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 .
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications received on 12/22/2025. Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1, 11, and 18 have been amended. Claims 5 and 15 have been cancelled.
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.
Step 1: The claims 1-4, 6-10 are a method, claims 11-14, 16-17 are a system, and claims 18-20 are a computer readable medium. Thus, each independent claim, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. §101. However, the claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims (1, 11 and 18, taking claim 1 as a representative claim) recite:
A method comprising:
receiving an item from a first mobile device associated with a first user;
adding the item to a display interface of the first mobile device, wherein the display interface comprises a digital retail listing that is shared with a second mobile device associated with a second user;
determining a first proximate location within a retail environment of the added item in the digital retail listing;
executing a preauthorization operation at the second mobile device associated with the second user, wherein the preauthorization operation initializes a payment operation using funds controlled by the first mobile device associated with the first user;
detecting, in real-time based on a location of the second mobile device associated with the second user, that the second mobile device is within a predetermined proximity associated with the retail environment;
determining, in real-time based on the location of the second mobile device, a second proximate location of the second mobile device associated with the second user in the retail environment;
determining a maximum data value associated with the added item;
determining that the maximum data value of the added item does not exceed a predetermined maximum data value threshold associated with digital listing rendered at the second mobile device associated with the second user;
responsive to detecting the second proximate location of the second mobile device in the retail environment, determining, in real-time, that the second mobile device associated with the second user is within the predetermined proximity of the first proximate location of the added item in the digital retail listing; and
responsive to the maximum data value of the added item exceeding the predetermined maximum data value threshold, disabling the payment operation at the second mobile device;
and responsive to determining that the second mobile device associated with the second user is within the predetermined proximity of the first proximate location of the added item in the digital retail listing and the added item does not exceed the predetermined maximum data value threshold;
(i) causing, in real-time, a first notification display on a display interface of the second mobile device associated with the second user, (ii) enabling the second mobile device associated with the second user to access the funds controlled by the first mobile device associated with the first user, (iii) enabling the initialized payment operation at the second mobile device associated with the second user based on the preauthorization operation, and (iv) executing the payment operation for the item added in the digital retail listing at the second mobile device using the funds controlled by the first mobile device associated with the first user.
These limitations, except for the italicized portions, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, recite certain methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as well as commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). The claimed invention recites steps for carrying out a collaborative shopping operation through a shared communication of items needing purchased and shared access to funds. The shared funds and preauthorization access avoids the need for reimbursement to the buying partying. The notifications allow the parties to be aware of when a user has entered a store that might have an item another party is interested in purchasing [008-0010]. The steps under its broadest reasonable interpretation specifically fall under sales activities. The Examiner notes that although the claim limitations are summarized, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim and all of the claim elements individually, as a whole, and in ordered combination.
Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of
A method comprising: (claim 1)
A system, comprising: one or more computer processors; and a memory containing a program which when executed by the one or more computer processors performs an operation, the operation comprising: (claim 11)
A computer readable storage medium having computer-readable program code embodied therewith, the computer-readable program code executable by one or more computer processors to: (claim 18)
receiving an item from a first mobile device associated with a first user;
adding the item to a display interface of the first mobile device, wherein the display interface comprises a digital retail listing that is shared with a second mobile device associated with a second user;
determining a first proximate location within a retail environment of the added item in the digital retail listing;
executing a preauthorization operation at the second mobile device associated with the second user, wherein the preauthorization operation initializes a payment operation using funds controlled by the first mobile device associated with the first user;
detecting, in real-time based on a location of the second mobile device associated with the second user, that the second mobile device is within a predetermined proximity associated with the retail environment;
determining, in real-time based on the location of the second mobile device, a second proximate location of the second mobile device associated with the second user in the retail environment;
determining a maximum data value associated with the added item;
determining that the maximum data value of the added item does not exceed a predetermined maximum data value threshold associated with digital listing rendered at the second mobile device associated with the second user;
responsive to detecting the second proximate location of the second mobile device in the retail environment, determining, in real-time, that the second mobile device associated with the second user is within the predetermined proximity of the first proximate location of the added item in the digital retail listing; and
responsive to the maximum data value of the added item exceeding the predetermined maximum data value threshold, disabling the payment operation at the second mobile device;
and responsive to determining that the second mobile device associated with the second user is within the predetermined proximity of the first proximate location of the added item in the digital retail listing and the added item does not exceed the predetermined maximum data value threshold;
(i) causing, in real-time, a first notification display on a display interface of the second mobile device associated with the second user, (ii) enabling the second mobile device associated with the second user to access the funds controlled by the first mobile device associated with the first user, (iii) enabling the initialized payment operation at the second mobile device associated with the second user based on the preauthorization operation, and (iv) executing the payment operation for the item added in the digital retail listing at the second mobile device using the funds controlled by the first mobile device associated with the first user.
The additional elements emphasized above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application – MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, these additional elements when considered individually or as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1, 11, and 18 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 11, and 18 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05).
As such, independent claims 1, 11, and 18 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-10, 12-14, and 16-20 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to the same abstract idea of Independent Claims 1, 11 and 18 without significantly more.
Claim 2 recites, further comprising before enabling the second mobile device associated with the second user to access the funds controlled by the first mobile device associated with the first user: capturing, using a camera in the second mobile device, an image of the item; identifying the item based on the image; and adding the item to a virtual shopping cart managed by a mobile shopping application executing on the second mobile device. The claim recites the further additional elements of the camera and a mobile application, however the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 3 recites wherein the second user can execute the payment operation for the item using the mobile shopping application without having to use a checkout kiosk in the retail environment. The claim recites the further additional element of a mobile application, however the additional element is recited at a high level of generality and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 4 recites further comprising, responsive to adding the item to the display interface of the first mobile device determining, in real-time, the second user has added a same item as the item in the digital retail listing to the virtual shopping cart; and Causing, in real-time, a second notification to the display interface of the second mobile device associated with the second user indicating that the same item is also on the digital retail listing to prompt the second user to add the item to the virtual shopping cart and purchase the item on behalf of the first user, wherein the first and second notifications comprise graphical alphanumerical elements. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and the recitation of the notifications displayed are recited at a high level of generality with respect to the interface and therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 6 recites wherein determining, in real- time, that the second mobile device associated with the second user is within the predetermined proximity of the first proximate
Claim 7 recites further comprising: providing a receipt for the item to the first user in response to the second userfirst user. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 8 recites further comprising: determining the second user has purchased a second item using funds controlled by the second user while at the retail environment; and providing a different receipt to the second user for the second item. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 9 recites wherein the preauthorization operation further comprises: receiving a maximum price the first user is willing to pay for the item, wherein the second user is preauthorized to purchase the item on behalf of the first user for up to the maximum price. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 10 recites further comprising: causing, in real-time, notifications to display on a respective display interface of mobile devices associated with a plurality of other users that are also able to add items to the digital retail listing that the second user is at thefor the second user to purchase on their behalf while the second user is at the retail environment. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and the recitation of the notifications displayed are recited at a high level of generality with respect to the interface and therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 12-14, 16-17, 19-20 recite parallel claim language and are therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above. For at least these reasons, claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 1, 11 and 18 are determined to have overcome the prior art of rejection and are free of prior art, however the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101, as set forth above. All dependent claims are also free of prior art by virtue of dependency, but remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
Taking amended claim 1 as a representative claim, the claims as amended are found to overcome the prior art rejection for the reasons set forth below.
Claim 1 now recites the additional claimed features of determining a first proximate location within a retail environment of the added item in the digital retail listing; executing a preauthorization operation at the second mobile device associated with the second user, wherein the preauthorization operation initializes a payment operation using funds controlled by the first mobile device associated with the first user; detecting, in real-time based on a location of the second mobile device associated with the second user, that the second mobile device is within a predetermined proximity associated with the retail environment; determining, in real-time based on the location of the second mobile device, a second proximate location of the second mobile device associated with the second user in the retail environment; determining a maximum data value associated with the added item; determining that the maximum data value of the added item does not exceed a predetermined maximum data value threshold associated with digital listing rendered at the second mobile device associated with the second user; responsive to the maximum data value of the added item exceeding the predetermined maximum data value threshold, disabling the payment operation at the second mobile device;
The closest prior art was found to be as follows:
Bueno Lobl (US 20160125507) discloses obtaining a shopping list from a user (in 302) and [0024] In certain embodiments, the user device 120 includes a collaborative shopping application 128. Collaborative shopping application 128 may correspond to one or more processes to execute modules of user device 120 to receive, update, predict, and transmit shopping list information to user 102 and/or friend 104. In this regard, collaborative shopping application 128 may be utilized to, for example, provide a convenient interface to permit user 102 to browse information available over the network 160 and utilize services available from service providers, such as service provider server 180. In one embodiment, a service provider distributes the collaborative shopping application 128 to the user device 120 over the network 160. In some embodiments, the collaborative shopping application 128 receives shopping list information from the user 102 and stores the shopping list locally on the user device 120. In other embodiments, the collaborative shopping application 128 creates a shopping list for the user 102, and user 102 can accept or change the items, quantities of items, deadlines for items, maximum prices of items, etc. on the shopping list. [0050] In several exemplary embodiments, the items on the shopping list are geo-tagged. For example, the user 102 can geo-tag all locations of Store W for X item at Y price until Z Date. The geo-tag allows the user 102 to associate a geographical location with an item on the shopping list. In certain embodiments, the geolocation module 208 can check for any matches between the geo-tagged items on the list and the location of a member of the shopping group. The geolocation module 208 then determines possible matches and then communicates these matches to the notification module 212 to alert a member to any matches. Thus, when user 102 or any member of his or her collaborative shopping group are near a location or within a predetermined distance of a location associated with an item on the shopping list, he or she can be notified to purchase the item. The reference also discloses a budget or max price for items on the list set by the user in [0045]. However, the reference does not disclose the functionality occurring within the retail environment as required by the claimed invention.
Roth (US11436588) discloses [Col. 11 lines 10-25] The portal 330 in this case presents an interactive menu for service 332 (“Secure Funds Authorization Service”) for establishing preferences, conditions, and boundaries desired by the primary user 310. For purposes of illustration, the linked account has been identified as “Account #ABC”, and current account holders have been added or identified in an account summary section 340. The account owner “Jacob Sands” (primary user 310) in this example is father of two children, “Doug Sands” and “Amy Sands” who, as shown on the interface provided by portal 330, have been added as dependent users for the account. While teaching pre-authorization of funds from one user to another, the reference does not disclose responsive to the maximum data value of the added item exceeding the predetermined maximum data value threshold, disabling the payment operation at the second mobile device as required by the claimed invention.
Eramian (US 20150317708) [0020] While the users are at the service location, the locations of individual users within the service location may be determined. The locations of products within the merchant location that are on the shared shopping list may also be determined. As the users move within the merchant location (together or separately), the locations of the users with respect to the locations of the products may be determined. When one or more users are nearby or approaching a location of a particular item on a shopping list, the user may be provided with an alert that they are nearby and/or approaching the location of the product to facilitate efficient shopping. In this way, specific items to purchase from a central or shared shopping list can be pushed to the user device of each member of a group so as to allow the group to more efficiently get through a shopping list and expedite the shopping process. However, the reference does not disclose pre-authorization of funds to a user and responsive to the maximum data value of the added item exceeding the predetermined maximum data value threshold, disabling the payment operation at the second mobile device as required by the claimed invention.
