DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Restriction/Election Response filed on 03/04/2026 has been considered.
Claims 1-11 and 17-20 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 12-16 are rejected and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received 03/04/2026 and 08/15/2024 has been reviewed and considered.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention II (corresponding to claims 12-16) in the reply filed on 03/04/2026 is acknowledged. Even taking the amendments to the claims under consideration, claims 1-11 (Invention I) and claims 17-20 (Invention III) remain separate inventions from claims 12-16 (Invention II).
Claims 1-11 and 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Inventions I and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/04/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 13 reads “the electronic shopping interactive computing environment” but should likely read “an electronic shopping interactive computing environment”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories (see MPEP 2106.03). All the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (YES).
Under Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception (see MPEP 2106.04). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception (YES). Taking Claim 12 as representative, the claim recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including:
-a user interface;
-a memory; and
-one or more processors operable with the user interface and the memory;
-wherein:
-in response to the one or more processors detecting commencement of an interactive shopping session in an electronic shopping application operating on the one or more processors, the one or more processors initiate a timer for each search string category detected; and
-in response to the interactive shopping session ceasing, the one or more processors present a compilation of timer data for the interactive shopping session itemizing the each search string category and a corresponding amount of time associated with the each search string category;
-wherein the compilation is stored in a timer log in the memory as:
-per-category timer data stored separately for the each search string category; and
-a total interactive-session time obtained by summing the per-category timer data
The above limitations recite the concept of creating a log of shopping session data. The above limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Certain methods of organizing human activity include:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risk)
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and business relations)
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
The limitations of per-category timer data stored separately for the each search string category; and a total interactive-session time obtained by summing the per-category timer data is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a commercial interaction. For example, “stored” and “summing” in the context of this claim encompass advertising, and marketing or sales activities.
Similarly, the limitations of wherein: in response to the one or more processors detecting commencement of an interactive shopping session in an electronic shopping application operating on the one or more processors, the one or more processors initiate a timer for each search string category detected; and in response to the interactive shopping session ceasing, the one or more processors present a compilation of timer data for the interactive shopping session itemizing the each search string category and a corresponding amount of time associated with the each search string category; wherein the compilation is stored in a timer log in the memory are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a commercial interaction. That is, other than reciting that the detecting is by the one or more processors, that the interactive shopping session is in an electronic shopping application operating on the one or more processors, that the initiating is by the one or more processors, that the presenting is by the one or more processors, and that the storing is in the memory, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by people. For example, but for the “the one or more processors,” “an electronic shopping application operating on the one or more processors,” and “the memory” language, “detecting,” “initiate,” “present,” and “stored” in the context of this claim encompasses advertising, and marketing or sales activities.
Under Prong 2, it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (NO).
-a user interface;
-a memory; and
-one or more processors operable with the user interface and the memory;
-wherein:
-in response to the one or more processors detecting commencement of an interactive shopping session in an electronic shopping application operating on the one or more processors, the one or more processors initiate a timer for each search string category detected; and
-in response to the interactive shopping session ceasing, the one or more processors present a compilation of timer data for the interactive shopping session itemizing the each search string category and a corresponding amount of time associated with the each search string category;
-wherein the compilation is stored in a timer log in the memory as:
-per-category timer data stored separately for the each search string category; and
-a total interactive-session time obtained by summing the per-category timer data
These limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application because:
The additional elements of claim 12 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea) as supported by paragraph [021] of Applicant’s specification – “It will be appreciated that embodiments of the disclosure described herein may be comprised of one or more conventional processors and unique stored program instructions that control the one or more processors to implement.” Specifically, the additional elements of an electronic device, a user interface, a memory, one or more processors operable with the user interface and the memory, and an electronic shopping application operating on the one or more processors are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing the generic computer functions of detecting data, initiating data, presenting data, storing data, and summing data) such that they amount do no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks). Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Additionally, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, ii) apply 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) 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.
Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, it is determined whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims of the present application do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (NO).
In the case of claim 12, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 9 do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above under step 2A (prong 2) with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed functions amount to no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually.
Therefore, claim 12 does not provide an inventive concept and do not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Dependent claims 13-16, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claims 13-16 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas in that they recite commercial interactions. Dependent claims 13-16 recite the additional elements of the electronic shopping interactive computing environment, an electronic shopping cart interaction event, a completed electronic shopping cart interaction event, a virtual stopwatch, the one or more processors, and the electronic shopping application, but similar to the analysis under prong two of Step 2A these additional elements are used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, under prong two of Step 2A, claims 13-16 are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above. Thus, dependent claims 13-16 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Next, under Step 2B, similar to the analysis of claim 12, dependent claims 13-16 when analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, merely further define the commonplace business method (i.e. creating a log of shopping session data) being applied on a general-purpose computer and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell et al. (US 2014/0189519 A1), hereinafter Powell, in view of Peters et al. (US 8,250,474 B2), hereinafter Peters.
Regarding claim 12, Powell discloses an electronic device, comprising:
-a user interface (Powell, see at least: “These and other input devices would typically be connected to the processing unit 22 by means of an interface 58 [i.e. a user interface] which, in turn, would be coupled to the bus 26. Input devices may be connected to the processor 22 using interfaces” [0022]);
-a memory (Powell, see at least: “the RAM 30, hard drive 38, and/or peripheral memory devices [i.e. a memory] may be used to store computer executable instructions comprising an operating system 46, one or more applications programs 48 (such as a Web browser), other program modules 50, and/or program data 52. Still further, computer-executable instructions may be downloaded to one or more of the computing devices as needed, for example, via a network connection” [0021]); and
-one or more processors operable with the user interface and the memory (Powell, see at least: “Thus the example user computing device 20 includes one or more processing units 22 and a system memory 24, [i.e. one or more processors operable with the memory] which may be linked via a bus 26” [0020] and “These and other input devices would typically be connected to the processing unit 22 by means of an interface 58 which, in turn, would be coupled to the bus 26. Input devices may be connected to the processor 22 using interfaces [i.e. one or more processors operable with the user interface]” [0022]);
-wherein:
-in response to the one or more processors detecting commencement of an interactive shopping session in an electronic shopping application operating on the one or more processors, the one or more processors initiate a timer for each search string category detected (Powell, see at least: “A browsing session may, for example only, correspond to a timeframe during which a user is interacting with a website. Put one way, a browsing session may commence when a user loads a webpage of a website [i.e. in response to the one or more processors detecting commencement of an interactive shopping session] and may terminate when the user logs-out of the website” [0036] and “the RAM 30, hard drive 38, and/or peripheral memory devices may be used to store computer executable instructions comprising an operating system 46, one or more applications programs 48 (such as a Web browser) [i.e. an interactive shopping session in an electronic shopping application operating on the one or more processors], other program modules 50, and/or program data 52. Still further, computer-executable instructions may be downloaded to one or more of the computing devices as needed, for example, via a network connection” [0021] and “considering channel 172A pertaining to search events, the user can tell that a first keyword search 174, was followed by a first category search 176.sub.1, [i.e. the one or more processors initiate a timer for each search string category detected] a second keyword search 174.sub.2, and a second category search 176.sub.2. Moreover, an axis 192 representing time provides the user with another perspective as to how the series of events occurred” [0031] and “the system 10 monitors user interactions with a website by recording events, accessed content, and other data such as the following: … times during which webpages or other content was viewed or accessed [i.e. the one or more processors initiate a timer for each search string category detected]” [0016] and Fig. 6); and
-in response to the interactive shopping session ceasing, the one or more processors present a compilation of timer data for the interactive shopping session itemizing the each search string category and a corresponding amount of time associated with the each search string category (Powell, see at least: “session data may be grouped by session and given a unique identifier for later recall. To allow a user to recall session data from recent sessions or even from still-existing sessions, the system 10 may be configured to record session data in the repository 68A immediately as it occurs. The session data, therefore, is then available for immediate or near-immediate recall [i.e. in response to the interactive shopping session ceasing, the one or more processors present a compilation of timer data for the interactive shopping session] by the user” [0037] and “a browsing session may commence when a user loads a webpage of a website and may terminate when the user logs-out of the website. Depending on how the website and the user's web browser are configured, the system 10 may log-out the user after a period of inactivity (e.g., a "time-out"), after the user closes a tab or web browser with the website [i.e. in response to the interactive shopping session ceasing], or after the user has requested for the system 10 to log-out the user” [0036] and “events can be aggregated, documented, and recorded [i.e. a compilation of timer data for the interactive shopping session] in a logical manner to thereby create for the user a better experience whereby the user can simply access all information about products and/or user needs as desired” [0033] and “Reviewing session data 232 at the fine level 250, by contrast, may provide an active link to every webpage, link, menu item, and the like that the user either interacted with or viewed. In addition, the session data 232 may in some examples include timestamps corresponding to the exact time, e.g., down to the second, that each webpage, link, menu item, and so on was accessed [i.e. the interactive shopping session itemizing the each search string category and a corresponding amount of time associated with the each search string category]. The user may then determine how much time was spent reviewing each webpage. In the alternative or in addition, the session data 232 may include for each listed interaction an indication of how much time was spent at each webpage or the like” [0048] and “the session data 232 may be arranged in any suitable configuration including, for instance, a chart having rows and columns. As shown in this example, a column 236 indicates brief, high-level descriptions of interactions that were recorded by the system [i.e. the interactive shopping session itemizing the each search string category]” [0042] and Fig. 6 displays itemized keyword searches [i.e. the interactive shopping session itemizing the each search string category] and their corresponding session data 232 (which can include time) and Examiner notes that the user closing a tab to recall the session data ceases the interactive shopping session [i.e. in response to the interactive shopping session ceasing]);
-wherein the compilation is stored in a timer log in the memory as (Powell, see at least: “events can be aggregated, documented, and recorded [i.e. wherein the compilation is stored in a timer log] in a logical manner to thereby create for the user a better experience whereby the user can simply access all information about products and/or user needs as desired” [0033] and “session data may be grouped by session and given a unique identifier for later recall. To allow a user to recall session data from recent sessions or even from still-existing sessions, the system 10 may be configured to record session data in the repository [i.e. wherein the compilation is stored in a timer log in the memory] 68A immediately as it occurs. The session data, therefore, is then available for immediate or near-immediate recall by the user” [0037]):
-per-category timer data is stored and is presented separately for the each search string category (Powell, see at least: “improve the usability of the system 10, when events are recorded additional metadata about the events may also be captured and stored in the data repositories 68A [i.e. per-category timer data is stored]. This metadata may then be made available to a search engine and thereby be used itself as a means for aggregation. By way of example, if a user searches for, compares search results, and then buys a product such as a generator, metadata about these events could be captured. Such metadata might include one or more of user name data, products viewed data, product categories visited data [i.e. per-category timer data], keywords used data” [0034] and “Reviewing session data 232 at the fine level 250, by contrast, may provide an active link to every webpage, link, menu item, and the like that the user either interacted with or viewed. In addition, the session data 232 may in some examples include timestamps corresponding to the exact time, e.g., down to the second, that each webpage, link, menu item, and so on was accessed. The user may then determine how much time was spent reviewing each webpage. In the alternative or in addition, the session data 232 may include for each listed interaction an indication of how much time was spent at each webpage or the like [i.e. per-category timer data]” [0048] and “considering channel 172A pertaining to search events, the user can tell that a first keyword search 174, was followed by a first category search 176.sub.1, a second keyword search 174.sub.2, and a second category search 176.sub.2. [i.e. for the each search string category]” [0031] and Fig. 6 shows that the session activity history displayed includes particular keyword searches [i.e. per-category timer data is presented separately for the each search string category]); and
-a total interactive-session time obtained by summing the per-category timer data (Powell, see at least: “Although not shown in FIG. 5, the system may be configured to display a start time, an end time, or both start and end times, e.g., for web browsing sessions that occur on the same day [i.e. a total interactive-session time obtained]” [0038] and “when events are recorded additional metadata about the events may also be captured and stored in the data repositories 68A. This metadata may then be made available to a search engine and thereby be used itself as a means for aggregation … time and date data [i.e. by summing the per-category timer data]” [0034] and “the session histories 204 may be sorted by time and/or date of session, by amount spent per session, by duration of session [i.e. a total interactive-session time obtained by summing the per-category timer data], and so on” [0039]).
Powell does not explicitly disclose per-category timer data being stored separately for the each search string category.
Peters, however, teaches analyzing online activity level (i.e. Col. 9 Ln. 7-23), including the known technique of per-category timer data stored separately for the each search string category (Peters, see at least: “data structure 400 may be configured to categorically store data [i.e. stored separately for the each search string category] corresponding to content items 335 (FIG. 3) procured from various network locations 333. The categories of the stored data may include (i) category/webpage data 410 corresponding to data that indicates the category (or categories), the webpage, and/or the presentation of a particular content item … (v) interval data 450 that indicates the time period or interval [i.e. per-category timer data] of when the webpage was originally provided on the network location” Col. 10 Ln. 43-56 and Fig. 4). This known technique is applicable to the electronic device of Powell as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to analyzing online activity level.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of per-category timer data stored separately for the each search string category, as taught by Peters, to the teachings of Powell would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar electronic devices. Further, adding the modification of per-category timer data stored separately for the each search string category, as taught by Peters, into the electronic device of Powell would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved electronic device that would for displaying a level of activity (Peters, Col. 2 Ln. 17-19).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell, in view of Peters, in further view of Carroll et al. (US 2022/0351633 A1), hereinafter Carroll.
Regarding claim 13, Powell in view of Peters teaches the electronic device of claim 12.
Powell in view of Peters does not explicitly teach the compilation of timer data comprising at least one of: (i) an amount of idle time during which no user interaction events were occurring in the electronic shopping interactive computing environment during the interactive shopping session; (ii) a ratio of time taken to add products to an interactive shopping cart to time not added to the interactive shopping cart during the interactive shopping session; or (iii) a comparison of amounts of time spent on goods or services from past sessions.
Carroll, however, teaches tracking and measuring engagement (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of the compilation of timer data comprising at least one of: (i) an amount of idle time during which no user interaction events were occurring in the electronic shopping interactive computing environment during the interactive shopping session; (ii) a ratio of time taken to add products to an interactive shopping cart to time not added to the interactive shopping cart during the interactive shopping session; or (iii) a comparison of amounts of time spent on goods or services from past sessions (Carroll, see at least: “the disclosed system may then pull in (e.g. select from data store 110) an engagement profile 300 that will allow a certain set of rules to be applied in calculating idle time. As a non-limiting example, if the timestamps indicate that there has been 20 seconds between start and stop, then system may then add 20 seconds to the user's time spent but if the start and stop indicates 45 seconds from one UI event to the next UI event and the profile indicates that a maximum of 30 seconds can be applied to time on task then the rule may dictate that only 30 seconds be added to the time spent and 15 seconds to the idle time spent [i.e. wherein the compilation of timer data comprises at least one of: (i) an amount of idle time during which no user interaction events were occurring in the electronic shopping interactive computing environment during the interactive shopping session]” [0058] and “an idle time tracker is graphically illustrated to provide a distinction between time spent actively engaged in the content vs. time spent just having the content open. As described above, the disclosed system may track user interaction according to the user's access to various resources within the system, such as loading or unloading a particular resource” [0119]). This known technique is applicable to the electronic device of Powell in view of Peters as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to tracking and measuring engagement.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of the compilation of timer data comprising at least one of: (i) an amount of idle time during which no user interaction events were occurring in the electronic shopping interactive computing environment during the interactive shopping session; (ii) a ratio of time taken to add products to an interactive shopping cart to time not added to the interactive shopping cart during the interactive shopping session; or (iii) a comparison of amounts of time spent on goods or services from past sessions, as taught by Carroll, to the teachings of Powell in view of Peters would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar electronic devices. Further, adding the modification of the compilation of timer data comprising at least one of: (i) an amount of idle time during which no user interaction events were occurring in the electronic shopping interactive computing environment during the interactive shopping session; (ii) a ratio of time taken to add products to an interactive shopping cart to time not added to the interactive shopping cart during the interactive shopping session; or (iii) a comparison of amounts of time spent on goods or services from past sessions, as taught by Carroll, into the electronic device of Powell in view of Peters would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved electronic device that would provide a more accurate time spent (Carroll, [0107]).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell, in view of Peters, in further view of Breedvelt et al. (US 12,204,601 B2), hereinafter Breedvelt.
