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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 4-7 remain pending, and are rejected.
Claims 8-16 have been added, and are rejected.
Claims 2-3 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 8/11/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive for at least the following rationale:
Applicant’s arguments filed on 8/11/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for claims directed to a judicial exception are not persuasive.
Notably, on pages 10-11 of the Applicant’s Remarks, arguments are made that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and if it did, integrates any such idea into a practical application. The Applicant argues that the claims do not merely recite displaying a purchase history, but a specific, ordered process comprising acquiring product identification information about an intended purchase product from a portable terminal being operated by a customer, acquiring an associated purchase history of an associated product, determining whether that associated purchase history satisfies a display condition, and selectively transmitting only the associated purchase history that satisfies the display condition. Further arguments are made that this is a data-acquisition-and-selective-transmission pipeline between two devices, not a human commercial interaction.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. A process of displaying a purchase history, but a specific, ordered process comprising acquiring product identification information about an intended purchase product from a portable terminal being operated by a customer, acquiring an associated purchase history of an associated product, determining whether that associated purchase history satisfies a display condition, and selectively transmitting only the associated purchase history that satisfies the display condition recites a commercial process of displaying associated purchase histories to a product the user is intending to purchase. There is nothing inherently technical to this process. The display conditions also do not represent any technical activity, but merely outlines conditions within the abstract process of what purchase histories to display to a user. The portable device also does not make this process not directed to the abstract idea. The portable device merely provides a general link to a computing environment, such that the abstract idea may be performed on a computing device, automating any activity that would be performed by a store associate or agent that has access to previous purchases made by the user. The limitations of the claims are only directed to acquiring customer and intended purchase product information, acquiring purchase history of a product, and transmitting the purchase history upon satisfaction of a display condition, which are all commercial activities unrelated to any technology.
On pages 11-12, the Applicant argues that the claims recites a specific, ordered process that addresses a problem the specification ties to the in-store point of product selection, with the difficulty to use the product purchase history of the customer in order to purchase a product in a store, and how it may be difficult to find previous product purchase information about a product intended to be purchased at a time for selecting a product in a store. The specification paragraph [0008] is also cited as the stated object is “to provide a management apparatus, a terminal, management method and the like that solve a challenge to use a purchase history of a customer for the customer to purchase a product in a store”, and solving this problem acquiring product identification information from an in-store portable terminal and selectively transmitting only the associated purchase history that satisfies the recited predetermined display condition.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The state problem of difficulty to use the product purchase history of the customer in order to purchase a product in a store, and how it may be difficult to find previous product purchase information about a product intended to be purchased at a time for selecting a product in a store does not describe a technical problem, but a commercial problem. These problems describe a problem of difficulty of selecting a product to purchase and difficulty of identifying previous purchase information, which are shopping ideas. As discussed above, the steps of acquiring product identification information and transmitting purchase history of associated items that satisfy predetermined display conditions not represent any technical activity, and is a commercial activity. The providing of a management apparatus, a terminal, management method, and the like does not represent any meaningful involvement. Management of product histories is not a technical endeavor, and merely providing an apparatus and a terminal to the abstract idea does not provide any meaningful limitation. This only provides a general link to a computing environment to automate the abstract idea on a computing device, as discussed above.
In view of the above, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been maintained below.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 8/11/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Notably, on pages 13-14 of the Applicant’s Remarks, it is argued that Yeh in view of Sridhar does not disclose the display conditions of the “a first condition that the associated product is purchased within a predetermined display target period”. It is argued that Sridhar discloses a forward-looking prediction window and a probability threshold for a machine-learned re-order model, and the present claims are intended for a recorded purchase time of an actual past purchase.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The language of the claims recites “a first condition that the associated product is purchased within a predetermined display target period”, which defines a future context. Sridhar discloses displaying a past purchased product if the probability threshold is met (display condition) to be purchased in a particular time period (predetermined display target period). To clarify the language to pertain to past purchases, the claim limitation should read “a first condition that the associated product was purchased within a predetermined display target period”.
On pages 14-15, it is argued that the limitation of “a second display condition that the associated purchase history of the associated product is a latest purchase history of the associated product”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite “the predetermined display condition includes at least one of:”. As discussed above, Sridhar discloses the first display condition, and thus, discloses the limitations of at least one of the display conditions.
On page 15, it is argued that the references do not disclose “transmitting… the associated purchase history of the associated product”, arguing that Sridhar discloses transmitting a set of recommended re-order items, and not purchase histories. The Applicant cites specification paragraph [0075], which describes that a purchase history may include at least one of purchase time, a product name, a purchase price, a purchase number, and discount information.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Both Yeh and Sridhar disclose presenting previously purchased products, and displaying the names of those products as defined in the Applicant’s specification. Yeh discloses editing displays to display the recommended products of products purchased in the past (Yeh: [0071-0072], and Fig. 7 displaying product names of the recommended items. Sridhar discloses presenting the previously purchased products for re-ordering (Sridhar: [0048]), and displays a list of the product names in Fig. 8.
On pages 15-16, it is argued that the references do not reasonably suggest “acquiring, from a terminal of a portable type being operated by a customer in a store, customer identification information, for identifying the customer, and product identification information about an intended purchase product of the customer”. The Applicant argues that the cited portion of Yeh does not have any indication of a terminal “being operated by a customer in a store” or “product identification information about an intended purchase product”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited paragraph [0070] of Yeh discloses the receiving of the information from the user computing device, which would mean the device is operated by a customer, and the recitation of “in a store” merely defines a design choice, but does not affect the functionality of the invention. Where the customer is located or operating their device merely represents a design choice and does not meaningfully affect whether customer and product identification information may be received from the user device, acquiring a product purchase history, and transmitting an associated purchase history based on a display condition.
On pages 16-17, it is argued that the motivation to combine Sridhar with Yeh is expressly a website/online efficiency motivation and provides no reason to arrive at an in-store portable terminal acquisition as recited in the claims.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, the customer being located in a store is a design choice, and does not otherwise affect the functionality of the claims, and the combination of Yeh and Sridhar discloses the limitations of the claim. The motivation would be appropriate as the difficulty of using the product purchase history is not unique to in-store interactions, and both the present claims and cited references are performed on the user computing device.
In view of the above, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been maintained below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 4-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1 and 8-10 are directed to an apparatus. Claims 4-6 and 11-13 are directed to a terminal, which is an apparatus. Claims 7 and 14-16 are directed to a method, which is a processor. Therefore, claims 1 and 4-16 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A (Prong 1):
Taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 sets forth the following limitations (emphasized in bold) reciting the abstract idea of displaying relevant purchase histories to an intended purchase product:
acquiring, from a terminal of a portable type being operated by a customer in a store, customer identification information for identifying the customer and product identification information about an intended purchase product of the customer;
acquiring, based on purchase history information indicating a purchase history of a product by the customer and from among purchase histories of the customer, an associated purchase history of an associated product associated with the intended purchase product;
transmitting the associated purchase history of the associated product to the terminal, wherein:
transmitting the purchase history includes:
determining whether the associated purchase history of the associated product satisfies a predetermined display condition; and
transmitting, to the terminal and based on determining that the purchase history of the associated product satisfies the predetermined display condition, the associated purchase history of the associated product;
the predetermined display condition includes at least one of:
a first condition that the associated product is purchased within a predetermined display target period; and
a second condition that the associated purchase history of the associated product is a latest purchase history of the associated product.
The recited limitations above set forth the process for displaying relevant purchase histories to an intended purchase product. These limitations amount to certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial or legal interactions (e.g. advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, etc.). The claims recite acquiring customer information and an intended purchase product to acquire a purchase history of an associated product and displaying the purchase history based on a condition that the associated product is purchased within a predetermined display target period or a condition that the associated purchase history of the associated product is a latest purchase history (see specification [0006-0007], which discloses the problem of using a purchase history to purchase a product), which is a process of recommending items to a user, and is a sales and marketing activity.
