DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/5/2026 has been entered.
2. This Non-Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s RCE filing on 1/5/2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. The earliest effective filing date of the present application is 3/22/2023.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
3. The present application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claim, the examiner finds the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 1-7 are processes (methods), and claims 8-20 are machines (systems or devices).
Step 2A – Prong 1: was there a Judicial Exception Recited
Claim 1 (similarly claims 8 and 15) recites the following abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea”:
1. A method comprising:
obtaining purchase history data for a plurality of users within a group, the purchase history corresponding to at least one product (observation);
determining a first product availability corresponding to the at least one product based on the purchase history data (judgment);
transmitting, to a User Equipment (UE) of a user of the plurality of users, a notification including the first product availability (judgment);
obtaining updated purchase history data, the updated purchase history data corresponding to the at least one product (observation);
determining a second product availability corresponding to the at least one product based on the updated purchase history data (evaluation);
determine a product availability change based on the first product availability and the second product availability (evaluation);
modifying user rights of the user based on the product availability change wherein the user rights are modified based on a comparison of a tendency of purchases by the user to lead to product unavailability relative to a corresponding tendency for other users of the plurality of users (opinion); and
applying the modified user rights to filter subsequent notifications before transmission to the UE of the user by matching standing query data associated with the user against the product availability change based on at least one of a group identifier, a product identifier, or a location(evaluation).
Claim 1 (similarly claims 8 and 15) is directed to a series of steps for product availability checks, which is a commercial/legal interaction and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions and/or a mental process (see above notations). Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.4(a).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Can the Judicial Exception Recited be integrated into a practical application
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the user equipment, device, processor, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium are merely generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply the abstract idea on a generic computer. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See Specification [0073] discussing the multiple types of generic devices that could be used. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Significantly More Analysis
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination the user equipment, device, processor, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claims 1, 8, and 15 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 fail to provide additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection from independent claim from which they depend.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The reason for allowable subject matter of claims 1-20 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. The nearest art, Khoyilar 12,001,419, Philip 2024/0232798, and Stanke 2024/0242174, does not teach augmenting user rights based on multiple inventory availability and transaction history. Khovilar teaches database processing system is disclosed for accessing databases and updated data items and triggering event notification. Philip teaches determining product availability based on ingredient stock information. Stanke teaches a process for determining an on-shelf availability status of an item within a retail location. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant' s claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed 1/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are not directed to a mental process because of the technical nature of the claims and the mental capacity required. Examiner disagrees. The claims as stated do not require a large data set and could be a small data set that a person could easily handle. With a user population of three with each user making one purchase, not within the ability of the human mind? Applicant further argues that just because the it is a database matching operation is performed by a system; it cannot be a mental process. Examiner and the MPEP would disagree. The system and database would receive an additional element analysis under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B. The matching operation would be the Step 2A Prong 1 abstract idea, which using a ledger the human mind has tracked and performed matching for inventory for quite a while and therefore completely withing the scope of the August 2025 Memorandum.
Applicant argues the claims are directed towards a technical improvement of a social network platforms by preventing information cascades in the digital social networks that can exacerbate product shortages. Examiner disagrees. As the short is caused by human error and thus not a technical problem. Ex Parte Desjardins represents a technical problem (AI system hallucinate answers) with a technical solution (use a blockchain/hash memory to verify answers).
Examiner maintains position.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited, PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL JARED WALKER whose telephone number is (303)297-4407. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00 AM -5:00 PM CT.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at (571)270-3324. 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.
/MICHAEL JARED WALKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627 Michael.walker@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights