Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed February 20, 2026. Claims 1-12 and 14-20 were amended and claim 13 were left as previously presented. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 7, 2026 concerning the previous rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully notes that the test to subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101 for product and process: first, determine whether the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Second, (Step 2A Prong 1) determining whether the claims are directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions). Third, (step 2 A prong 2) determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Fourth, (step 2B) determining whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Applicant argues that the claims result in a practical solution of “preventing loss of sales by detecting price being the cause of a failed conversion and generating personalized price and promotions recommendations”. In response, Examiner states
that the practical application presented is considered to be mere data gathering similar to OIP Technologies 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Moreover, changing the price of an item or presenting an offer for an item is considered to be adding an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC 101 prong 2.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the previous rejection of claims 5, 12 and 19 has been fully considered and persuasive. The 35 USC 112 of claims 5, 12 and 19 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the previous rejection of claims 1-20 has been fully considered and moot in view of the amended grounds of rejection 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “receiving ordering data associated with an item from the user via an electronic shopping platform, wherein the ordering data includes shopping cart activities captured by an ordering system; determining based on the shopping cart activities, a failure of the
user to complete a purchase order for the item; collecting, after the failure and with user consent, multiple source user interest data indicative of price sensitivity and a search pattern of the user; verifying, using the collected multiple source user interest data, that the item price is a reason for the failure of the user to complete the purchase order; within a predefined time interval from the failure, generating a preferred price range for the item and a confidence score for the preferred price range, wherein the confidence score is computed based on at least a price related intent and the multiple source user interest data used to verify the item price as the reason; based on the confidence score exceeding a threshold, generating a final price recommendation and/or promotion for the item within the preferred price range; and communicating the final price recommendation and/or promotion to the user for presentation via the electronic shopping platform”.
The recited limitations above are a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation done by a human but for the recitation of generic computer components under mental steps (human using pen and paper). That is, other than reciting “processors”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human using generic computer components. For example, “receiving”, “determining”, “collecting”, “verifying”, “generating”, “generating” and “communicating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user to manually determine price adjustment for an item to be purchased by the user and presenting the user with the adjusted pricing.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements- a “processor” and “device” to
perform the above recited steps. The computer elements recited at a high-level of generality (generic computer elements performing a generic computer function of receiving information, identifying solutions and determining what should be presented to a user) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements recited do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the computer elements to perform the steps of claims 1, 8 and 15 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The limitations of the dependent claims 2-7, 10-14 and 16-20, further describe the identified abstract idea. In addition, the limitations of claims 5-7, 12-13 and 19-20 define how the price is adjusted which further describes the abstract idea. The generic computer component of claims 2-4, 9-11 and 16-18 (processor and device) merely serve as the generic computer component and the functions performed by the generic computer components essentially amount to the abstract idea identified above. None of the dependent claims when taken separately in combination with each dependent claims parent claim overcome the above analysis and are therefore similarly rejected as being ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman et al. referred herein as Zimmerman (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0267572) in view of Ghuge et al referred herein as Ghuge (U.S. Patent No. 11,252,247).
As to claims 1, 8 and 15, Zimmerman teaches a method, a system and a computer program comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, ordering data associated with an item from the user via an electronic shopping platform accessed through a user device, wherein the ordering data includes shopping cart activities captured by an ordering system; (para 21 and 29, the system receives an item to be added to a shopping cart)
determining, by the one or more processors based on the shopping cart activities, a failure of the user to complete a purchase order for the item; (para 22, 26 and 33, the system determines the amount of time the item is in cart and was not purchased by the user)
collecting, by the one or more processors after the failure, multiple source user interest data indicative of price sensitivity and a search pattern of the user; (para 33, the price is adjusted based on user’s behavior in regards to the initial price of the item)
verifying, by the one or more processors using the collected multiple source user interest data, that the item price is a reason for the failure of the user to complete the purchase order; (para 33, the price is adjusted based on user’s behavior in regards to the initial price of the item)
within a predefined time interval from the failure, generating, by the one or more processors, a preferred price range for the item and a confidence score for the preferred price range, wherein the confidence score is computed based on at least a price related intent and the multiple source user interest data used to
verify the item price as the reason; (para 29, 40-41 and 44, based on the determination of search patterns of the user and the interest of the user for purchasing the item in cart, a product score (i.e. price range) is determined in order to adjust the price of an item based on the user’s interest score (i.e. confidence score))
based on the confidence score exceeding a threshold, generating, by the one or more processors, a final price recommendation and/or promotion for the item within the preferred price range; (para 40-45, generating a final price recommendation of the item based on the interest score with respect to the product score of the item)
communicating, by the one or more processors, the final price recommendation and/or promotion to the user device for presentation via the electronic shopping platform. (para 33 and fig. 2 item s250)
Zimmerman does not teach a user consent for collecting data.
However, Ghuge teaches obtaining a user consent for collecting data (col 5 lines 37-64)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to obtain a user consent in Zimmerman as taught by Ghuge. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Ghuge that doing so would identify portions of content that the user is interested in.
As to claims 3, 10 and 17, Zimmerman in view of Ghuge teach all the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15 as discussed above.
Zimmerman further teaches:
generating, by the one or more processors, recommendations on pricing and promotions by considering at least one of an urgency of the user for the item, and a business sales target. (para 25)
As to claims 4, 11 and 18, Zimmerman in view of Ghuge teach all the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15 as discussed above.
Zimmerman further teaches:
improving, by the one or more processors, future pricing and promotions recommendations based on actions performed by the user in response to the generated final price recommendation including at least one of the user purchasing the item, the user using a generated promotion, and the generated final price recommendation being displayed to the user after receiving approval from a corresponding approval entity. (para 40-45)
As to claims 5, 12 and 19, Zimmerman in view of Ghuge teach all the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15 as discussed above.
Zimmerman further teaches:
wherein determining the failure to convert is based on at least one of the user deleting the item from the shopping cart activities, an incomplete item purchase within a time threshold, a cancellation of a recently placed order, and activities performed by the user including interaction with customer service, notes, instructions, and publicly available posts such as social media posts and blogs. (para 33)
As to claims 7 and 14, Zimmerman in view of Ghuge teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 as discussed above.
Zimmerman further teaches:
wherein the preferred price range for the item is determined based on at least one of a recent search criteria, recent IoT data, recent user’s messages, a reward point balance, recent item searches, and recent visits to traditional street-side stores. (para 22, 26 and 33)
The prior art of record does not teach the limitations of claims 6, 13 and 20.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ZEINA ELCHANTI whose telephone number is (313)446-6561. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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 Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-4602. 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.
/ZEINA ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights