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 .
1. Applicant’s amendment filed 01/26/2026 is entered. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 9-11, 13 and 16 are withdrawn claims, and claims 2-4, 6-7 are canceled claims. Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 14-15, 17-21 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 14-15, 17-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the interfering " in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since the claims 5, 8, 12 14-15, 17-21 inherit this deficiency from the base claim 1, they are rejected for the same reason.
Note: Examiner suggests amending claim 1 by canceling the limitations “ wherein the inferring is further based on content of the screen of the first user device that is or was shared”, and replacing by new language:----- inferring an intent of the first user and the one or more contacts based on the communication data and content of the screen of the first user device that is or was shared------to overcome this rejection. This is in line with the description in the Specification paragraphs 0078 and 0079.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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 1, 5, 8, 12, 14-15, 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, when analyzed as per MPEP 2106.
Step 1 analysis:
Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 14-15, 17-21 are to a process comprising a series of steps, clam 20 to a system, and claim 21 to manufacture, which are statutory (Step 1: Yes).
Claim 1 recites:
1. (Currently Amended) A method for intent inference from social online shopping, comprising:
(a) receiving, at a processor, from a first user device associated with a first user, an invitation request for social online shopping at a third-party online shopping platform;
(b) generating, at the processor, an invitation to one or more contacts identified in the invitation request, wherein the invitation comprises a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) link addressing the third-party online shopping platform;
(c) transmitting the invitation to the one or more contacts;
(d) in response to detecting acceptance of the invitation by one or more second user devices associated with the one or more contacts, connecting the first user device with the one or more second user devices;
(e) receiving, at the processor, communication data between the first user device and the one or more second user devices;
(f) predicting using a first machine learning modelan intent of the first user and the one or more contacts based on the communication data, wherein the first machine learning model is trained to infer the intent based on the communication data, and wherein the intent indicates whether the first user and the one or more contacts are interested in at least one of one or more products or services provided by the third-party online shopping platform; and
(g) generating., based on the intent, using a second machine learning model, a recommendation in association with the one or more products or services provided by the third-party online shopping platform,
(h) wherein the invitation request comprises an invite to the one or more second user devices to share a screen of the first user device,
(i) wherein the inferring is further based on content of the screen of the first user device that is or was shared,
(j) wherein the invitation request comprises an address of a third-party webpage of the third-party online shopping platform, and screen width and height of the first user device, first webpage view settings of the first web browser window that is displaying the third-party webpage, the first webpage view settings comprising width and height of the first web browser window that is displaying the third-party webpage, and first scroll X and Y positions of the first web browser window that is displaying the third-party webpage on the first user device,
(k) wherein the connecting the first user device with the one or more second user devices is performed through a user interface embedded in the third-party webpage,
(l) wherein the processor is configured to access, from the user interface embedded in the third-party webpage, the one or more contacts of the first user on the first user device and the communication data between the first user device and the one or more second user devices.
Step 2A Prong 1 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 14-15, 17-21 recite abstract idea.
The highlighted limitations comprising, “ generating an invitation to one or more contacts identified in the invitation request, predicting an intent of the first user and the one or more contacts based on the communication data, wherein the intent indicates whether the first user and the one or more contacts are interested in at least one of one or more products or services provided by shopping platform; and generating., based on the intent, a recommendation in association with the one or more products or services provided by the third-party online shopping platform”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, but for the “by the processor” language, the claim 1 encompasses a person (i) looking at an invitation request can generate invitation to a requested party, and (ii) by observing communication data collected related to shopping between two users and forming a simple judgement of inferring an intent from the collected communication data as what purchases are being contemplated from a shopping source. The mere nominal recitation of by a processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim 1 and its dependent claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 14-15, 17-21 recite a mental process. Since the other two independent claims 20 and 21 recite limitations discussed for claim 1, they also recite mental process.,
Thus, all pending claims 1, 5,12, 8, 14-15, 17-21 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 14-15, 17-21 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the additional limitations: (a) receiving, at a processor, from a first user device associated with a first user, an invitation request for social online shopping at a third-party online shopping platform; (b)generating, at the processor, an invitation to one or more contacts identified in the invitation request, wherein the invitation comprises a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) link addressing the third-party online shopping platform; (c) transmitting the invitation to the one or more contacts; (d) in response to detecting acceptance of the invitation by one or more second user devices associated with the one or more contacts, connecting the first user device with the one or more second user devices; (e) receiving, at the processor, communication data between the first user device and the one or more second user devices; (f) predicting, using a first machine learning model, an intent of the first user and the one or more contacts based on the communication data, wherein the first machine learning model is trained to infer the intent based on the communication data, and wherein the intent indicates whether the first user and the one or more contacts are interested in at least one of one or more products or services provided by the third-party online shopping platform; and (g) generating, based on the intent, using a second machine learning model, a recommendation in association with the one or more products or services provided by the third-party online shopping platform, (h)wherein the invitation request comprises an invite to the one or more second user devices to share a screen of the first user device, (i) wherein the inferring is further based on content of the screen of the first user device that is or was shared, (j) wherein the invitation request comprises an address of a third-party webpage of the third-party online shopping platform, and screen width and height of the first user device, first webpage view settings of the first web browser window that is displaying the third-party webpage, the first webpage view settings comprising width and height of the first web browser window that is displaying the third-party webpage, and first scroll X and Y positions of the first web browser window that is displaying the third-party webpage on the first user device; (k)wherein the connecting the first user device with the one or more second user devices is performed through a user interface embedded in the third-party webpage, (l) wherein the processor is configured to access, from the user interface embedded in the third-party webpage, the one or more contacts of the first user on the first user device and the communication data between the first user device and the one or more second user devices.
The limitations” a) receiving, at a processor, from a first user device associated with a first user, an invitation request for social online shopping at a third-party online shopping platform; ( c) transmitting the invitation to the one or more contacts; ( e ) receiving, at the processor, communication data between the first user device and the one or more second user devices;”; are mere data gathering and transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and transmit/output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. These limitations are recited as being performed by a computer/processor. The computer/processor is recited at a high level of generality and the computer/processor is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations in steps in “ (h) wherein the invitation request comprises an invite to the one or more second user devices to share a screen of the first user device, (i) wherein the inferring is further based on content of the screen of the first user device that is or was shared and (j) wherein the invitation request comprises an address of a third-party webpage of the third-party online shopping platform, and screen width and height of the first user device, first webpage view settings of the first web browser window that is displaying the third-party webpage, the first webpage view settings comprising width and height of the first web browser window that is displaying the third-party webpage, and first scroll X and Y positions of the first web browser window that is displaying the third-party webpage on the first user device. “, merely describes data the invitation request includes and describing that the inferring step also considered content from a shared screen which amount to Non-function descriptive subject matter and as such does not add any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The limitations do not describe how inferring is carried out. Even if the shared content was used for the predicting step it merely describes the data considered for the mental process of predicting an intent and does not add any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
In limitations (b), (f) and (g), the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations that the invitation request in step (b) comprises an URL are mere non-functional descriptive subject matter and do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The use of machine learning model in steps (f) and (g), as drafted, is in a nominal manner and the steps of predicting an intent, and generating a recommendation merely require a generic output. The claim does not impose any limits on how the prediction of intent, and generation of the recommendation require any particular functions or components that are used to output the results of these steps. The trained machine learning model [MLM} is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the trained MLM functions. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “predicting an intent and generating a recommendation ” and do not include any details if any specific components or functions are accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of “using a trained MLM” also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element “using a trained MLM” limits the identified judicial exceptions “predicting an intent” and “generating a recommendation” this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MLM) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The limitations in step “(d) in response to detecting acceptance of the invitation by one or more second user devices associated with the one or more contacts, connecting the first user device with the one or more second user devices;”, relates a mere generic computer function of connecting two devices which does not add any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
The newly added limitations in steps “(k) wherein the connecting the first user device with the one or more second user devices is performed through a user interface embedded in the third-party webpage, and (l)wherein the processor is configured to access, from the user interface embedded in the third-party webpage, the one or more contacts of the first user on the first user device and the communication data between the first user device and the one or more second user devices.”, recite generic functions of providing an user interface on a webpage so that generic steps of accessing content including communication data, selecting content and retrieving content are performed and do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Providing a user interface on a webpage and using the interface to access content such as contacts and the communication data between two users is a long-standing practice being used before the effective date of the claimed invention and the claim limitations are not directed to an improvement in providing a user interface on a webpage and using it to access content and perform functions as retrieving and accessing data.
