DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 8, 2026, has been entered.
Acknowledgment
This Action is in response to the request for continued examination and the amendment filed on April 8, 2026. Claims 2-3, 7-20 and 30 have been cancelled by Applicant. Claims 1, 4-6, 21-29 and 31-35 are currently pending, from which claims 21-29 and 31-34 have been previously withdrawn from consideration, by the examiner, as being directed to non-elected inventions. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.02. Claims 1, 4-6 and 35 are fully examined.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the claim objections, Applicant’s amendment overcomes the issues and the objections are withdrawn.
Applicant provides, on page 1 of remarks, a response to the Advisory Action of March 20, 2026. The examiner notes that the present claim amendment is identical to the After Final amendment filed on March 11, 2026. Therefore, the notes of the Advisory Action applies to the present claim amendment.
Applicant, in response to the Advisory Action, argues that the Specification supports the "identifying" step. However, Applicant does not provide any reference to portions of the Specification that provide the support for the newly added “identifying” step in claim 1. Applicant alleges that “for the user to be presented with an interactive element that ‘enables the user to select the processing channel associated with the set of processing benefits having a largest amount of processing savings,’ the system must have first identified which processing channel has the largest amount of savings.” The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that at least according to Applicant’s Specification at [0076], to “enable a user to select” the interactive element provides “options” to the user, and not a previously selected “largest saving,” as recited in the new “identifying” step.
Applicant contends that “if the system had not identified the channel with the largest savings, the interactive element could not enable the user to select that channel.” The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that paragraph [0107] of the Specification discloses “… the interactive element enables the user to select the processing channel associated with the set of processing benefits having a largest amount of processing savings relative to the determined amount of processing savings of the other encrypted sets...” This clearly shows that it is the user that selects a channel “relative to the determined amount of processing savings of the other encrypted sets,” and obviously the “selection” by the user is not merely an “authorization” for a previously selected channel, as suggested by Applicant when arguing that “the user's selection can be, e.g., an authorization to proceed with the identified processing channel. (See, e.g., Spec. at " [0030], [0057].)”
The examiner further notes that the paragraphs [0030] and [0057] of the Specification have no relation to “identifying, based on the comparison and the processing savings, a processing channel associated with the set of processing benefits having a largest amount of processing savings…” as claimed. In addition, nowhere throughout the Specification, it is disclosed that the user's selection is an authorization to proceed with the identified processing channel, as suggested by Applicant. Therefore, the identifying step lacks support in the Specification.
With respect to the 112(b) rejection of claim 35, Applicant’s amendment overcomes the issues and the rejection is withdrawn.
With respect to the 101 rejections, Applicant argues, on page 2 of remarks, that claim 1 requires “Private set intersection (PSI)” and that PSI is a specific cryptographic technique that involves operations that are specific to computer-implemented cryptographic systems and cannot be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.
The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that PSI is a protocol that can be performed on pen and paper. In fact, it is possible to simulate this cryptographic protocol at home using a standard deck of playing cards to act as the "secure computer." (See the article titled “Card-Based Protocols for Private Set Intersection and Union,” by Doi et al., provided attached) Therefore, executing the PSI on a computing device is merely using the computing device as a tool to perform the PSI algorithm.
Applicant further argues that PSI is not “a mathematical concept” and does not fit into any of the subgroupings of abstract ideas as "mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations."
The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Set Intersection is a mathematical operation performed using a mathematical formula such as:
A
∩
B
=
{
x
|
x
∈
A
a
n
d
x
∈
B
}
and it is based on set membership (∈) which is a mathematical relation.
Applicant further argues on page 3, and with respect to step 2A, Prong 2 of claim eligibility that using PSI claim 1 provides a technical solution to the technical problem of privacy-preserving data comparison in a multi-party transaction environment. The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that as stated above with respect to the PSI protocol, privacy-preserving data comparison is not a technical problem, but a mathematical problem and PSI is a mathematical solution to the problem.
Applicant further argues on page 3, that the claims improve functionality of a computing system by updating the user interface with an interactive element that enables the user to select the processing channel having the relatively largest amount of processing savings. The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that providing an interactive element to a user, and enabling a user to select a processing channel, are abstract ideas, as an interactive element is a tool that enables a person to perform a function.
Applicant further argues that should the analysis proceed to Step 2B, the claimed elements are not well-understood, routine, or conventional. The examiner respectfully notes that as explained above, the analysis does not proceed to step 2B. However, even if the analysis proceeds to this step, a PSI-based comparison without decryption, is a well-known concept, that is in fact the definition of private set intersection, as the word “private” suggests, PSI is a protocol for finding set intersections without revealing the content and therefore, no decryption is required as the set content remains “private.”
Applicant further argues that inability of the cited prior art to adequately account for these elements demonstrates that they were not well-understood, routine, or conventional as of the effective filing date. The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that even if no prior art is found to teach the claimed features, which is not the case with respect to this Application, a set of claims can be novel but still directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, existence or non-existence of an art rejection is separate from eligibility under 101 and there is no direct connection between the two.
With respect to the 103 rejections, Applicant argues that the cited art does not teach three steps of "comparing, with private set intersection and without decrypting the encrypted sets of processing benefits, the respective items of the sets of processing benefits to the selected one or more items"; "identifying, based on the comparison and the processing savings, a processing channel associated with the set of processing benefits having a largest amount of processing savings relative to the determined amount of processing savings of other processing channels"; and "presenting, on the user interface, an interactive element based on the processing channel associated with the set of processing benefits having the largest amount of processing savings…”
Applicant states that because Wood’s pricing data is public, there is not encrypted data comparison and no processing channel "identif[ied]”, based on the comparison of the encrypted sets" and "without decrypting the encrypted sets of processing benefits." The examiner respectfully notes that according to the claims and the specification the encrypted processing benefits are received as an input to the system. The claims do not include the “encrypting” process. In addition, the examiner notes that the fact that the received data is encrypted does not affect any other claimed features except that the data cannot be compared using a typical comparison.
Applicant further argues, on page 5, that the Office Action does not identify whose data privacy would be enhanced by encrypting inherently public pricing data, nor does it explain why a person of ordinary skill would have reason to encrypt data that is intended to be public facing.
The examiner respectfully notes that Applicant’s arguments is based on “encrypting” function, which is not performed in the claims. The present claims receive “encrypted” input and no “encrypting” is happening in the claims. The examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art may apply Wood’s process on an encrypted input by replacing the comparison step with a PSI comparison.
The examiner further notes that Wood teaches a process for optimal sourcing system for goods and services that is almost identical to the claimed process, except that the input data in Wood is not encrypted. Therefore, Wood does not need to use private intersection process for comparing the input values because, as noted by Applicant, the input data is not encrypted. However, the second cited art of Buddhavarapu teaches a similar process based on encrypted input and the fact that the input is encrypted, leads to the use of a private intersection process, where common items are searched within encrypted data sets “without decrypting the encrypted sets of processing benefits.” Therefore, the examiner notes that Buddhavarapu shows that in order to compare encrypted data sets without decrypting, data can be compared using private intersection without revealing the data content. Therefore, the teaching of Buddhavarapu of comparing encrypted data using private intersection can be combined with the optimal sourcing system for goods and service, as taught by Wood to arrive at the claimed features. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art, can apply the process taught by Wood on encrypted input data sets, by combining the private intersection of encrypted data as taught be Buddhavarapu.
Applicant further argues that even if Buddhavarapu's PSI were substituted into Wood's comparison step, the result would still be a record-level intersection and not a processing channel identified as having the largest savings relative to other channels.
The examiner respectfully notes that as explained above, according to the Specification [0107], the new “identifying…a processing channel associated with the set of processing benefits having a largest amount of processing savings relative to the determined amount of processing savings of other encrypted sets;” step of claim 1, is in fact performed by the user and not by the claimed system. Similarly, Wood at least in [0054]-[0056] teaches that a user can see comparison of costs on a single screen and select the product. Wood in [0054] teaches: “the system may highlight the lower of the two prices…so that the user can immediately see what is the best price available.” (i.e., largest amount of saving.)
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, 4-6 and 35 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, 4-6 and 35 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium (product). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1, 4-6 and 35 are directed to the abstract idea of receiving a selection of items from a user and presenting information associated with the selected item to the user. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Analysis
In the following analysis, bolded text indicates abstract idea and the rest of the text indicates additional elements. Independent claim 1 recites:
receiving, from a user and via a user interface, a selection of one or more items;
receiving, from one or more processors, one or more encrypted sets of processing benefits, each encrypted set associated with a respective processing channel and each processing benefit associated with an item;
comparing, with private set intersection and without decrypting the encrypted sets of processing benefits, the respective items of the sets of processing benefits to the selected one or more items;
matching each of the selected one or more items to one or fewer of the processing benefits;
retrieving a processing cost of each of the selected one or more items;
determining a processing savings for each of the sets of processing benefits based on the matching and on the processing cost of each of the selected one or more items;
identifying, based on the comparison and the processing savings, a processing channel associated with the set of processing benefits having a largest amount of processing savings relative to the determined amount of processing savings of other encrypted sets; and
presenting, on the user interface, an interactive element based on the processing channel associated with the set of processing benefits having a largest amount of processing savings relative to the determined amount of processing savings of the other encrypted sets.
