DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
• The following is an office action in response to the communication filed 10/17/2025.
• Claims 1-18 have been amended.
• Claims 1-18 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. The 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.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. See MPEP 2106.03(II). In the instant case, claims 1-9 are directed to a machine and claims 10-18 are directed to a process. Therefore, claims 1-18 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong 1 of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong 2 of Step 2A). See MPEP 2106.04.
Taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
receive a session notification, associated with a customer, to initiate an additional purchase session in response to an activation by the customer of an additional purchase option provided on a confirmation displayed, in association with a first purchase session;
establish, in response to the session notification, a second purchase session, and link the first purchase session and the second purchase session as a single transaction;
incorporate into a second cart, associated with the second purchase session and different than a first cart associated with the first purchase session, item identification information for each of one or more items identified, by the customer and intended to be purchased by the customer in association with the second purchase session
identify that the first purchase session includes a first item having a purchase restriction condition;
designate the single transaction as a purchase restricted transaction based on the first purchase session including the first item;
displaying a representation corresponding to the single purchase transaction and encoding dynamically generated unique session identifiers of each purchase session linked to the single transaction comprising a first unique session identifier corresponding to the first purchase session and a second unique session identifier corresponding to the second purchase session;
in response to the representation, display a restriction condition associated with the purchase restricted transaction and including an entry option configured to receive condition information related to the purchase restriction condition and an abort option;
in response to determining the purchase restriction condition has been satisfied based on the condition information received via the entry option, cause a final authentication of the single transaction in authenticating at a single time of both the first purchase session and the second purchase session; and
in response to detecting an activation of the abort option, abort the first purchase session from the single transaction while maintaining the second purchase session as part of the single transaction and cause the final authentication of the single transaction in authenticating the second purchase session.
The above limitations recite the concept of linking carts in a single transaction and providing purchase restrictions. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. Specifically, the linking of carts for a single transaction is a sales activity because it pertains to items for purchase. Claim 10 recites similar concepts as claim 1 and accordingly falls within the same grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the MPEP, claims 1 and 10 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the MPEP, claims 1 and 11 recite additional elements, such as a system to control a mobile device in purchasing items, comprising: a product database; a transaction database; a mobile purchase control circuit communicatively coupled over a distributed communication network with the product database and the transaction database; a mobile customer computing device; executing a cart compile application; a confirmation user interface; a second virtual cart; a first virtual cart; control the mobile computing device in displaying an optical machine-readable representation; an associate computing device scanning the machine-readable representation; control the associate computing device to display a restriction condition user interface; a mobile purchase control circuit; and a distributed communication network. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. As such, these computer-related limitations are not found to be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Although these additional computer-related elements are recited, claims 1 and 10 merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Similar to the limitations of Alice, claims 1 and 10 merely recite a commonplace business method (i.e., linking carts in a single transaction and providing purchase restrictions) being applied on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, claims 1 and 10 generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The courts have identified various examples of limitations as merely indicating a field of use/technological environment in which to apply the abstract idea, such as specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer (see FairWarning v. Iatric Sys.). Likewise, claims 1 and 10 specifying that the abstract idea of linking carts in a single transaction and providing purchase restrictions is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the MPEP, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1 and 10 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Since claims 1 and 10 recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 1 and 10 are “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Next, under Step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. The instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for at least the following reasons.
Returning to independent claims 1 and 10, these claims recite additional elements, such as a system to control a mobile device in purchasing items, comprising: a product database; a transaction database; a mobile purchase control circuit communicatively coupled over a distributed communication network with the product database and the transaction database; a mobile customer computing device; executing a cart compile application; a confirmation user interface; a second virtual cart; a first virtual cart; control the mobile computing device in displaying an optical machine-readable representation; an associate computing device scanning the machine-readable representation; control the associate computing device to display a restriction condition user interface; a mobile purchase control circuit; and a distributed communication network. As discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although additional computer-related elements are recited, the claims merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Moreover, the limitations of claims 1 and 10 are manual processes, e.g., receiving information, sending information, etc. The courts have indicated that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)). Furthermore, as discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, claims 1 and 10 merely recite the additional elements in order to further define the field of use of the abstract idea, therein attempting to generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such as the Internet or computing networks (see Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC. (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bilski v. Kappos (2010); MPEP 2106.05(h)). Similar to FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., claims 1 and 10 specifying that the abstract idea of linking carts in a single transaction and providing purchase restrictions is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claim to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. In Alice Corp., the Court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘[a]dd nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’ and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Id. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, viewed as a whole, claims 1 and 10 simply convey the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1 and 10 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. Dependent claims 5 and 14 fail to identify additional elements and as such, are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Dependent claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-13, and 15-18 further identify additional elements, such as an optical machine-readable representation; an associate computing device comprising an associate device control circuit configured to execute an exit audit APP and to communicate via the distributed communication network with the mobile purchase control circuit; multiple scanned unique session identifiers extracted and decoded from the optical machine-readable representation in response to optically scanning; scanning the optical machine-readable representation; a restriction condition user interface; automatically establishing; an associate computing device; a third virtual cart; and a POS system. Similar to discussion above the with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although additional computer-related elements are recited, the claims merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such, under Step 2A, dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claims 1 and 10, dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and merely indicate a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Accordingly, under the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1-18 are ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the evidence obtained and made of record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of applicant’s invention as the noted features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art.
The most relevant prior art made of record includes previously cited Sivan et al. (US 20200402033 A1), hereinafter Sivan, previously cited Calvo et al. (US 20200160428 A1), hereinafter Calvo, in view of previously cited Sunder et al. (US 20240403847 A1), hereinafter Sunder, newly cited Quinn et al. (US 20150348168 A1), hereinafter Quinn, and previously cited NPL Reference U, initially cited in the Office action dated 07/29/2025.
Although individually the references teach concepts such as multiple purchase sessions, compiling carts, and items having purchase restrictions, none of the references teach nor render obvious initiating an additional purchase session, linking the purchase sessions, identifying a first session having a purchase restriction, displaying an optical readable representations, in response to scanning displaying a restriction condition user interface, and causing authentication or aborting.
Previously cited Sivan discloses a shopping cart method (Sivan: [0031]). Sivan further discloses allowing a user to add a product to the virtual shopping cart by selecting the product from a list or online store (e.g., from a search, a database, an ad, and/or others). Such a product detection system may perform automatic product detection remotely through communication with a remote computer system (e.g., cloud computer system) (Sivan: [0031]). Sivan additionally discloses receiving a new cart initiation to add a product to a virtual cart, where content of a cart may be transferred. Access to a cart may be removed and provided to a different device which may scan codes to add products to the cart (Sivan [0053; [0058]; [0074-0075]). Sivan further teaches blended shopping carts from multiple different environments can be checked out from one point of sale (Sivan: [0015]). Sivan further discloses determining that a device has permissions to check out (Sivan: [0081]). Yet Sivan does not explicitly disclose all of the limitations relating to the confirmation interface, the scanning, and the restricted transaction.
Previously cited Calvo teaches a method of shopping (Calvo: [0165]). Calvo teaches after an order has been submitted for checkout, a message is displayed thanking the customer user for placing the order. Separate confirmations are displayed for items that are ordered for shipping versus same-day delivery. An order edit button is provided to allow a user to edit the same day shipment order up until a certain point. In this example the customer user has until 8 p.m. to add items change quantity and more (Calvo: [0165] and Fig. 16). However, Calvo does not teach all of the limitations regarding the purchase sessions, the scanning, and the transaction restriction.
Previously cited Sunder teaches a shopping method (Sunder: [abstract]). Sunder further teaches generating a transaction status updated for an age-restricted sale (Sunder: [0019-0020]). Sunder further teaches options on an interface corresponding to an age-restricted sale, where an attendant may approve or decline the sale (Sunder: [0050]). However, Sunder does not teach the limitations regarding the multiple purchase sessions or the scanning.
Newly cited Quinn teaches a method of shopping carts (Quinn: [0100]). Quinn further teaches maintaining multiple shopping carts, where functions such as deleting carts may be available (Quinn: [0100]). However, Quinn does not teach the limitations regarding the restricted transaction or the scanning.
Previously cited NPL reference U, initially cited in the Office action dated 07/29/2025, teaches optimization of checkouts. Abandoned carts can be recovered through email campaigns. Carts may be recovered after being abandoned. However, U does not explicitly teach the limitations regarding the scanning or the transaction restrictions.
While these references arguably teach the claimed limitations using a piecemeal analysis, these references would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant's disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e., hindsight reasoning). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Accordingly, claims 1 and 10, taken as a whole, are indicated to be allowable over the cited prior art. The examiner emphasizes that it is the interrelationship of the limitations that renders these claims allowable over the prior art/additional art. Claims 2-9 and 11-18 depend from claims 1 and 10, and therefore the dependent claims are also indicated as containing allowable subject matter.
The examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as combining various references from the totality of the evidence to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of the Applicant's claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
It is thereby asserted by the examiner that, in light of the above and in further deliberation over all the evidence at hand, that the claims are allowable as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/17/2025, have been fully considered.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant argues the claims do not recite an abstract idea because “claim 1 recites much more that a method for organizing human activity’” (Remarks page 12). The examiner disagrees. The MPEP enumerates groupings of abstract ideas, thereby synthesizing the holdings of various court decisions to facilitate examination. See MPEP 2106.04. Among the enumerated groupings is the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping, which includes activity that falls within the enumerated sub-grouping of commercial or legal interactions, including subject matter relating to agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. With respect to the claims, the examiner notes a system to control a mobile device in purchasing items, comprising: a product database; a transaction database; a mobile purchase control circuit communicatively coupled over a distributed communication network with the product database and the transaction database; a mobile customer computing device; executing a cart compile application; a confirmation user interface; a second virtual cart; a first virtual cart; control the mobile computing device in displaying an optical machine-readable representation; an associate computing device scanning the machine-readable representation; control the associate computing device to display a restriction condition user interface; a mobile purchase control circuit; and a distributed communication network have been analyzed as additional elements and accordingly are not analyzed under Step 2A, Prong 1. The amendments further recite limitations such as merging carts and performing actions based on purchase restrictions. These amendments represent certain methods of organizing human activity. The relate to transactions and thus represent sales activities, which fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, these claims recite Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Applicant argues the claims are integrated into a practical application because the claims are “[s]imilar to example 42” (Remarks pages 13-14). The examiner disagrees. The subject matter eligibility examples are hypothetical and only intended to be illustrative of the claim analysis under the MPEP. These examples are to be interpreted based on the fact patterns set forth in each example, as other fact patterns may have different eligibility outcomes. Example 42 provided a technical improvement by allowing users to share information in real-time in a standardized format, regardless of the format in which the information was uploaded. This provided a technical solution to the technical problem of formatting inconsistencies. The present claims provide no analogous technical solution. The claims provide no similar standardization of formatting of data which may be shared in real time, regardless of the format in which the data was uploaded. Furthermore, unlike Example 42, Applicant’s specification provides no explanation of an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology. While the Examiner agrees that the specification addresses shortcomings in the field of shopping, the discussions present in the specification do not go as far as to address shortcomings in a technical field. Rather, the specification focuses on problems related to the business aspects of shopping rather than problems related to the technical field. Accordingly, there is no evidence, short of attorney argument, that a technological improvement is provided.
Applicant argues the claims provide significantly more because “claim 1 provides improvements in the technical field” (Remarks pages 14-15). The examiner disagrees. The MPEP sets forth that if a claim has been determined to be directed to a judicial exception under revised Step 2A, examiners should then evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, Applicant's claims merely recite steps of a method with generic computer components being recited in a generic manner. While electronic devices such as a system to control a mobile device in purchasing items, comprising: a product database; a transaction database; a mobile purchase control circuit communicatively coupled over a distributed communication network with the product database and the transaction database; a mobile customer computing device; executing a cart compile application; a confirmation user interface; a second virtual cart; a first virtual cart; control the mobile computing device in displaying an optical machine-readable representation; an associate computing device scanning the machine-readable representation; control the associate computing device to display a restriction condition user interface; a mobile purchase control circuit; and a distributed communication network are included within the claims, they are claimed in a generic manner and merely perform generic functions. The additional elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. Put another way, these additional elements are merely used to apply the abstract idea of linking carts in a single transaction and providing purchase restrictions in a technological environment without effectuating any improvement or change to the functioning of the additional elements or other technology. Applicant’s disclosure does not articulate or suggest how these additional elements function, individually or in combination, in any manner other than using generic functionality nor does the disclosure articulate how the elements provide a technical improvement. Accordingly, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to using the additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Accordingly, these limitations represent elements encompassed by the abstract idea and are not analyzed as additional elements.
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 ANNA MAE MITROS whose telephone number is (571)272-3969. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30-6.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/ANNA MAE MITROS/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/MARISSA THEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689