Previous Office Action Withdrawn / Superseded
The previous Office action mailed on 10/27/2025 has been withdrawn and is superseded by the current Office action.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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 2-21 have been examined.
Claim(s) 1 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.
Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite a judicial exception which is not integrated into a practical application and the claims lack an inventive concept.
Step 1 is the first inquiry into eligibility analysis and asks whether the claims are directed to a statutory category. In this instance, the answer must be in the affirmative because they recite a method, medium, and system.
Step 2A prong 1 is the next step in the eligibility analyses and asks whether the claimed invention recites a judicial exception. In this instance, the claims recite the following limitations which comprise the abstract idea:
receiving a search request for an item of interest;
determining item data associated with the item, wherein the item data is crowd-sourced from a plurality of users associated with a plurality of locations;
determining, characteristics associated with the item of interest;
determining a plurality of items associated with the item of interest based in part of the characteristics associated with the item of interest;
determining a communication platform for a presentation of a recommendation for a matching item of the plurality of items or the item of interest based on the search request and a past interaction by the user with the communication platform;
in response to detecting an input by the user, presenting a recommendation for a matching item;
wherein the recommendation includes a purchase option that allows the purchase of the matching item;
updating the item data based on an interaction with at least one of the recommendation or the matching item by the user;
This is an abstract idea because it is a certain method of organizing human activity that involves commercial interactions such as marketing activities and/or behaviors.
Step 2A prong 2 is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements such as:
one or more processors;
one or more machine-readable storage media having instructions stored thereon that, in response to being executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
providing a component layer that enables the presentation on the user device of the recommendation via the communication platform;
receiving via a user interface of a device;
wherein the presenting is via the communication platform using the component layer;
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use 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.
In addition, the recitations of these additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use 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.
The dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use 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. For example, claims 2-6 are directed to the abstract ideal itself. As for claims 7-10, these claims do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
one or more processors;
one or more machine-readable storage media having instructions stored thereon that, in response to being executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
providing a component layer that enables the presentation on the user device of the recommendation via the communication platform;
receiving via a user interface of a device;
wherein the presenting is via the communication platform using the component layer;
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use 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.
In addition, they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea.
Therefore, the claims lack one or more limitations which amount to an inventive concept in the claims.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner Remarks
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 and the prior art rejections have been withdrawn because the applicant has overcome the rejections.
In regards to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, the rejection is maintained. The applicant respectfully argues on pages 7-8 of the remarks that the claims integrate the exception into a practical application. Specially, the applicant argues that the claimed invention “improves technology” – i.e., to provide faster and more accurate data for recommendations, as well as update crowd-sourced data based on detected interactions. The applicant then references paragraph [0002] which details how providing more up to date information can help customers because it gives them more accurate recommendations to assist them in shopping.
The examiner respectfully disagrees that this improves technology because the problem of unhelpful recommendations and thus the solution of proving more accurate recommendations has existed long before the creation of computers and/or the internet. Namely, this is a business problem, not a technological problem. For these reasons, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Additional prior art relevant to the invention but not relied upon includes:
Reference U (see PTO-892) teaches using crowdsourced data to comparative shop inside of a retail store.
WOUHAYBI (US 2016/0048856) teaches using crowdsourced information collected from digital receipts to assist in shopping.
Bezos (US 8,180,689) teaches allowing shoppers to share information with each other about various products.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW E ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5278. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm M-T, 8-12pm W.
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, Jeff Smith can be reached at (571)272-6763. 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.
/MATTHEW E ZIMMERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688