Therefore, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of receiving a selection of items from a user and presenting information associated with the selected item to the user, which is a combination of “concepts performed in the human mind” grouped within the “mental process” and “mathematical relationships” grouped within the “mental processes” groupings of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106) because the claims involve a series of steps for receiving a selection of items from a user, receiving further information about an items, comparing the received information with the selected set of items, and presenting information to the user based on the comparison. The claim further recites private set intersection. However, this limitation is also an abstract idea, i.e., mathematical concept. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; MPEP 2106).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements of a non-transitory computer readable medium, a processor, a computer system, a user interface, merely use one or more computers as tools to perform the abstract idea. The use of a non-transitory computer readable medium, a processor, a computer system, a user interface, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than one or more computing devices performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106), the additional elements amount to no more than using computing devices or processors to automate and/or implement the abstract idea.
As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions that correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4 recites:
retrieving an electronic activity history of the user;
determining, based on the electronic activity history and the selected one or more items, a behavior pattern of the user;
comparing the user behavior pattern to the encrypted sets of processing benefits; and
determining, based on the comparison, a recommended set of items comprising items that are associated with at least one processing benefit and that are not included in the one or more selected items,
wherein the interactive element enables the user to select at least one of the recommended set of items.
which further describe the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, and therefore is ineligible.
Dependent claim 5 recites:
wherein determining the recommended set of items is further based on an electronic activity history of a second user via collaborative filtering, the collaborative filtering identifying items unique to the second user activity history,
which further describe the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, and therefore is ineligible.
Dependent claim 6 recites:
wherein a size of the recommended set of items and a frequency with which the interactive element is presented are determined using a feedback loop based on interactions from at least one previous user,
which further describe the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any additional elements. The claim does not recite any additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, and therefore is ineligible.
Dependent claim 35 recites:
retrieving an activity pattern of the user;
determining one or more electronic transaction options, each electronic transaction option associated with a respective processing channel, based on the user activity pattern; and
presenting the determined one or more electronic transaction options with the interactive element,
which further describe the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any additional elements. The claim does not recite any additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B, and therefore is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-6 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 1, the amended claim recites: “identifying, based on the comparison and the processing savings, a processing channel associated with the set of processing benefits having a largest amount of processing savings relative to the determined amount of processing savings of other encrypted sets.”
However, the claim amendment lacks support in the Specification, because according to the Specification ([0106], [0107] and originally filed claim 3):
…the computer system further matches each of the selected one or more items to one or fewer of the processing benefits; retrieves a processing cost of each of the selected one or more items; and determines a processing savings based on the matching and on the processing cost of each of the selected one or more items; wherein the presenting is further based on the processing savings…
…the interactive element enables the user to select the processing channel associated with the set of processing benefits having a largest amount of processing savings relative to the determined amount of processing savings of the other encrypted sets. In other of these embodiments, the computer system further retrieves an electronic activity history of the user; determines, based on the electronic activity history and the selected one or more items, a behavior pattern of the user; compares the user behavior pattern to the encrypted sets of processing benefits; and determines, based on the comparison, a recommended set of items comprising items that are associated with at least one processing benefit and that are not included in the one or more selected items, wherein the interactive element enables the user to select at least one of the recommended set of items. (emphasis added)
The examiner notes that at least according to Applicant’s Specification at [0076], to “enable a user to select” the interactive element provides “options” to the user, and not a previously selected “largest saving,” as recited in the new “identifying” step. The examiner further notes that paragraph [0107] of the Specification, quoted above, clearly shows that it is the user that selects a channel “relative to the determined amount of processing savings of the other encrypted sets,” and obviously the “selection” by the user is not merely an “authorization” for a previously selected channel.
The examiner further notes that the claim 1 “determining…” and “presenting…” limitations that cover the determining and presenting aspects described in paragraphs [0105]-[0106] of the Specification. Therefore, the insertion of the “identifying” limitation in between these raises a question about whether “identifying” in the claim best correlates to “selecting” by the user or a system function given that the interactive elements aren’t introduced in the claim until the “presenting” limitation.