Lin (US 20150006308) discloses [0026] `Primary user` can select `secondary users` and invite them to join the collaborative shopping. `Secondary users`, having accepted the invitation, join the collaborative session 220 using their respective mobile devices. `Primary user` can select the store, retrieve a catalog associated with the store and view the items in the catalog using the catalog 255 functionality. Catalogs, retrieved and displayed in the mobile device 250, is referred to as an in-store shopping catalogs. `Primary user` and the `secondary users` in the collaborative session 220 can collaboratively select items from the displayed catalog, and compile a collaborative shopping list 230. This collaborative shopping list 230 compiled by the `primary user` and the `secondary users`, is synchronized with the shopping application 165 executing in the server system 160 in real-time. Thus `primary user` and `secondary users` are able to view the collaborative shopping list 230 simultaneously in real-time. However, the reference does not disclose pre-authorization of funds to a user and responsive to the maximum data value of the added item exceeding the predetermined maximum data value threshold, disabling the payment operation at the second mobile device as required by the claimed invention.
NPL: UGASP: User and Group Aware Shopping Planner discloses shopping lists from groups affiliated with a user in which the user can shop for the affiliated group during a shopping trip.
It was found that no references alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonable teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of Applicant’s invention. The features of claim 1 (and parallel claims 11 and 18) in combination that overcome the prior art are:
determining a first proximate location within a retail environment of the added item in the digital retail listing; executing a preauthorization operation at the second mobile device associated with the second user, wherein the preauthorization operation initializes a payment operation using funds controlled by the first mobile device associated with the first user; detecting, in real-time based on a location of the second mobile device associated with the second user, that the second mobile device is within a predetermined proximity associated with the retail environment; determining, in real-time based on the location of the second mobile device, a second proximate location of the second mobile device associated with the second user in the retail environment; determining a maximum data value associated with the added item; determining that the maximum data value of the added item does not exceed a predetermined maximum data value threshold associated with digital listing rendered at the second mobile device associated with the second user; responsive to the maximum data value of the added item exceeding the predetermined maximum data value threshold, disabling the payment operation at the second mobile device;
Therefore, none of the cited references disclose or render obvious each and every feature of the claimed invention and the claimed invention is determined to be free of the prior art. Although individually the claimed features could be taught, any combination of references would teach the claimed limitations using a piecemeal analysis, since 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). The examiner emphasizes that it is the interrelationship of the limitations that renders these claims free of the prior art/additional art.
Therefore, it is hereby asserted by the Examiner that, in light of the above, that the claims are free of prior art as the references do not anticipate the claims and do not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in art.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the remarks filed on 12/22/25 regarding the previous prior art rejection, the remarks are now moot for the reasons set forth above in the “Subject Matter Free of Prior Art” section. The examiner agrees the previously cited art does not teach the new claims as amended and an updated search found the claimed invention as a whole to be non-obvious over the prior art as shown above.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the remarks directed to the amended claims reciting sufficient hardware-based components and hardware based data structures, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claim language merely provides a rule set for when a purchase is authorize or is not authorized based on the price of the item in comparison to the provided price limits by a user. When the price exceeds the limit, the payment functionality is disabled, however this does not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea nor does it integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at the level of technical detail in the current disclosure. This is further addressed below.
In comparison to the decision of SRI, the examiner asserts that solution to the alleged technical problem residing in secured computer networks is part of the abstract idea and not a technical solution to a technical problem. The fact patterns of these two cases diverge. SRI recited technical details of the manner in which the network was monitored and the analyzing of network packets in order to determine suspicious activity. This requires a level of technical detail that goes beyond the level recited in the current application. The current claimed invention provides a set of rules (i.e. if this then that rules) so the purchase is only made when appropriate. It does not recite the same level of technical details as would be required in the contrasting case.
For the same reasons set forth above, the examine maintains the claims do recite an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application. These are rule based operations being carried out on generic devices.
For at least these reasons the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
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 VICTORIA E. FRUNZI whose telephone number is (571)270-1031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7-4 (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, 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.
VICTORIA E. FRUNZI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit TC 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 3/10/2026