Regarding claim 14, Powell in view of Peters teaches the electronic device of claim 12. Powell further discloses:
-wherein:
-the compilation comprises first timer data corresponding to at least one category associated with completion of an electronic shopping cart interaction event and second timer data corresponding to at least one category failing to result in a completed electronic shopping cart interaction event (Powell, see at least: “improve the usability of the system 10, when events are recorded additional metadata about the events may also be captured and stored in the data repositories 68A. This metadata may then be made available to a search engine and thereby be used itself as a means for aggregation [i.e. the compilation comprises]. By way of example, if a user searches for, compares search results, and then buys a product such as a generator, metadata about these events could be captured. Such metadata might include one or more of user name data, products viewed data, product categories visited data, keywords used data” [0034] and “Sorts and filters, moreover, may be used individually or in combination [i.e. the compilation comprises]. By way of example, suppose the user wishes to locate a session history 204 in which the user ordered a product from the website 200 early in the morning. The user can first apply a filter so that only session histories 204 are displayed in which the user placed an order" [0039] and “a review of the axis 192 indicates that a sequence of events occurred as follows: a first keyword search S.sub.k1; a first category search S.sub.c1; an item placed in a cart P.sub.c1” [0031] and “The details of the events, e.g., results of the keyword search, a list of items placed in a shopping cart, etc. [i.e. first timer data corresponding to at least one category associated with completion of an electronic shopping cart interaction event and second timer data corresponding to at least one category failing to result in a completed electronic shopping cart interaction event], may be presented to the user in response to the user interacting with the event titles 170 as shown in the timeline 172 in FIG. 4” [0032] and Examiner notes that a keyword search that included items places in the shopping cart has different time data associated with it than a different keyword search where items were not added to the shopping cart); and
-presenting a first output from a first timer when the one or more processors detect a first search string category occurring in the electronic shopping application and a second output from a second timer when the one or more processors detect a second search string category occurring in the electronic shopping application (Powell, see at least: “the session data 232 may be arranged in any suitable configuration including, for instance, a chart having rows and columns. As shown in this example, a column 236 indicates brief, high-level descriptions of interactions that were recorded by the system [i.e. presenting a first output from a first timer and a second output from a second timer]” [0042] and “the RAM 30, hard drive 38, and/or peripheral memory devices may be used to store computer executable instructions comprising an operating system 46, one or more applications programs 48 (such as a Web browser) [i.e. occurring in the electronic shopping application], other program modules 50, and/or program data 52. Still further, computer-executable instructions may be downloaded to one or more of the computing devices as needed, for example, via a network connection” [0021] and Fig. 6 shows that the session activity history displayed includes particular keyword searches [i.e. presenting a first output from a first timer when the one or more processors detect a first search string category occurring in the electronic shopping application and a second output from a second timer when the one or more processors detect a second search string category occurring in the electronic shopping application]).
Powell in view of Peters does not explicitly teach a virtual stopwatch presenting a first output from a first timer and a second output from a second timer.