Therefore, the identifying step lacks support in the Specification, and the new language constitute new matter.
Dependent claims 4-6 and 35 are also rejected for incorporating the limitations of the rejected claim 1.
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 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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood (US Patent Publication No. 2006/0059062,) in view of Buddhavarapu (US Patent Publication No. 2022/0382908)
With respect to claim 1, Wood, which like the present Application is directed to determining best available services (processing benefits) and providing a list of determined services for user selection, teaches:
receiving, from a user and via a user interface, a selection of one or more items; (receive a shopping list from the user: FIG. 10, step 1002, [0058], shopping list is on the browser (user interface): FIG. 8, [0050]: screen shot of the shopping list)
receiving, from one or more processors, one or more …sets of processing benefits, each … set associated with a respective processing channel and each processing benefit associated with an item; (determine best available prices (i.e., processing benefits) and identities of associated merchants (i.e., processing channels): FIG. 10, steps 1004 and 1006: [0058], claim 1)
comparing… the respective items of the sets of processing benefits to the selected one or more items; (price comparison: [0032]-[0037])
matching each of the selected one or more items to one or fewer of the processing benefits; (the price of each item at different merchants is determined: FIG. 4, [0053])
retrieving a processing cost of each of the selected one or more items; (the price of each item at each merchant is listed: FIG. 4, [0053])
determining a processing savings for each of the sets of processing benefits based on the matching and on the processing cost of each of the selected one or more items, (total price including tax and shipping is calculated: FIG. 4, [0053])
identifying, based on the comparison and the processing savings, a processing channel associated with the set of processing benefits having a largest amount of processing savings relative to the determined amount of processing savings of other encrypted sets; (the system may highlight the lower of the two prices--single provider vs. aggregate--so that the user can immediately see what is the best price available (i.e., identify largest saving): [0054])
presenting, on the user interface, an interactive element based on the processing channel associated with the set of processing benefits having a largest amount of processing savings relative to the determined amount of processing savings of the other encrypted sets. (present information on a display screen having a “shop” button (i.e., interactive element): FIG. 4, [0053]-[0056])
Wood does not explicitly teach:
one or more encrypted sets of processing benefits,
comparing, with private set intersection and without decrypting the encrypted sets of processing benefits…
However, Buddhavarapu, which like the present Application is directed to providing information to a user based on user behavior by enhancing privacy using private set interaction without revealing information content, teach:
one or more encrypted sets of data, ([0023])
comparing, with private set intersection and without decrypting the encrypted sets of processing benefits… (PSI may enable an encrypted version of a first data set and an encrypted version of a second data set to compute an intersection performed: [0023]-[0025])
The examiner notes that Buddhavarapu in cited portions teaches that an intersection of two encrypted data sets is determined using PSI. This implies that no decryption is performed. In addition, Buddhavarapu in [0025] teaches that “a second example of such a privacy enhancing technology (PET) may include homomorphic encryption (HE). Homomorphic encryption (HE) may enable users to perform computations on encrypted data without first decrypting it,” emphasizing that the HE technology similar to PSI has the benefit of performing computations on encrypted data “without first decrypting it.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of private set intersection for finding similarities between encrypted data sets, as taught by Buddhavarapu, into the optimal sourcing system for goods and service, of Woods, in order to enhance data privacy by not revealing the encrypted received data. (Buddhavarapu: Abstract, [0003])
Claims 4-5 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood, in view of Buddhavarapu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saad (US Patent Publication No. 2022/0366265).
With respect to claim 4, Wood and Buddhavarapu teach the limitations of claim 1.
Wood teaches sets of processing benefits as shown above in claim 1. In addition, Buddhavarapu teaches encrypted sets of data, [0023].
