragraph [0031], [0065] & [0077]). The reference does not specifically state that the items that are found within the system that are of interest to the user have a specific identifier, or a specific group identifier. The Examiner has therefore relied upon the reference of Dey to merely demonstrate that items available via a search query have specific identifiers, such as found in the product catalogue, and further describes that the items can be part of a category that has specific identifiers as well (Dey, Col. 7. ln. 21-24, and Col. 9, ln. 28-31). The combination of references is appropriate as both of the references are related to utilizing user history and product information to provide items for purchase to a user. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the references teach the limitations of independent claims, and thus maintains the 103 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kranzley, A., et al. (PGP No. US 2017/0323295 A1), describes a system capable of automatically purchasing items based on the matching of an offer condition attribute with at least one transaction attribute value.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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