DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the Amendments filed on 06/02/2026.
Claims 1-11 and 17-20 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 12-16 are rejected and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 06/02/2026, has been entered. Claim 12 has been amended.
Claim Objections
The claim objections from the prior Office Action have been withdrawn pursuant Applicant’s amendments.
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 .
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;
-monitoring, by the one or more processors, user interaction events in an electronic shopping interactive computing environment to determine whether the category associated with a detected search string changes, and when the category associated with the detected search string changes to another category associated with another search string, pausing the timer and initiating another timer;
-while the interactive shopping session is occurring, presenting, by the one or more processors on the user interface, timer data from the timer in a stopwatch graphical presentation within the electronic shopping interactive computing environment; 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 are processes that, under their 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; monitoring, by the one or more processors, user interaction events in an electronic shopping interactive computing environment to determine whether the category associated with a detected search string changes, and when the category associated with the detected search string changes to another category associated with another search string, pausing the timer and initiating another timer; while the interactive shopping session is occurring, presenting, by the one or more processors on the user interface, timer data from the timer in a stopwatch graphical presentation within the electronic shopping interactive computing environment; 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; and 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 monitoring is by the one or more processors, that the shopping interactive environment is an electronic shopping interactive computing environment, that the presenting is by the one or more processors on the user interface, that the stopwatch presentation is a stopwatch graphical presentation, 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,” “an electronic shopping interactive computing environment,” “the user interface,” “a stopwatch graphical presentation,” 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;
-monitoring, by the one or more processors, user interaction events in an electronic shopping interactive computing environment to determine whether the category associated with a detected search string changes, and when the category associated with the detected search string changes to another category associated with another search string, pausing the timer and initiating another timer;
-while the interactive shopping session is occurring, presenting, by the one or more processors on the user interface, timer data from the timer in a stopwatch graphical presentation within the electronic shopping interactive computing environment; 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, an electronic shopping application operating on the one or more processors, an electronic shopping interactive computing environment, the user interface, and a stopwatch graphical presentation are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing the generic computer functions of detecting data, initiating data, monitoring 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.
Subject Matter Allowable Over Prior Art
In the present application, claims 12-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 USC § 101 set forth in this Office action. The following is the Examiner's statement of reasons of allowance:
Regarding 35 U.S.C. §103, upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the totality of the evidence, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the applicant’s invention. Claims 12-16 are allowable over the prior art as follows:
Claims 12-16 are allowable over 35 U.S.C. §103 as follows:
The most relevant prior art made of record includes Powell et al. (US 2014/0189519 A1), newly cited Dziuk et al. (US 2024/0414406 A1), Breedvelt et al. (US 12,204,601 B2) and Peters et al. (US 8,250,474 B2). Powell teaches a user interface (Powell, see at least: [0022]); a memory (Powell, see at least: [0021]); and one or more processors operable with the user interface and the memory (Powell, see at least: [0020] and [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: [0036], [0021], [0031], [0016] and Fig. 6); monitoring, by the one or more processors, user interaction events in an electronic shopping interactive computing environment to determine whether the category associated with a detected search string changes (Powell, see at least: [0031], [0016], and Fig. 6); while the interactive shopping session is occurring, presenting, by the one or more processors on the user interface, timer data from the timer within the electronic shopping interactive computing environment (Powell, see at least: [0024], [0038], and [0034]); 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: [0037], [0036], [0033], [0048], [0042] and Fig. 6); wherein the compilation is stored in a timer log in the memory as (Powell, see at least: [0033] and [0037]): per-category timer data stored and is presented for the each search string category (Powell, see at least: [0034], [0048], [0031] and Fig. 6); and a total interactive-session time obtained by summing the per-category timer data (Powell, see at least: [0038], [0034], and [0039]).
Powell is deficient in a number of ways. As written, the claims require that when the category associated with the detected search string changes to another category associated with another search string, pausing the timer and initiating another timer; presenting, by the one or more processors on the user interface, timer data from the timer in a stopwatch graphical presentation; and per-category timer data being stored separately for the each search string category.
Regarding Dziuk, Dziuk teaches, when the category changes to another category, pausing the timer and initiating another timer (Dziuk, see at least: [0076]).
Though disclosing these features, Dziuk does not disclose or render obvious the features discussed above.
Regarding Breedvelt, Breedvelt teaches presenting, by the one or more processors on the user interface, timer data from the timer in a stopwatch graphical presentation (Breedvelt, see at least: Col. 10 Ln. 44-54 and Fig. 4).
Though disclosing these features, Breedvelt does not disclose or render obvious the features discussed above.
Regarding Peters, Peters teaches per-category timer data stored separately for the each search string category (Peters, see at least: Col. 10 Ln. 43-56 and Fig. 4).
Though disclosing these features, Peters does not disclose or render obvious the features discussed above.
Ultimately, the particular combination of limitations as claimed, is not anticipated nor rendered obvious in view of Powell, Dziuk, Breedvelt, and Peters, and the totality of the prior art. While certain references may disclose more general concepts and parts of the claim, the prior art available does not specifically disclose the particular combination of these limitations.
Powell, Dziuk, Breedvelt, and Peters, however, do not teach or suggest, alone or in combination the claimed invention. Examiner emphasizes that the prior art/additional art 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).
Cited NPL reference U (cited 08/08/2026 on PTO-892) teaches session log analysis, but does not teach or suggest the recited limitations.
The Examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as combining various references from the totality of evidence to reach the combination of features as claimed would be a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
It is thereby asserted by Examiner that, in light of the above and further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims are allowable as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant argues that claim 12 is not merely directed to "creating a log of shopping session data," as characterized in the Office Action at pages 6-9. Rather, claim 12 now recites a specific event driven user-interface control mechanism performed during an interactive shopping session in an electronic shopping interactive computing environment. In particular, amended claim 12 recites that, while the interactive shopping session is occurring, the one or more processors monitor user interaction events in the electronic shopping interactive computing environment to determine whether a search string category changes. When the category changes, the processors pause the currently running timer and initiate another timer, and the processors present timer data from the currently applicable timer in a virtual stopwatch graphical presentation within the electronic shopping interactive computing environment. These limitations do not merely collect, organize, or log shopping-session information after the fact. Instead, they require contemporaneous detection of user-interface events, event driven switching among per-category timers, and corresponding in-session graphical presentation of timer output in the electronic shopping environment. The amendments are fully supported by the originally filed disclosure. The event-driven nature of the amended claim is likewise expressly described. (Remarks, pages 1-2).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a), as they encompass advertising, and marketing or sales activities. While the claims utilize generic computing components to implement the monitoring a category change during a search and providing timers to the user as they are shopping, these additional elements 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). For instance, nether the claims nor the cited to paragraphs of the specification recite the technical procedures for how these steps are done other than that they are done by generic computing components. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the virtual stopwatch output is not merely a generic display of results. The specification discloses that "a virtual stopwatch presentation 111 presents a first output from a first timer 218 when the one or more processors 206 detect a first search string category occurring in the electronic shopping application 225, and a second output from a second timer 219 when the one or more processors 206 detect a second search string category occurring in the electronic shopping application 225" (SPEC [082]). Thus, the displayed timer output is tied to the contemporaneously detected category and changes in response to detected user interaction events within the electronic shopping application (Remarks, page 2).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not describe the technical procedures for how the detecting is done and how it triggers the display of the timer. Merely utilizing generic processors and displays to monitor data, detect data, and display a stopwatch 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). Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and are not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant further argues that Under the Alice/Mayo framework and MPEP § 2106.04(d), even if the claim were considered to recite an abstract idea at Step 2A, Prong One, the amended claim integrates any such alleged abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A, Prong Two. Amended claim 12 recites more than merely using generic processors to store or sum elapsed shopping-session data. The claimed processors monitor user interaction events, detect category changes, pause and initiate per-category timers based on those detected events, and present a virtual stopwatch graphical output corresponding to the contemporaneously detected category. These ordered operations define a particular way of controlling timer presentation in an interactive electronic shopping user interface. The claimed device therefore integrates any alleged organizing or tracking concept into a specific in-session user-interface operation, rather than merely appending generic computer implementation to a commercial practice (Remarks, pages 2-3).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Merely utilizing generic processors and displays to monitor data, detect data, and display data 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 the claims do not actually recite the technical procedures for how these steps are done. Accordingly, the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant further argues that the amendment also addresses the Office Action's concern that the user interface, memory, and processors are merely generic components performing high-level detecting, initiating, presenting, storing, and summing operations. The amended claim now recites the specific event-driven processor control and graphical user-interface behavior disclosed in the specification: user interaction events are monitored to detect category changes; the active timer is paused when the detected category changes; another category-specific timer is initiated or resumed; and the virtual stopwatch graphical presentation presents the output associated with the detected category during the shopping session. These limitations provide the claimed device with a particular interactive behavior within the electronic shopping environment and are not merely instructions to "apply" an abstract idea on generic hardware. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).For at least these reasons, amended claim 12, considered as a whole, is not directed to the alleged abstract idea. Rather, the claim integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application through a specific event-driven graphical user-interface control mechanism within the electronic shopping interactive computing environment. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of claims 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claims depending from claim 12 are patent-eligible for at least the same reasons and for the additional limitations recited therein. Reconsideration of the rejections is respectfully requested (Remarks, page 3).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, the claims do not describe the technical procedures for how the monitoring and detecting are done and how it triggers the display of the timer. Merely utilizing generic processors and displays to monitor data, detect data, and display a stopwatch 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). Accordingly, the claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Thomas et al. (US 7,962,483 B1) teaches summarizing web sessions based on item classes.
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 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
Prosecution Insights