Such concepts have been identified by the courts as abstract ideas (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A (Prong 2):
Examiner acknowledges that representative Claim 1 does recite additional elements, such as:
at least one memory configured to store instructions;
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations;
a terminal of a portable type being operated by a customer in a store;
Taken individually and as a whole, representative claim 1 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception as the additional elements merely serve to implement the abstract idea in a computing environment.
Furthermore, this is also because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement a judicial exception with a particular machine, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
While there is recitation of a memory and processor, these elements are recited with a very high level of generality. As disclosed in paragraph [0106] of the specification and Fig. 12, the processor is “a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), or the like”. The memory is disclosed in paragraph [0107] as “a main storage apparatus achieved by a random access memory (RAM) and the like”. As such, it is clear that these elements are generic computing elements that only serve to provide the abstract idea a general link to a computing environment. The terminal is also disclosed very generically in the specification. Specification paragraph [0111] and Fig. 13 disclose the device as including a processor, a memory, a storage device, a network interface, an input interface, etc. Paragraph [0110] discloses where the terminal is “a smartphone, a tablet terminal, and the like”. The terminal is any generic computing device, and also only serves to generally link the abstract idea to a computing environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (Prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see: MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2B:
Returning to claim 1, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). As noted above, the additional elements recited in representative claim 1 are recited in a generic manner with a high level of generality and only serve to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing device. The claims result only in an improved abstract idea itself and do not reflect improvements to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process ultimately amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept under step 2B, and is ineligible for patenting.
Regarding Claim 4 (terminal): Claim 4 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 4 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7 (method): Claim 7 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 7 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 1.
Dependent claims 5-6 and 8-16 recite further complexity to the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 1, such as by further defining the algorithm for determining displaying relevant purchase histories to an intended purchase product. Thus, each of claims 5-6 and 8-16 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (Prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 5-6 and 8-16 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, dependent claims 5-6 and 8-16 rely on at least similar elements as recited in claim 1. Further additional elements are also acknowledged; however, the additional elements of claims 5-6 and 8-16 are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, this is also because the claims fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Taken individually and as a whole, dependent claims 5-6 and 8-16 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception under step 2A (prong 2).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 5-6 and 8-16 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. The dependent claims recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and use the computing device to implement the abstract idea, while failing to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The dependent claims fail to confer eligibility under step 2B because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware and generally link the exception to a technological environment.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
Taken individually or as an ordered combination, the dependent claims simply convey the abstract idea itself applied on a generic computer and are held to be ineligible under Steps 2B for at least similar rationale as discussed above regarding claim 1. Thus, dependent claims 5-6 and 8-16 do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7-8, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Yeh (US 20190187864 A1) in view of Sridhar (US 20210241347 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Yeh discloses an apparatus comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions; (Yeh: [0096] – “The system memory 2030 may include non-volatile memories such as read-only memory (“ROM”), programmable read-only memory (“PROM”), erasable programmable read-only memory (“EPROM”), flash memory, or any other device capable of storing program instructions or data with or without applied power”).
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations; (Yeh: [0095] – “The processor 2010 may be configured to execute code or instructions to perform the operations and functionality described herein, manage request flow and address mappings, and to perform calculations and generate commands. The processor 2010 may be configured to monitor and control the operation of the components in the computing machine 2000. The processor 2010 may be a general purpose processor, a processor core, a multiprocessor, a reconfigurable processor, a microcontroller, a digital signal processor (“DSP”), an application specific integrated circuit (“ASIC”), a graphics processing unit (“GPU”), a field programmable gate array (“FPGA”), a programmable logic device (“PLD”), a controller, a state machine, gated logic, discrete hardware components, any other processing unit, or any combination or multiplicity thereof”).
