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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/28/2022 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 recites the limitation "the failure to convert" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 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 from the user using an electronic shopping platform accessed, the ordering data being associated with an item; determining a failure of the user to complete a purchase order using shopping cart activities of an ordering system; based on a search pattern of the user received from the ordering system, determining a price of the item causing the determined failure of the user to complete the purchase order; within a predefined time interval from the determined failure, generating a price range for the item including a confidence score derived based on the search pattern of the user; and based on the confidence score of the generated price range exceeding a threshold, generating a final price recommendation for the item and communicating the final price recommendation to the user.”
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”, “determining”, “generating” and “generating” 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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, 3-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zimmerman et al. referred herein as Zimmerman (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0267572).
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 from the user using an electronic shopping platform accessed via a user device, the ordering data being associated with an item; (para 21 and 29, the system receives an item to be added to a shopping cart)
determining, by the one or more processors, a failure of the user to complete a purchase order using shopping cart activities of an ordering system; (para 22, 26 and 33, the system determines the amount of time the item is in cart and was not purchased by the user)
based on a search pattern of the user received from the ordering system, determining, by the one or more processors, a price of the item causing the determined 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 determined failure, generating, by the one or more processors, a price range for the item including a confidence score derived based on the search pattern of the user; (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 of the generated price range exceeding a threshold, generating, by the one or more processors, a final price recommendation for the item and communicating the final price recommendation to the user device.(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)
As to claims 3, 10 and 17, Zimmerman teaches 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 teaches 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 being displayed to the user after receiving approval from a corresponding approval entity. (para 40-45)
As to claims 5, 12 and 19, Zimmerman teaches 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, 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 teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 as discussed above.
Zimmerman further teaches:
wherein the 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
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