Even when viewed individually and in combination, these additional elements in claim 1 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). Since the other two independent claims 20 and 21 recite similar limitations as claim 1, they are analyzed on the same basis as claim 1 being directed to the judicial exception.
Dependent claims, 5, 8, 14-15, 17-19 merely extend the scope of the limitations already discussed for the base claim 1. Dependent claims 8, 12, 14, 15, and 17 recite non-functional descriptive subject matter describing what the invitation request comprises, recommendation comprises, describing the shopping platform, communication data, and that the processor is a part of cloud server. All these limitations do not add any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 5 merely relates to receiving screen information from a second user devices and sending codes to the second user devices to allow him to display a web page, which are mere non-significant extra-solution activity and the computer is used as a tool to perform generic computer functions . Claims 18 and 19 recite previously known steps of receiving payments , refund requests and exercising refunds which are recited at high level of generality and do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the judicial exception. In fact, the steps of receiving payment , receiving refund requests and provide refunds are generic function which are common in sale and purchase transactions.
Even when viewed individually and in combination, the additional elements in claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 14-15, 17-21 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim (s) as a whole amount (s) to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 14-15, 17-21 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since claims are as per Step 2A are directed to an abstract idea, they have to be analyzed per Step 2B, if they recite an inventive step, i.e., the claim recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to “Significantly More” than the judicial exception in the claim. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 14-15, 17-21 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using a generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra‐solution activity in Step 2A should be re‐evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving and transmitting steps and the displaying step were considered to be extra‐solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re‐evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well‐understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the example does not provide any indication that the computer components are anything other than a generic, off the shelf computer component and the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs, Versata court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d) (ii) indicate that mere receiving, acquiring, transmitting, and displaying steps using a generic computer is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving, acquiring, transmitting, and displaying steps are well-understood, routine conventional activities are supported under Berkheimer Option 2. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) 2: Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
The steps of sharing devices , providing user interface on a webpage and accessing content therein amount to simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
Even when considered individually and in combination, the additional elements in claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 14-15, 17-21 represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Thus, claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 14-15, 17-21 are patent ineligible.
4. Prior Art Discussion:
Reference claim 1, the prior art of record alone or combined including the best cited art of Parhar [US 20200151797 A1 [the inventive entity is same as that of the instant Application] in view of Jayaram [US Patent 9,299,099] cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 11/12/2025 neither teaches nor renders obvious at least the limitations, as a whole, comprising, “ predicting, using a first machine learning model , an intent of the first user and the one or more contacts based on the communication data, wherein the first machine learning model is trained to infer the intent based on the communication data, and wherein the intent indicates whether the first user and the one or more contacts are interested in at least one of one or more products or services provided by the third-party online shopping platform, and generating, based on the intent, using a second machine learning model, a recommendation in association with the one or more products or services provided by the third-party online shopping platform, wherein the wherein the inferring is further based on content of the screen of the first user device that is or was shared”, in combination with the rest of the limitations recited in claim 1. The other pending claims 5, 8, 12, 14-15, 17-21 depend from claim 1.
5. Allowability:
Note: If the claim 21, is amended, to overcome 35 USC 112 (b) and 35 USC 101 rejections, the claims can be placed in condition for allowance.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed 01/26/2026, see pages 7-22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner disagrees respectfully with the Applicant’s arguments with respect to Step 2A, Prong One analysis, see pages 10-11 because the newly added limitations, predicting, using a first machine learning model, an intent of the first user and the one or more contacts based on the communication data, and wherein the intent indicates whether the first user and the one or more contacts are interested in at least one of one or more products or services provided by the third- party online shopping platform; generating, based on the intent, using a second machine learning model, a recommendation in association with the one or more products or services provided by the third-party online shopping platform”, do “describe” and “Set forth” a mental process. Specially, the limitations “ predicting an intent of the first user and the one or more contacts based on the communication data, and wherein the intent indicates whether the first user and the one or more contacts are interested in at least one of one or more products or services provided by the third- party online shopping platform and generating, based on the intent a recommendation “, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, as analyzed above in paragraph 3 , under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, but for the “by the processor using a machine learning model” language, the claim 1 encompasses a person by observing communication data collected related to shopping between two users and forming a simple judgement of predicting an intent from the collected communication data as what purchases are being contemplated from a shopping source and based on the predicted intent making recommendations as what items or services to purchase . The mere nominal recitation of by a processor using a machine learning model does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim 1 and its dependent claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 14-15, 17-21 recite a mental process. The Applicant’s arguments with reference to the limitations ““ wherein the invitation comprises a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) link addressing the third-party online shopping platform; and wherein the inferring is further based on content of the screen of the first user device that is or was shared,” are not relevant under step 2A, Prong One, as Examiner did not consider them as “Mental Processes” in his analysis.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Examiner disagrees respectfully with the Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-16.
The arguments, see pages 13-14, “ Paragraphs [0003] and [0004] of the published application explain problems related to the technical field of online shopping platforms and technology, such as related to the friction between E-commerce websites and social platforms: [0003]Online shopping generally has a lower conversion rate and a higher return rate than physical brick and mortar store shopping. For example, the conversion rate of online shopping is 5 time lower than physical brick and mortar retail shopping conversion rate, and the return rate of online shopping is 3 time higher than physical brick and mortar retail return rate. For example, the online shopping conversion rate is 3% as compared to the brick & mortar retail conversion rate of 17%. This results in lost revenue opportunity for E-commerce. The online E-commerce return rate an average is 25% as compared to 8% for the brick and mortar shopping. This is not only a hassle for consumers but also results in higher cost. Both of these issues can be traced down to the differences in the customer experience. The online shopping experience is solitary as compared to the brick and mortar is social experience. [0004]Although the social experience can be achieved via social platforms, this typically requires switching from an E-commerce website to a social platform. This tends to turn customers away due to the friction in the process. “, are not persuasive, because they describe improvements to a business related experience and not to technical improvement in computer functioning. Decreasing return rate of bought items and thereby reducing the revenue loss are mere business-related benefit by merely using a computer as a tool performing generic computer functions. Applicant’s reference to the subject matter of Specification paras 0005 –0006 reciting real time discussions and applying artificial intelligence are not relevant as these features are not recited in the pending claims to be examined. The use of machine learning model [MLM] amounts to generally applying the abstract idea [of predicting an intent based on analyzing data] without placing any limits on how the trained MLM functions. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “predicting an intent and generating a recommendation ” and do not include any details if any specific components or functions are accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of “using a trained MLM” also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element “using a trained MLM” limits the identified judicial exceptions “predicting an intent” and “generating a recommendation” this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MLM) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The limitations generating an invitation request is merely composing a message and the processor is used as a tool to perform a generic computer function. Further, that the invitation request in step (b) comprises an URL are mere non-functional descriptive subject matter and do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. require any particular functions or components that are used to output the results of these steps.
The limitations in step “(d) in response to detecting acceptance of the invitation by one or more second user devices associated with the one or more contacts, connecting the first user device with the one or more second user devices;”, relates a mere generic computer function of connecting two devices which does not add any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The receiving communication data is mere insignificant extra-solution activity, as analyzed above in para 3 above.
The newly added limitations “ wherein the connecting the first user device with the one or more second user devices is performed through a user interface embedded in the third-party webpage, and (l)wherein the processor is configured to access, from the user interface embedded in the third-party webpage, the one or more contacts of the first user on the first user device and the communication data between the first user device and the one or more second user devices.”, recite generic functions of providing an user interface on a webpage so that generic steps of accessing content including communication data, selecting content and retrieving content are performed and do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Providing a user interface on a webpage and using the interface to access content such as contacts and the communication data between two users is a long-standing practice being used before the effective date of the claimed invention and the claim limitations are not directed to an improvement in providing an user interface on a webpage and using it to access content and perform functions as retrieving and accessing data.
In view of the foregoing, , the Applicant’s arguments on pages 11-16 with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two analysis are not persuasive, and as analyzed above in paragraph 3, the additional elements referred to by the applicant do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B:
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 16-17 “ Although not necessary at this stage of the analysis, since Applicant has demonstrated that amended claim 1 recites eligible subject matter for at least the reasons discussed above, Applicant continues with the eligibility analysis for the sake of completeness. Applicant submits that the elements of amended claim 1, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than an alleged exception itself under Step 2B for at least the same reasons as those discussed above under Step 2A / Prong 2. “ are not found persuasive, because, as discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim 1, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using a generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
In view of the foregoing, claim 1 is patent ineligible. Since Applicant has not filed separate arguments for dependent claims 5, 8, 12, 14-15 and 17-21, all pending claims as analyzed in paragraph 3 above are patent ineligible.