acquiring, from a terminal of a portable type being operated by a customer in a store, customer identification information for identifying the customer and product identification information about an intended purchase product of the customer; (Yeh: [0070] – “the product management computing system 120 receives the request for product recommendations and the user generated shopping list. For example, the product management computing system 120 receives the request for product recommendations and the user generated shopping list from the user computing device 110 via the network 140. For example, the product management computing system 120 receives the request for objects that correspond to the items on the user generated shopping list from the user computing device 110 via the network 140. In another example, the product management computing system 120 receives the request for product recommendations, the shopping list identifier or user shopping list name associated with the user generated shopping list, and a user identifier associated with the user via the network 140 from the user computing device 110. In this example, the product management computing system 120 retrieves shopping lists associated with the user account identifier, identifies the shopping list associated with the received shopping list name or the received shopping list identifier, and identifies the one or items in the identified shopping list that corresponds to the shopping list name or shopping list identifier”).
acquiring, based on purchase history information indicating a purchase history of a product by the customer and from among purchase histories of the customer, an associated purchase history of an associated product associated with the intended purchase product; (Yeh: [0071] – “the product management computing system 120 retrieves user purchase history and user preferences. In an example, the user purchase history comprises one or more products purchased by the user that were previously recommended by the product management computing system 120 for one or more previous user generated shopping lists. In an example, user preferences may comprise preferred products and a user may mark one or more product listings of the product management computing system 120 as preferred products when editing optimized displays of recommended products so that the product management computing system 120 can prioritize such preferred products when presenting product recommendations to the user in the future. In another example, user preferences comprise products or objects that the user has viewed and/or selected in the application 115 or web browser 117. In yet another example, user preferences comprise products or objects that the user has purchased in the past via the product managemetn computing system”).
transmitting the associated purchase history of the associated product to the terminal. (Yeh: [0072] – “editing optimized displays of recommended products so that the product management computing system 120 can prioritize such preferred products when presenting product recommendations to the user in the future”).
Yeh does not explicitly teach transmitting the purchase history includes:
determining whether the purchase history of the associated product satisfies a predetermined display condition;
transmitting, to the terminal and based on determining that the purchase history of the associated product satisfies the predetermined display condition, the associated purchase history of the associated product;
the predetermined display condition includes at least one of:
a first condition that the associated product is purchased within a predetermined display target period; and
a second condition that the associated purchase history of the associated product is a latest purchase history of the associated product.
Notably, however, Yeh does disclose displaying the products from the retrieved product history on the user interface (Yeh: [0071-0072]).
To that accord, Sharma does teach wherein transmitting the purchase history includes:
determining whether the purchase history of the associated product satisfies a predetermined display condition; (Sridhar: [0048] – “recommendation server 310 can perform modifying and/or updating a probability of re-ordering each of the items previously ordered by the user. In several embodiments, the probability of re-ordering a set of items, based on one or more machine learned predictive basket models, can be for a specific period of time. In many embodiments, the probability of re-ordering a set of items can depend on whether each item of the set of items exceeds a predetermined threshold and/or a predetermined re-order likelihood score”). The determining of items to re-order represent the product history.
transmitting, to the terminal and based on determining that the purchase history of the associated product satisfies the predetermined display condition, the associated purchase history of the associated product; (Sridhar: [0083] – “sending instructions to display the set of items to the user on a user interface”).
the predetermined display condition includes at least one of:
a first condition that the associated product is purchased within a predetermined display target period; and
a second condition that the associated purchase history of the associated product is a latest purchase history of the associated product.
Examiner notes that Applicant recites at least one of in the claim. (Sridhar: [0048] – “the probability of re-ordering a set of items, based on one or more machine learned predictive basket models, can be for a specific period of time. In many embodiments, the probability of re-ordering a set of items can depend on whether each item of the set of items exceeds a predetermined threshold and/or a predetermined re-order likelihood score before the item can be included in the set of items for a particular time period”). The probability threshold for a specific period of time is equivalent to the product being purchased within a predetermined display target period.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Yeh disclosing a system for determining product recommendations for an intended purchase item from the user purchase history with the determining of whether the product satisfies a predetermined display condition as taught by Sridhar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce the time of the user to look through pages of a website and to not forget items they would prefer to re-order (Sridhar: [0002]).
Regarding Claims 4 and 7: Claims 4 and 7 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claims 4 and 7 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 8: Yeh in view of Sridhar discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Yeh does not explicitly teach the method further comprising:
acquiring and setting a display target period based on frequency with which the customer purchases a product belonging to a range defined by associated product defining information;
determining a display condition using the display target period as specific to the customer.
Notably, however, Yeh does disclose displaying the products from the retrieved product history on the user interface (Yeh: [0071-0072]).
To that accord, Sridhar does disclose the method further comprising:
acquiring and setting a display target period based on frequency with which the customer purchases a product belonging to a range defined by associated product defining information; (Sridhar: [0063] – “the period of time for the next visit can include the next day, the next two weeks, or another suitable period of time when the user visits the page”).
determining a display condition using the display target period as specific to the customer. (Sridhar: Sridhar: [0065] – “a performance of the logistic regression model is evaluated against a set of periodic frequencies of the online transactions and the in-store transactions for each item of the set of items to predict a confidence level of the probability. In a number of embodiments, training a logistic regression model to create a trained model using first data (e.g., training data) can provide a probability of a user of the users selecting a previously ordered item to re-order during a second period of time”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Yeh disclosing a system for determining product recommendations for an intended purchase item from the user purchase history with the setting a display target period and condition specific to the customer as taught by Sridhar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to utilize user patterns and average frequency for products (Sridhar: [0057]).
Regarding Claims 11 and 14: Claims 11 and 14 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 8. Therefore, claims 11 and 14 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 8 above.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Yeh (US 20190187864) and Sridhar (US 20210241347 A1), in view of Argue (US 20140089133 A1).
Regarding Claim 5: The combination of Yeh and Sridhar discloses the limitations of claim 4 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach displaying the associated purchase history includes simultaneously displaying, on the display, the associated purchase history of the associated product and product information about the intended purchase product. Notably, however, Yeh does disclose generating an optimized display of recommended products (Yeh: [0072]).
To that accord, Argue does teach displaying the associated purchase history includes simultaneously displaying, on the display, the associated purchase history of the associated product and product information about the intended purchase product. (Argue: [0027] – “the substitution server 20 may be configured to recommend a potential substitute for a purchased item if the potential substitute is an adequate substitute for the purchased item and the potential substitute provides the user with an opportunity to save money. The substitution server 20 transmits a set of recommended substitutes for the item(s) included in the shopping list back to the computing device”; Sridhar: [0028] – “The computing device 10 receives the purchase history and the sets of recommended substitutes and displays them in the GUI 12. Referring now to FIG. 1B, an example of the GUI 12 is displaying purchased items appearing in the purchase history and is further displaying the recommended substitutes in relation to the purchased items to which they correspond”; Sridhar: Fig. 1B – displaying a shopping list that also displays the recommended item).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Yeh and Sridhar disclosing a system for determining product recommendations for an intended purchase item from the user purchase history with the displaying of the purchase history recommended items within the shopping list of items as taught by Argue. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to display properties that are associated with the substitute product in relation to the list (Argue: [0029]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Yeh (US 20190187864) and Sridhar (US 20210241347 A1), in view of Singh (US 20200342516 A1).
Regarding Claim 6: The combination of Yeh and Sridhar discloses the limitations of claim 4 above.
Yeh further discloses accepting a selection of the associated product included in the associated purchase history; (Yeh: [0085] – “the user selects products from the optimized list of product recommendations to add to a list of desired products. For example, the user may scroll, swipe, or otherwise navigate through product listings associated with each item and may select one or more user interface 111 objects to add one or more product listings to a virtual cart”).
Yeh does not explicitly teach further comprising:
receiving, from the management apparatus, a simultaneous purchase history of a simultaneous purchase product being a simultaneous product purchased together with the associated product;
displaying the received simultaneous purchase history of the simultaneous purchase product on the display.
Notably, however, Yeh does disclose displaying the products from the retrieved product history on the user interface (Yeh: [0071-0072]).
To that accord, Singh does teach further comprising:
receiving, from the management apparatus, a simultaneous purchase history of a simultaneous purchase product being a simultaneous product purchased together with the associated product; (Singh: [0051] – “the combination generator 206 can access the buyer's purchase history and identify a related item. For instance, the buyer may have purchases a bicycle in the past and now has a bike helmet in the virtual cart. The combination generator 206 can recommend a portable bike tire pump to the buyer. Alternatively, the items can be recommended from the buyer's wishlist, watchlist, or past browsing history that is not related to the item(s) in the virtual cart. Therefore, the recommended items can, for example, comprise one or more of related items (e.g., frequently bought together)”).
displaying the received simultaneous purchase history of the simultaneous purchase product on the display. (Singh: [0052] – “the recommended items are presented to the buyer. In example embodiments, the user interface module 204 updates the buyer user interface displaying the virtual cart to show the recommended items”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Yeh and Sridhar disclosing a system for determining product recommendations for an intended purchase item from the user purchase history with the receiving of a purchase history for products being purchased together as taught by Singh. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to generate combinations of related items together for the buyer (Singh: [0050]).
Claims 9, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Yeh (US 20190187864) and Sridhar (US 20210241347 A1), in view of Avlani (US 20200134695 A1).
Regarding Claim 9: The combination of Yeh in view of Sridhar discloses the limitations or claim 1 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the product identification information about the intended purchase product is detected and acquired from any of a bar code and an RFID tag read by a camera of the terminal being operated by the customer in the store. Notably, however, Yeh does disclose receiving a shopping list of items to purchase from the user (Yeh: [0070]).
To that accord, Avlani does teach wherein the product identification information about the intended purchase product is detected and acquired from any of a bar code and an RFID tag read by a camera of the terminal being operated by the customer in the store. (Avlani: [0176] – “User A having performed the product add event 712 (by typing search terms matching the product, by capturing an image of the product package, by scanning the barcode or the like), the system 200 may generate an AI generated product suggestion action 711 which, for example, it is recommended to User A the adding of complementary item category “Oven Baked Chips” to the shopping list”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination Yeh and Sridhar disclosing a system for determining product recommendations for an intended purchase item from the user purchase history with the product identification being provided by a bar code of RFID tag as taught by Avlani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to verify the product data of the products on the shopping list (Avlani: [0174]).
Regarding Claims 12 and 15: Claims 12 and 15 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 9. Therefore, claims 12 and 15 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 9 above.
Claims 10, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Yeh (US 20190187864) and Sridhar (US 20210241347 A1), in view of Thomas (US 20150006319 A1).
Regarding Claim 10: The combination of Yeh in view of Sridhar discloses the limitations or claim 1 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the associated purchase history of the associated product is displayed, a purchase history of a simultaneous purchase product being a product purchased together with the associated product in a specific past purchase event is obtained and displayed. Notably, however, Yeh does disclose displaying the products from the retrieved product history on the user interface (Yeh: [0071-0072]).
To that accord, Thomas does teach wherein the associated purchase history of the associated product is displayed, a purchase history of a simultaneous purchase product being a product purchased together with the associated product in a specific past purchase event is obtained and displayed. (Thomas: [0047] – “the Cart App causes the device to present to the user suggested items. FIG. 6 is an illustration of an embodiment wherein suggested items are presented to the user. In an example, the Cart Server may communicate the suggested items to the Cart App. The particular items 602 suggested are based on information such as purchase history, current location of the user in the store, items commonly purchased together with the items in the user's shopping list or shopping cart”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of the combination Yeh and Sridhar disclosing a system for determining product recommendations for an intended purchase item from the user purchase history with the display of past purchase of a product purchased together with the associated product as taught by Thomas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to easily present and provide suggestions of items based on purchase history to the user (Thomas: [0004]).
Regarding Claims 13 and 16: Claims 13 and 16 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 10. Therefore, claims 13 and 16 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 10 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li (US 20120310731 A1) discloses [0085] – “When the association strength between a main product and related products is based on historical transaction records, the association strength retrieval element 1040 may be configured to determine, for a given time interval, the number of buyer-users who took an action after accessing the related product information page from the main product information page and the number of users who have accessed the main product information page”.
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 TIMOTHY J KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30am - 7:00pm 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, Maria-Teresa 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.
/T.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 9/24/2026