Breedvelt, however, teaches historical interaction data (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of a virtual stopwatch presenting a first output from a first timer and a second output from a second timer (Breedvelt, see at least: “the data navigation program 150 may display a historical breadcrumb control 220 as a UI element in one or more display page 218. In one embodiment, the historical breadcrumb control 220 may enable the user to navigate between different applications 210 and the corresponding IAs 212 and return to previously visited pages. In one embodiment, the data navigation program 150 renders a list of breadcrumb trails 222 in the historical breadcrumb control 220 based on the user's navigation history of one or more applications 210 using the UI software 206” Col. 10 Ln. 44-54 and Fig. 4 displays that the historical breadcrumb control is shaped like a stopwatch [i.e. a virtual stopwatch presents] and this control displays multiple browsing activities along with their corresponding timestamp [i.e. a first output from a first timer and a second output from a second timer]). This known technique is applicable to the electronic device of Powell in view of Peters as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to historical interaction data.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of a virtual stopwatch presenting a first output from a first timer and a second output from a second timer, as taught by Breedvelt, to the teachings of Powell in view of Peters would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar electronic devices. Further, adding the modification of a virtual stopwatch presenting a first output from a first timer and a second output from a second timer, as taught by Breedvelt, into the electronic device of Powell in view of Peters would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved electronic device that would enable users to traverse previously visited pages (Breedvelt, Col. 2 Ln. 6-10).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Powell/Peters/Breedvelt teaches the electronic device of claim 14. Powell further discloses:
-wherein the one or more processors are further configured to, in response to detecting completion of an electronic shopping cart interaction event associated with a detected search sting category, present an elapsed time associated with the detected search string category (Powell, see at least: “example event titles 170 in FIG. 4 have been added to a temporally organized timeline 172 of information so as to better reflect how the event relates to other events that have been monitored [i.e. wherein the one or more processors are further configured to, in response to detecting] for the user. It should be understood that a temporally organized list or the like could also be used. As further shown in FIG. 4, the example timeline 172 of FIG. 4 includes three channels 172A, 172B, and 172C. Each of the channels 172A, 172B, and 172C represents a different type of event. For instance, the example channel 172A displays events that pertain to searches such as, for example, keyword searches 174.sub.1,2, category searches 176.sub.1.2, and the like … Further, the example channel 172C displays events that pertain to product orders such as, for example, placing items in an online e-commerce cart [i.e. in response to detecting completion of an electronic shopping cart interaction event associated with a detected search sting category]” [0030] and “In addition, the session data 232 may in some examples include timestamps corresponding to the exact time e.g., down to the second, that each webpage, link, menu item, and so on was accessed. The user may then determine how much time was spent reviewing each webpage. In the alternative or in addition, the session data 232 may include for each listed interaction an indication of how much time was spent at each webpage or the like [i.e. present an elapsed time associated with the detected search string category]” [0048] and Fig. 6 shows that the session activity history displayed includes particular keyword searches).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Powell/Peters/Breedvelt teaches the electronic device of claim 15. Powell further discloses:
-wherein the compilation of timer data comprises at least some timer data corresponding to at least some search string categories failing to result in completed electronic shopping cart interaction events (Powell, see at least: “Although not shown in FIG. 5, the system may be configured to display a start time, an end time, or both start and end times, e.g., for web browsing sessions that occur on the same day [i.e. wherein the compilation of timer data]” [0038] and “the system 10 monitors user interactions with a website by recording events, accessed content, and other data such as the following: keyword searches; model number searches; stock-keeping unit (SKU) searches; selection guides; clicked links; links that a user's mouse hovered over for a measurable period of time; accessed menus; products viewed; number of products reviewed; product images that were magnified; product comparisons; times during which webpages or other content was viewed or accessed [i.e. comprises at least some timer data corresponding to at least some search string categories failing to result in completed electronic shopping cart interaction events]” [0016]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Martha et al. (US 2016/0212231 A1) teaches monitoring consumer activity on a website.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLE E WEINER whose telephone number is (571)272-9007. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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 (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.
/ARIELLE E WEINER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689