DETAILED ACTION
Request for Continued Examination (RCE)
A request for continued examination (RCE) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 14, 2025 has been entered.
Status
This communication is in response to Applicant’s RCE (filed on May 14, 2025) requesting consideration of Applicant’s previously-filed “RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION” filed on April 11, 2025 (hereinafter “Amendment”). In the Amendment, Applicant amended Claims 1-3, 8 and 10-12; and cancelled no claim(s). Applicant previously cancelled Claims 4-5, 9, 13-14 and 19-20. Therefore, Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-12, 15-18 and 21 remain pending and presented for examination. Of the pending claims, Claims 1, 8 and 10 remain independent claims.
The present application is U.S. national stage application (371 application) filed on August 12, 2022 and with U.S. Patent Application No. 17/799,553. The present application corresponds to a PCT application filed on 12/28/2020 and to Chinese Patent Application No. 2020/10089212.7 filed on 2/12/2020, all of which were filed after March 16, 2013, and, therefore, the present application (i.e., App. No. 17/799,553) is being examined under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ).
Examiner notes 37 CFR 1.57(c), “ ‘Essential material’ may be incorporated by reference, but only by way of an incorporation by reference to a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication, which patent or patent application publication does not itself incorporate such essential material by reference” (emphasis added). See 37 CFR 1.57(c).
Examiner notes that this case (i.e., U.S. App. No. 17/799,553) has published as U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0053859 of ZHU et al. (hereinafter “Zhu”). However, Examiner notes that Zhu does not appear to have incorporated the amendments made to Applicant’s specification, which were detailed on pages 2-3 of Applicant’s “PRELIMINARY AMENDMENT” filed on 8/12/2022.
Priority Claim
This application is a U.S. national stage application of PCT international application number PCT/CN2020/140160, filed on December 28, 2020, with a claimed foreign priority date of 12 February 2020 based on a priority claim to Chinese Patent Application No. 2020/10089212.7 filed on 2/12/2020.
No claim(s) for domestic benefit exists in this application.
Response to Amendments
A Summary of the Response to Applicant’s Amendment:
Applicant’s Amendment overcomes rejections to Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-12, 15-16, 18 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); therefore, the Examiner withdraws these § 112(b) rejections. However, Applicant’s Amendment does not overcome the § 112(b) rejection to Claim 17 (i.e., as submitted on pages 7-8 of the Office action dated 2/14/2025); therefore, the Examiner maintains this § 112(b) rejection to Claim 17, as provided below.
Applicant’s Amendment does not overcome rejections to 1-3, 6-8, 10-12, 15-18 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101; therefore, the Examiner asserts/maintains § 101 rejections to Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-12, 15-18 and 21, as provided below.
Applicant’s arguments are found to be not persuasive; please see Examiner’s “Response to Arguments” provided below.
Examiner Notes
Examiner notes that independent Claim 8 recites an apparatus for outputting information, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory storing instructions, wherein the instructions when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform respective operations as recited in Claim 1.
Examiner notes that independent Claim 10 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium, storing a computer program thereon, wherein the program, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform respective operations as recited in Claim 1.
Examiner notes that respective Claims 11-16 recite substantially similar subject matter to that of Claims 2-7, respectively.
Examiner notes that respective Claims 18-21 recite substantially similar subject matter to that of Claims 3-6, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the America Invents Act (AIA ):
(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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the AIA as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. “A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear” (MPEP § 2173.05(e)).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the AIA , as being indefinite because it is unclear as to what the phrase “the result commodity combination failing to satisfy the preset condition” (bolding emphasis added to language recited in Claim 17) means in the context of Claim 17 being “construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers” — a requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(d) of the AIA (with underlining emphasis added by Examiner) — and independent Claim 10 reciting “the result commodity combination satisfying the preset condition” (bolding emphases added by Examiner) as currently recited in the phrase “outputting, in response to the result commodity combination satisfying the preset condition” (bolding emphases added by Examiner) of Applicant’s independent Claim 10. For example, it is unclear as to how the result commodity combination fails to satisfy the preset condition when the result commodity combination satisfies the preset condition, as currently recited in Applicant’s independent Claim 10. Furthermore, it is unclear as to whether the operation of “outputting” recited in independent Claim 10 is to occur given that Claim 17 recites that “the result commodity combination fail[s] to satisfy the preset condition” (bolding emphasis added). As currently presented, “the result commodity combination failing to satisfy the preset condition” in the context of “the result commodity combination satisfying the preset condition” is amenable to multiple plausible constructions and, therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine what the Applicant does and does not regard as the invention. Consequently, Claim 17 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. Appropriate correction(s) is required.
CPC Classification Notes
Examiner notes CPC classifications G06Q 30/0224; G06Q 30/0253; and G06Q 30/0631 — each of which falls under CPC classification G06Q 30/00 Commerce:
G06Q 30/02 • Marketing; Price estimation or determination…
G06Q 30/0207 •• Discounts or incentives, e.g. coupons or rebates
G06Q 30/0222 ••• {During e-commerce, i.e. online transactions}
G06Q 30/0224 ••• based on user history
G06Q 30/02 • Marketing; Price estimation or determination…
G06Q 30/0241 •• Advertisements
G06Q 30/0251 ••• Targeted advertisements
G06Q 30/0253 •••• During e-commerce, i.e. online transactions
G06Q 30/0255 •••• {based on user history}
G06Q 30/06 • Buying, selling or leasing transactions
G06Q 30/0601 •• Electronic shopping [e-shopping]
G06Q 30/0631 ••• Item recommendations
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 1-3, 6-8, 10-12, 15-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” (MPEP § 2111). In view of this standard and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-12, 15-18 and 21 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 1: Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-12, 15-18 and 21 satisfy Step 1 enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Step 2A: Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-12, 15-18 and 21 are rejected under § 101 because Applicant’s claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The rationale for this finding is that Applicant’s claims recite informing a user (e.g., a shopper) about which combination of commodities (e.g., items or products in an online shopping cart of the user) satisfy a participation condition of a target promotion of a merchant {e.g., a condition requiring that the user’s purchase order have a total currency value greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold amount (e.g., ¥199), etc. in view of Zhu at ¶¶ [0038]–[0039]} so that the user can make an informed decision (when making a purchase order) based on being informed about which combination of commodities are needed (in the purchase order) to qualify for (to obtain) the target promotion of the merchant (e.g., promotional discount, such as ¥100 off per Zhu at ¶ [0038], being applied to certain items/products in the user’s shopping cart after the participation condition is satisfied) — e.g., volume discount marketing (i.e., an economic incentive to encourage individuals/shoppers to purchase more), as more particularly recited in the pending claims save for recited (non-abstract claim elements): each of Applicant’s recited operations/steps of acquiring, receiving, retrieving, obtaining, using and outputting; generating a graph comprising nodes and edges; (only Claim 8 and corresponding dependent claims) an apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and a memory storing instructions executable by the processor to cause the processor to perform; and (only Claim 10 and corresponding dependent claims) a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program thereon, wherein the program, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform. However, informing a user about which combination of commodities satisfy a participation condition of a target promotion (e.g., a volume discount) so that the user understands which combination of commodities need to be ordered to get the target promotion (e.g., marketing/advertising the volume discount), as currently recited in Applicant’s pending claims and further explained below, is within a certain method of organizing human activity — (i) fundamental economic principle or practice; and/or (ii) commercial interaction (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) provides examples of “fundamental economic principles or practices” and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) provides additional discussion and examples of commercial or legal interactions. This judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea exception) is not integrated into a practical application because each claim as a whole, having the combination of additional elements beyond the judicial exception(s), does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception and, therefore, the pending claims are “directed to” a judicial exception under USPTO Step 2A. More specifically, each claim as a whole does not appear to reflect the combination of additional elements as: (1) improving the functioning of a computer itself or improving another technology or technical field, (2) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine/manufacture that is integral to the claim, (3) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (4) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Instead, any improvement is to the underlying abstract idea of informing a user about which combination of commodities, in a purchase order, satisfy a participation condition of a target promotion of a merchant. SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12590, Slip. Op. 13 (Fed. Cir. May 15, 2018) (“What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract realm.”). Although Applicant’s pending claims also require “deleting…from…combination”, “adding…to the… combination”, use of a “weighted graph compris[ing] nodes and edges for connecting the nodes”, “a weight of the edge is determined based on the number”, as well as determining whether a preset condition is satisfied (e.g., in view of Zhu at ¶¶ [0067] and [0071] of Applicant’s disclosure, for instance), these technique encompasses mathematical concepts in the form of formulas, equations, and calculations which also have been determined to constitute abstract ideas. See Memorandum, "Grouping of Abstract Ideas" and cases cited in footnote 12, such as enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (84 Fed. Reg. 50). As noted on page 4 of the “October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility” issued by the USPTO, Examiner notes that a claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of “determining” a variable or number using mathematical methods or “performing” a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim, in light of the specification, encompasses one or more mathematical calculations. Applicant’s additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not appear to be integrated into a practical application since they embody mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or mere use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, do no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., online e-commerce shopping for commodities with a computer network, such as shown in Figure 1 of Applicant’s drawings, for example}, and amount to no more than combining the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of acquiring, receiving, retrieving, obtaining, using and outputting, as further explained below. For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s pending claims are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) analysis of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2B: Under Step 2B enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), Applicant’s instant claims do not recite limitations, taken individually and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea because Applicant’s claims do not recite, as further explained in detail below, an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, an application with or by a particular machine, a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, unconventional steps confining the claim to a particular useful application, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Examiner notes that each of Claims 1-3 and 6-7 is drawn to a method; however, the method steps do not recite, require, or indicate implementation by a particular machine since none of limitations recited in Applicant’s method claims are performed by any computer or processing device. Even if a computer/machine was implied, Applicant’s claim limitations taken individually and in combination would be merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and would require no more than generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., online e-commerce shopping for commodities with a computer network, such as shown in Figure 1 of Applicant’s drawings}, and having the abstract idea combined with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of acquiring, receiving, retrieving, obtaining, using and outputting, as further explained below. Examiner also notes that albeit limitations recited in the Claims 8 and 11-12 and 15-16 are performed by the generically recited “at least one processor”, while Claims 10, 17-18 and 21 are performed by the generically recited “a processor”, these claim limitations taken individually and in combination are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., online e-commerce shopping for commodities with a computer network, such as shown in Figure 1 of Applicant’s drawings}, and no more than a combination of the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of acquiring, receiving, retrieving, obtaining, using and outputting, as further explained below. As mentioned above, the claim elements in addition to the abstract idea arguably include: each of Applicant’s recited operations/steps of acquiring, receiving, retrieving, obtaining, using and outputting; generating a graph comprising nodes and edges; (only Claim 8 and corresponding dependent claims) an apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and a memory storing instructions executable by the processor to cause the processor to perform; and (only Claim 10 and corresponding dependent claims) a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program thereon, wherein the program, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform. However, each of these components is recited at a high level of generality that taken individually and in combination perform corresponding generic computer functions of acquiring, receiving, retrieving, obtaining, using and outputting — there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology since the additional elements taken individually and collectively merely provide conventional computer implementations known to the industry. Furthermore, Examiner notes that none of the processes/steps recited in the pending claims taken individually and in combination impose a meaningful limit on the claim’s scope since none of recited processes/steps taken individually and in combination involve activity that amounts to more than generic computer functions/activity. The steps/processes of acquiring, receiving, retrieving, obtaining, using and outputting, as currently recited individually and in combination in Applicant’s claims, are considered to be generic computer functions since they involve having the abstract idea combined with insignificant extra-solution activity, and generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use previously known to the industry — each of the operations of acquiring, receiving, retrieving and obtaining encompasses a data input/loading or retrieving function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360; see Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716‐17; see buySAFE v. Google, 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and see Mayo Collaborative Serv. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)}; each of the steps of using and selecting encompasses a data recognition/inquiry function or retrieving function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014), hereinafter “Content Extraction”, for data recognition); each of the steps of determining a preset condition encompasses a simple mathematical/financial function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Alice Corp., Bilski, Freddie Mac, and In re Abele}; and each of the steps of outputting encompasses a data output/transmittal function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716‐17; see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and see Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2014)}. Examiner notes that Applicant’s disclosure mentions that “an executing body… of the method for outputting information” (Claim 1) may be “the server shown in FIG. 1” (paragraph [0037] of Applicant’s specification) and that “server 105” illustrated in Figure 1 of Applicant’s drawings is illustrated as hardware 105; however, Examiner notes, according to paragraph [0033] of Applicant’s specification, that “[i]t should be noted that the server … may be software” (bolding emphasis added). In addition, Examiner notes Figure 7 of Applicant’s drawings shows “a schematic structural diagram of a server (e.g., the server in FIG. 1) 700 adapted to implement embodiments of the present disclosure” (per paragraph [0150] of Applicant’s specification). It may be worth being mindful of the “July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility” document, at page 7, second and sixth bullet points (July 30, 2015) regarding various well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computer. Employing well-known computer functions individually and in combination to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the computer-implemented abstract idea in Flook (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 19 U.S.P.Q. 193 (1978)) to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s pending claims do not satisfy Step 2B enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Consequently, based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-12, 15-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. For information regarding 35 U.S.C. 101, please see Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) guidance and instructional materials at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility, which includes guidance, memoranda, and updates regarding SME under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Amendment filed on April 11, 2025, have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Examiner notes explanation below in an effort to assist Applicant given Applicant’s amendments and arguments in “Amendment”.
Applicant's Arguments in the Amendment
(Pages 15-17) Applicant asserts that independent Claim 1, as currently amended, and corresponding dependent claims are drawn to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner’s Response to Applicant's Arguments
Please see updated § 101 rejections above regarding Applicant’s pending claims being drawn to ineligible subject matter in view of considering all relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole including amended portions of Applicant’s independent Claims 1, 8 and 10.
Examiner notes that in Applicant’s amendment filed in January 2025, Applicant argued (i.e., on pages 15-17 of the January 2025 amendment) that Applicant’s claims provided “more objective and effective” data sets/combinations and then Applicant described what the claimed subject matter "may" do (e.g., “facilitating to improve the diversity of information output”) without explaining whether Applicant’s claimed solution of January 2025 actually accomplished any improvement regarding “diversity of information output”. Therefore, Examiner noted that Applicant's arguments amounted to no more than a speculative/conclusory allegation that the January 2025 claims provided an “improvement in computer-related technology” to support an invention under § 101. Examiner noted that Applicant's alleged improvement(s) was no more than a desired or intended result that was not required to be performed or achieved based on the claim language recited in Applicant’s January 2025 claims. Thus, Examiner noted that none of Applicant’s January 2025 claims were required to improve any computer related technology or to improve upon the functioning of the computer itself. Consequently, Examiner concluded that Applicant's January 2025 arguments constituted no more than a general allegation that Applicant’s January 2025 claims supported an invention under § 101.
On pages 15 and 17 of Applicant’s Amendment filed on April 11, 2025, Applicant generally argues that the pending claims “reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field” because Applicant’s pending claims allegedly: “reducing redundant calculations” (page 16 of April 2025 Amendment), “improve[] retrieving/searching approach” (page 16 of April 2025 Amendment), “improves the retrieving efficiencies, thereby improving the data processing efficiencies of the computer” (page 17 of April 2025 Amendment). However, similar to Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983, Applicant’s pending claims amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Examiner notes that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong 2 or add significantly more in Step 2B, 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. In addition, Examiner notes that Applicant's alleged improvements on pages 15-17 of the Amendment filed on April 11, 2025 constitute no more than a desired or intended result that are not required to be performed or achieved based on the claim language current recited in Applicant’s pending claims. Therefore, none of Applicant’s pending claims are required to improve any computer related technology or to improve upon the functioning of the computer itself. Finally, Examiner notes that “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Consequently, Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-12, 15-18 and 21 remain rejected under § 101.
Conclusion
The following references are considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, and are being made of record albeit the references are not relied upon as a basis for rejection in this Office action:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0233102 of DeDeo et al. (hereinafter “DeDeo”) for “Examples of promotions include discounts, bundling,… “buy X get Y discount” type items, “threshold” discounts that apply when a customer purchases a minimum amount in a single order or series of orders” —DeDeo at ¶ [0014]; and “A promotion recommended at 215 may define a series of increasing discounts… a special “clearance” special… provides a higher discount for total purchases over a threshold amount” —DeDeo at ¶ [0016].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0174212 of Lauka et al. (hereinafter “Lauka”) for “a seller may require that a customer commit to some threshold purchase, e.g. a minimum dollar amount, product count, or weight, before the order may be concluded” —Lauka at ¶ [0001]; “providing item information (e.g., related to an item offered on an electronic marketplace) to a user utilizing a fluid endcap engine” —Lauka at ¶ [0015]; “the fluid endcap engine… configured to identify, receive, or provide, a number of featured items within the network page…. the featured items may identified and/or related to the user's past-purchase history, browsing history, return history, and/or any suitable information related to the user…. the featured items may be related to, or identified based on, the items already contained in the cart and/or by price (e.g., in relation to a remainder amount and/or the subtotal)…. the featured items may be related to, or identified based on, how popular an item is within the electronic marketplace (e.g., the item has been purchased over a threshold number of times by other users of the electronic marketplace)…. the fluid endcap engine to identify featured items. The featured items may be electronically provided to a user in a manner reminiscent of a physical endcap in a physical store. For example, much like a user in a physical store is presented items via endcaps near the checkout station, the electronic endcap (e.g., a featured items section of a network page) may be utilized to provide the featured items list within the same network page that provides shopping cart information….” —Lauka at ¶ [0017]; “…the endcap population engine 816 may execute a related items search against the catalog to determine a number of related items that relate to one or more items already associated with the user's shopping cart. The endcap population engine 816 may rank the related items according to a degree of similarity with one or more items already associated with the shopping cart. In some examples, the endcap population engine 816 may select some subset of the related items according to the ranking” —Lauka at ¶ [0078]; and “the fluid endcap engine may present an interface element (e.g., a checkout button) that is disabled when the user has not met the threshold condition required for enabling a purchase…. the fluid endcap engine may simply not provide an interface element for completing the purchase until the user has met the threshold condition (e.g., a threshold amount)” —Lauka at ¶ [0019].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0284152 of Makito Hashiyama (hereinafter “Hashiyama”) for “campaign is to give a benefit of free shipping of the products over predetermined purchase amount. Such a benefit has an advantage of promoting users' willingness to purchase” —Hashiyama at ¶ [0003].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0234722 of Nick Evevsky (hereinafter “Evevsky”) for “an online shopping system and method which increases the conversion rate of an e-commerce website by reducing the incidence of shopping cart abandonment. In an envisioned embodiment, an e-commerce website having a conditional promotion is provided, wherein a bonus (i.e., free shipping) is awarded to the consumer if the total value of the order exceeds a preset threshold value (i.e., fifty dollars). Initially, the consumer may add primary items, or those items expressing the consumer's initial or primary purchasing intention, to the shopping cart. As additional items are added to the shopping cart, a shopping cart filler item module may cause to be presented to the consumer one or more filler items, each having a price which, for example, is at least the difference between the sum of the prices of items currently in the shopping cart (i.e., the order subtotal) and the promotional threshold such that, if purchased, would qualify the consumer's order for the promotional offer. As the consumer adds further items to the shopping cart, and if the order total still does not meet the promotional threshold, alternative filler items may be suggested to the consumer in the same manner, until the promotional threshold is reached, or until the consumer proceeds to checkout without having reached the promotional threshold” —Evevsky at ¶ [0006]; “if the promotional threshold has not been reached, the step 228 is performed wherein filler items are identified by the filler item identification module 300,” —Evevsky at ¶ [0029]; and “if filler items have been found, … the filler items are presented to the consumer for purchase” —Evevsky at ¶ [0028].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mathew Syrowik whose telephone number is 313-446-4862. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 8:30 AM to 4:00 PM (Eastern Time). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf, can be reached at telephone number 517-270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information of published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information of unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, please contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free) or by email at EBC@uspto.gov. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conference using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, please email Mathew.Syrowik@USPTO.gov or applicant may use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form. For additional information or questions, please contact the Inventors Assistance Center at 1-800-786-9199 (toll free), 571-272-1000 (local), or 1-800-877-8339 (TDD/TTY).
/Mathew Syrowik/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621