6.2 Applicant’s arguments, see pages 17-21 filed 01/26/2026, with respect to rejection of the independent claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the current amendments to claim 1.. The rejection of the independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 5, 8, 12, 14-15 and 17-21 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(i) Badr [US 20240330386 A1; see para 0003] describes determining a predicted intent of a user and displaying additional content selected based on the predicted intent of the user, when visiting a shopping webpage or product webpage and provide relevant content recommendations such as reviews, options to buy, related videos, etc.) based on the predicted user intent.
(ii) Lawrence [US 20220222030 A1; see para 0083] describes identifying on a user interface 202 a user selection to start screen sharing for a video event being shared. The selection circuitry 206 performs interactive context frame selection on the generated video frames and determines interaction intent from user interactions with the content of the screen sharing event to identify scenarios in which video frames can be dropped/removed from the transport stream to improve (e.g., optimize) video sharing/streaming during a video conferencing meeting.
(iii) Saad et al. [US 20220366265 A1; see paras 0002 and 0004] describes predicting an intent of a user to purchase a specific product from analyzing the user’s browsing and the predicted intent can be useful in inferring the u behavior of a shopper as when he will take an action and what will trigger that shopper to take that action and machine learning can be used to model and translate behavior into a prediction of intent.
(iv) Gopal [US 20240265412 A1; see para 0033 and Fig.3] describes a machine learning system 118, configured to train the forecasting model and refine the forecasting model by retraining with updated training data and during inference time, the machine learning system 118 uses the trained forecasting model to determine probabilities of predicted sales for different items in various categories of interest to a seller.
(v) Sharma [US 20130198224 A1; see para 0026] describes that a server provided application webpages may include at least one user interface ("UI") as is known in the art, embodied in a webpage, which may include hypertext markup language ("HTML"), extensible markup language ("XML"), JavaScript object notation ("JSON"), and the like that specify instructions regarding how the UI is to be rendered by the computing device on its display.
(vi) Clarke [US 20060053043 A1 , see para 0042] describes that webpages described utilize a common user interface, such as may be found in a Windows environment, including title bar, selectable function bar (File, Edit, View, Insert, Format, Tools, Report, Help) with icons, pull down selections and options, tool bars, and main body.
NPL references:
(vii) Sheil et al. “ Predicting purchasing intent: Automatic Feature Learning using Recurrent Neural Networks”; arXiv:1807.08207v1 [cs.LG] 21 Jul 2018 retrieved from IP. Com on 03062026 describes a neural network for predicting purchasing intent in an Ecommerce setting using state-of-the-art methods such as Gradient Boosted Machines, wherein multi-layer recurrent neural networks capture both session-local and dataset-global event dependencies and relationships for user sessions of any length .
(vii) Belimpasakis and S. Moloney, "A platform for proving family oriented RESTful services hosted at home," in IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 690-698, May 2009, retrieved from IP. Com on 11072025 and cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 11/12/2025 describes, see page 693, building a home portal for representing the family for using available services, in a unified screen as shown in Fig. 3, accessible via a web browser. Fig. 3. Family portal besides the visual representation of all the services, for the family users to access, the system automatically generates an XML-based list of all the installed home services, based on information collected during the installation of the home services and this list would be a machine-readable list, which would be accessible via the URL.
Foreign references:
(viii) WO 2013121200 A1 , see claim 14 describes that the invitation messages include URL, providing a link to a messaging website.
(ix) CN 111694530A cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 11/12/2025 [see Abstract] describes a method relating to computer vision field, and cloud computing field, wherein screen parameters comprising a screen width and a screen height of the target display device are obtained along with the design parameter of the small program bearing container comprising design width and design height. Using a predetermined adaptation algorithm, the screen parameter, the design parameter and the preset screen ratio coefficient the first adaptations factor of the target display device are determined.
8. Final Rejection:
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 YOGESH C GARG whose telephone number is (571)272-6756. The examiner can normally be reached Max-Flex.
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, Jeffrey A. 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.
YOGESH C. GARG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/YOGESH C GARG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688