DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on 29 October 2025.
Claims 1 – 8, 10 – 18, and 20 – 22 are presented for examination.
The following is a FINAL office action upon examination of application number 18/103236. Claims 1 – 8, 10 – 18, and 20 – 22 are pending in the application and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
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 .
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 29 October 2025, Applicant amended claims 1 – 4, 6 – 8, 10, and 21. Applicant previously cancelled claims 9 and 19.
Amendments to claims 1 – 4, 6 – 8, 10, and 21 are insufficient to overcome the 35 USC § 101 rejection. Therefore, the 35 USC § 101 rejection of claims 1 – 8, 10 – 18, and 20 – 22 are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, Applicant argues that claims improve the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Re-ordering of items requires browsing through multiple pages, according to Applicant, however, Examiner’s position is that reduction in the use of a processor and memory in claim 1 merely reduces the usage of a computing device, but does not recite any improvement to the user device functionality. These improvements to the abstract idea are different than improvements to technology or technical fields. The “Squires PTAB Decision” that Applicant references is not applicable to these claims, as those are related to the use of artificial intelligence, not claimed herein. The technology claimed merely uses the technology as a tool, and the reduction in processing argued is hypothetical as it does not prevent a user from clicking through even more or ignoring the notifications. The attempt to manage or influence user behavior is arguably an improvement to existing abstract functionality, but the computer technology to implement that abstract functionality is a simple “apply it” or equivalent. Examiner would also like to point out that the three independent claims are inconsistent, and it is unclear which of the independent claim language is being argued here.
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 – 8, 10 – 18, and 20 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas without significantly more. The independent claims recite identifying a basket being built by a user in real-time, identifying historical marketplace or online transaction information regarding online transactions for products or items corresponding to products included in the basket being built by the user in real-time, processing the historical marketplace or online transaction information using one or more k-means clustering, DBSCAN, gaussian mixture models, or hierarchical clustering to group products into or generate product-type clusters based on respective inter-purchase intervals (IPIs), respective basket sizes, and respective periods of time since respective last orders by the user, removing one or more product-type clusters from the product-type clusters that have IPIs that are below a predetermined duration of time for notification, analyzing product-type clusters to determine respective IPI likelihood scores for selection, during an online session, of each product in each product-type cluster based on the respective IPI and a global inter-purchase interval (GIPI) for another product belonging to a same product-type cluster of the product-type clusters and for which the user does not have a sufficient purchase history for a repurchase probability, identifying candidate products from product-type clusters that have respective likelihood scores that satisfy thresholds that are to be selected, determining a respective time and a duration for a respective repurchase notification for the user based on the respective IPI likelihood score for each candidate product, ranking candidate products based on respective IPI likelihood scores for the candidate products, and transmitting a notification or re-purchase notification to the user that includes a subset of candidate products, including a first section and a second section that include the subset of candidate products and a second portion of the subset of candidate products. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance section 2106 of the MPEP (hereinafter, MPEP 2106).
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the system and the method are directed to an eligible categories of subject matter. Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A prong 1 of MPEP 2106, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting concepts of grouping products for forecasting future re-purchase and determining shopping habits, which falls into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106, as it describes clear business functions. The claimed invention also recites an abstract idea that falls within the mental processes grouping. The limitations reciting the abstract idea in independent claims are identifying a basket being built by a user in real-time, identifying historical marketplace or online transaction information regarding online transactions for products or items corresponding to products included in the basket being built by the user in real-time, processing the historical marketplace or online transaction information using one or more k-means clustering, DBSCAN, gaussian mixture models, or hierarchical clustering to group products into or generate product-type clusters based on respective inter-purchase intervals (IPIs), respective basket sizes, and respective periods of time since respective last orders by the user, removing one or more product-type clusters from the product-type clusters that have IPIs that are below a predetermined duration of time for notification, analyzing product-type clusters to determine respective IPI likelihood scores for selection, during an online session, of each product in each product-type cluster based on the respective IPI and a global inter-purchase interval (GIPI) for another product belonging to a same product-type cluster of the product-type clusters and for which the user does not have a sufficient purchase history for a repurchase probability, identifying candidate products from product-type clusters that have respective likelihood scores that satisfy thresholds that are to be selected, determining a respective time and a duration for a respective repurchase notification for the user based on the respective IPI likelihood score for each candidate product, ranking candidate products based on respective IPI likelihood scores for the candidate products, and transmitting a notification or re-purchase notification to the user that includes a subset of candidate products, including a first section and a second section that include the subset of candidate products and a second portion of the subset of candidate products.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the MPEP 2106, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to processors, non-transitory computer-readable media, e-commerce platform, user devices used to browse with user interfaces provided by a web server, network notifications, user devices used to access a website or a mobile application associated with the web server, single click reorder options, server, and a graphical user interface, to implement the abstract idea. However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are directed to the use of generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the MPEP 2106) and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are directed to: processors, non-transitory computer-readable media, e-commerce platform, user devices used to browse with user interfaces provided by a web server, network notifications, user devices used to access a website or a mobile application associated with the web server, single click reorder options, server, and a graphical user interface, to implement the abstract idea. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment, though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, and it is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of concepts of further score determination, by way of example, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA GURSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7am to 5pm 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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/AMANDA GURSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625