Moreover, Wood teaches:
wherein the interactive element enables the user to select at least one of the recommended set of items. (present information on a display screen having a "shop" button (i.e., interactive element): FIG. 4, [0053]-[0056], user can see comparison of costs on a single screen and select the product: [0054]-[0056])
The combination of Wood in view of Buddhavarapu does not explicitly teach:
retrieving an electronic activity history of the user;
determining, based on the electronic activity history and the selected one or more items, a behavior pattern of the user;
comparing the user behavior pattern to the …sets of processing benefits;
determining, based on the comparison, a recommended set of items comprising items that are associated with at least one processing benefit and that are not included in the one or more selected items,
However, Saad, which like the present Application is directed to providing product recommendations (benefits) to users based on user behavior (history), teaches:
retrieving an electronic activity history of the user; (collected behavioral data: [0017])
determining, based on the electronic activity history and the selected one or more items, a behavior pattern of the user; (identify patterns: [0017]-[0018], [0047])
comparing the user behavior pattern to the …sets of processing benefits; (identify repeatable patterns of user behavior with respect to certain products (repeated purchase): [0017], [0018]-[0021])
Although, Saad does not explicitly use the word” comparing”; however, “comparison” is inherent in identifying patterns of behavior with respect to a given data (product data)
determining, based on the comparison, a recommended set of items comprising items that are associated with at least one processing benefit and that are not included in the one or more selected items, (recommendation engine recommends products and services based on behavior patterns, the recommendation includes other resources similar to the selected resources by user (i.e., not included in the current list): FIG. 2 [[0015], 0017], [0037], [0039]-[0040], [0044], recommendations provided to user via a user interface: [0064], [0067])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of behavior patterns for providing recommendations to users, as taught by Saad, into the optimal sourcing system for goods and service, of Woods and Buddhavarapu, in order to incorporate data from previous user interactions into the recommendations. (Saad: Abstract, [0003])
With respect to claim 5, Wood, Buddhavarapu and Saad teach the limitations of claim 4.
Moreover, Saad teaches:
wherein determining the recommended set of items is further based on an electronic activity history of a second user via collaborative filtering, the collaborative filtering identifying items unique to the second user activity history. (behavior data relating to multiple groups of users (i.e., unique to other users) are used to feed product recommendation: [0017], [0029], using behavioral data for all users to learn which resources to recommend: [0062]-[0063])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of behavior patterns for providing recommendations to users, as taught by Saad, into the optimal sourcing system for goods and service, of Woods and Buddhavarapu, in order to incorporate data from previous user interactions into the recommendations. (Saad: Abstract, [0003])
With respect to claim 35, Wood and Buddhavarapu teach the limitations of claim 1.
Wood and Buddhavarapu do not explicitly teach:
retrieving an activity pattern of the user;
determining one or more electronic transaction options, each electronic transaction option associated with a respective processing channel, based on the user activity pattern; and
presenting the determined one or more electronic transaction options with the interactive element.
However, Saad teach:
retrieving an activity pattern of the user; (collected behavioral data: [0017])
determining one or more electronic transaction options, each electronic transaction option associated with a respective processing channel, based on the user activity pattern; (recommendation engine recommends products, services, sources of information, based on behavior patterns: FIG. 2, [0017], [0037]-[0038], recommendations can be of products or resources that are compatible with or otherwise similar to a user's prior transactions (i.e., transaction options) [0040], [0042], [0045], recommend fast-checkout (transaction option): [0061]-[0062])
The examiner notes that recommendations, as taught by Saad re similar or compatible with user’s prior transactions. Therefore, the recommendations as taught by Saad can be construed as transaction options.
presenting the determined one or more electronic transaction options with the interactive element. (recommendations provided to user via a user interface: [0064], [0067])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of behavior patterns for providing recommendations to users, as taught by Saad, into the optimal sourcing system for goods and service, of Woods and Buddhavarapu, in order to incorporate data from previous user interactions into the recommendations. (Saad: Abstract, [0003])
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood, in view of Buddhavarapu, and Saad, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Maskeri (US Patent Publication No. 2022/0351269.)
With respect to claim 6, Wood, Buddhavarapu and Saad teach the limitations of claim 4.
Wood, Buddhavarapu and Saad do not explicitly teach:
wherein a size of the recommended set of items and a frequency with which the interactive element is presented are determined using a feedback loop based on interactions from at least one previous user.
However, Maskeri, which like the present Application is directed to providing personalized recommendations to a user, teach:
wherein a size of the recommended set of items and a frequency with which the interactive element is presented are determined using a feedback loop based on interactions from at least one previous user. (the list of items may include number of items (size) depending on number of items previously purchased or a query (user feedback): [0040], [0051], updating momentum (i.e., frequency) of recommendations based on user feedback: [0058]-[0059])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of a momentum score for providing recommendations to users, as taught by Maskeri, into the optimal sourcing system for goods and service, of Woods, Buddhavarapu, and Saad, in order to personalize the recommendations based on user’s preferences. (Saad: Abstract, [0026])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chatterjee (US 10,163,148 ) teaches providing offers to a shopper based on purchase history. Rudmann (US 2021/0295409) teaches providing recommended items to a user via a selectable list.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMA ASGARI whose telephone number is (571)272-2037. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571)272-7575. 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.
/SIMA ASGARI/Examiner, Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights