PREDICTIVE CONVERSION SYSTEMS AND METHODS

DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Response to Arguments Double Patenting Double Patenting rejection has been withdrawn based on the amendments filed on 07/01/2026. 112th rejection: 112th rejection cited on final office action sent on 04/02/2026 has been withdrawn based on the amendments filed on 07/01/2026. 101 Rejections With respect to Applicant’s argument that “Without conceding the rejections of the unamended claims, the Applicant submits that the amended claims do not recite a judicial exception. Regarding Step 2A Prong One, the Office Action alleged that the original claims are directed to mental processes, including "analyzing" historical conversion activity…. "determining, by the computer system, user responses to the interactive result set, the user responses comprising at least a user selection of one or more of the plurality of unique items"; "inputting, by the computer system, the user responses and metadata associated with the selected unique items into an analytics database"; "adapting, by the computer system, the regression formula based on the user responses and the metadata associated with the selected unique items"; "regenerating, by the computer system, at least a portion of the predicted….. "adapt the conversion formulas applied at block 612 based on the results and/or metadata associated with the products selected by the user." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0090]. Such coordinated database operations and formula adaptation are fundamentally different from human mental processes.. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection and allowance of the claims”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner cites that the amended limitations “determining, -“adapting, -“regenerating, The limitations “inputting, by the computer system, the user responses and metadata associated with the selected unique items into an analytics database” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, … buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and/or "iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363." -“and causing display via the user interface an updated interactive result set, the updated interactive result set being prioritized based at least in part on the regenerated predicted conversion factors” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and well-understood, routine and conventional activities (WURC) as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9". -“by the computer system” which is a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application. Therefore, the amended limitations do not overcome the 101 rejections. With respect to Applicant’s argument that “Without conceding that the Applicant's claims recite a judicial exception, ……... Amended Claim 12 recites a specific technological solution: a closed-loop system that improves its own predictive model. The specification describes at paragraph [0090] a feedback pipeline where "the user's responses to the ordered search results list (for example, which products and/or items did the user click on, purchase, etc.) are determined at block 632," the system is configured to "feed, process, return, and/or input the user responses, results and/or metadata associated with the products selected by the user into the analytics database 636," and to "adapt the conversion formulas applied at block 612 based on the results and/or metadata associated with the products selected by the user." See As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0090]. ….." …, combine that data with item metadata, adapt its underlying predictive model, and regenerate conversion factors through the adapted model”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner cites that Applicant characterizes amended claim 12 as providing a technological improvement in search-result optimization because the claimed system uses user interactions to adapt a regression formula and subsequently regenerate predicted conversion factors. However, the amended claims recite mathematical/mental process and the additional elements are inputting data into a database and displaying information. The claim does not recite an improvement to the technology. Applicant further argues that the amended claim recites a specific mechanism for capturing user selections, combining such information with metadata, adapting the underlying predictive model, and regenerating conversion factors. This argument is not persuasive. The recited mechanism describes the determining information and then supply to the mathematical formula and the mathematical use of that information to update the model and generate new predictive values. Merely specifying the data upon which a mathematical/mental calculation operates and subsequently using the calculated values to prioritize information does not, without more, establish an improvement to computer functionality or another technological field, rather the limitations “determining…”, “adapting…”, “regenerating…” are abstract ideas. The claimed computer system and analytics database perform their ordinary functions of receiving, storing, and processing information, while the user interface displays the results of the mathematical analysis, which are insignificant extra solution activities and well-understood, routine and convention activities. Therefore, the claims do not recite any improvement to the technology. With respect to Applicant’s argument that “The claims impose meaningful limits on practicing any abstract idea. For example, amended Claim 12 recites in part: "determining, by the computer system, user responses to the interactive result set, the user responses comprising at least a user selection of one or more of the plurality of unique items… Amended claim 24 recites similar features. As disclosed in the specification, "the user's or customer's actions (and inaction) as to presented items and information serves as feedback for refinement of the operations." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0062]. The amended claims reflect this technical improvement by reciting a specific pipeline through which the system may use actual user interactions with displayed search results to adapt its regression formula, so that subsequently generated conversion factors and prioritized results may be informed by observed user behavior rather than historical data alone. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection and allowance of the claims”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner cites that Applicant’s argument that the amended limitations impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception has also been considered but is not persuasive. The amended limitation “determining, -“adapting, -“regenerating, The limitations “inputting, by the computer system, the user responses and metadata associated with the selected unique items into an analytics database” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, … buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)". -“and causing display via the user interface an updated interactive result set, the updated interactive result set being prioritized based at least in part on the regenerated predicted conversion factors” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and well-understood, routine and conventional activities (WURC) as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9". -“by the computer system” which is a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim does not impose meaningful limits on practicing any abstract idea. Furthermore, Applicant’s reliance on paragraph [0062] does not demonstrate a technological improvement. The claim does not recite an improvement in computer technology. Therefore, the claims remain rejected under 101 rejections. With respect to Applicant’s argument that “Without conceding that the Applicant's claims recite an abstract idea, the Applicant respectfully submits that the claims contain an inventive concept that transforms the alleged abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter..….Claim 12, is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. Amended claim 24 recites similar features. The Examiner has not provided evidence that this specific combination of elements was well-understood, routine, or conventional at the time of filing. The specification describes that the system is configured to adapt the conversion formulas based on the results and metadata associated with the products selected by the user, and then apply those adapted formulas to generate updated conversion rates. See As-Filed Specification, paragraphs [0087], [0090].…. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection and allowance of the claims”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner cites that the amended limitation “inputting, by the computer system, the user responses and metadata associated with the selected unique items into an analytics database” is well-understood, routine and conventional activities (WURC) as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, … buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)". -“and causing display via the user interface an updated interactive result set, the updated interactive result set being prioritized based at least in part on the regenerated predicted conversion factors” is WURC as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9". Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. 103 Rejections: The 103 rejections have been withdrawn based on the amendments filed on 07/01/2026. . 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 12-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of the following reasons: Claims 12, 24: At Step 1: The claims are directed to a “method”, "system" and thus directed to a statutory category. At Step 2A, Prong One: The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea: -“analyzing, -“generating, based on the analyzing, a regression formula capable of outputting predicted conversion factors for different unique items having a same category but a different combination of attribute values than the at least a portion of the plurality of unique items for which historical conversion activity information is stored” recites a mental process because human mind can generate a regression formula which will output (produce results) predicted conversion factors for different items for different combinations by observation/evaluation and judgment and/or by mathematical calculation. For example, a human can analyze historical sales data and observes that items with certain attributes (e.g. lower price, higher ratings) tend to have higher conversion rates. Based on these observations, the human forms a relationship between attributes and likelihood of conversion and applies that relationship to estimate conversion likelihood for new items having different attribute combinations by evaluation/observation and judgment of data. Moreover, “regression formula” constitutes a mathematical model expressing relationships between variables and generating predicted outputs, therefore, also mathematical calculation. -“generating, -“determining, -“adapting, -“regenerating, At Step 2A, Prong Two: The claim recites the following additional elements: -"one or more electronic data stores", “non-transitory storage medium”, "one or more processors", “a user interface”, “by the computer system” which are all a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represent mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application. -“a computer-implemented method of generating and presenting interactive search results for unique items”, “a computer readable, non-transitory storage medium having a computer program stored thereon for causing a computer system to process by one or more processors computer-program code by performing a method of generating and presenting interactive search results for unique items when the computer program is executed on the computer system”, are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). -“providing, by a computer system, a user interface that comprises functionality that enables a user to search and interact with a plurality of unique items” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data outputting for data gathering purposes. -"maintaining, by a computer system, one or more electronic data stores that store information relating to a plurality of unique items, each unique item comprising a plurality of attributes and a category, wherein each unique item of the plurality of unique items corresponds to a specific unique item currently or previously offered for sale” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g). -“the stored information comprising at least: predicted conversion factors associated with the plurality of unique items, each of the predicted conversion factors being representative of a predicted likelihood of conversion of one of the plurality of unique items; information associated with the plurality of attributes, wherein each unique item of the plurality of unique items comprises a unique combination of attribute values; and information associated with historical conversion activity of at least a portion of the plurality of unique items" is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). -“wherein the regression formula is computer-generated, and wherein the regression formula is automatically and dynamically updated in real-time” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). -“receiving, by the computer system, a user search request generated via a user interface, the user search request comprising an item search criteria” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g). -“searching, by the computer system, the one or more electronic data stores for a plurality of unique items relating to the item search criteria” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g). -“causing display via the user interface an interactive result set based on results of the searching, the interactive result set being prioritized based at least in part on the predicted conversion factors” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). -“inputting, by the computer system, the user responses and metadata associated with the selected unique items into an analytics database” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g). -“and causing display via the user interface an updated interactive result set, the updated interactive result set being prioritized based at least in part on the regenerated predicted conversion factors” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. At Step 2B: The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and do not provide significantly more. -“providing, by a computer system, a user interface that comprises functionality that enables a user to search and interact with a plurality of unique items” is WURC as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9". -“a computer-implemented method of generating and presenting interactive search results for unique items”, “a computer readable, non-transitory storage medium having a computer program stored thereon for causing a computer system to process by one or more processors computer-program code by performing a method of generating and presenting interactive search results for unique items when the computer program is executed on the computer system”, are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). -“the stored information comprising at least: predicted conversion factors associated with the plurality of unique items, each of the predicted conversion factors being representative of a predicted likelihood of conversion of one of the plurality of unique items; information associated with the plurality of attributes, wherein each unique item of the plurality of unique items comprises a unique combination of attribute values; and information associated with historical conversion activity of at least a portion of the plurality of unique items" is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). -“wherein the regression formula is computer-generated, and wherein the regression formula is automatically and dynamically updated in real-time” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). -“maintaining, by a computer system, one or more electronic data stores that store information relating to a plurality of unique items, each unique item comprising a plurality of attributes and a category, wherein each unique item of the plurality of unique items corresponds to a specific unique item currently or previously offered for sale” is WURC as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363." -“receiving, by the computer system, a user search request generated via a user interface, the user search request comprising an item search criteria” is WURC as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, … buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)"; "iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363." - “searching, by the computer system, the one or more electronic data stores for a plurality of unique items relating to the item search criteria” is WURC as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, … buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" - “causing display via the user interface an interactive result set based on results of the searching, the interactive result set being prioritized based at least in part on the predicted conversion factors” is WURC as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9" for Berkheimer support of being well-understood, routine, and conventional computer outputting of data. -“inputting, by the computer system, the user responses and metadata associated with the selected unique items into an analytics database” is WURC as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, … buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" and/or "iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363." -“and causing display via the user interface an updated interactive result set, the updated interactive result set being prioritized based at least in part on the regenerated predicted conversion factors” is WURC as evidence by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-9". Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 13, 25: At Step 2A, Prong Two: The claims recite the following additional elements: -“wherein the plurality of unique items comprises vehicles” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Claim 14: At Step 2A, Prong Two: The claims recite the following additional elements: -“wherein the plurality of unique items comprises real estate” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Claim 15: At Step 2A, Prong Two: The claims recite the following additional elements: - “wherein the plurality of unique items is associated with sales listings currently or previously offered by one or more third party systems separate from the computer system” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Claims 16, 26: At Step 2A, Prong Two: The claims recite the following additional elements: - “wherein maintaining the one or more electronic data stores comprises updating the regression formula on a periodic basis, and updating the predicted conversion factors” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Claims 17, 27: At Step 2A, Prong Two: The claims recite the following additional elements: - “wherein maintaining the one or more electronic data stores comprises updating the regression formula on a real-time basis, and updating the predicted conversion factors” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Claims 18, 28: At Step 2A, Prong Two: The claims recite the following additional elements: - “wherein maintaining the one or more electronic data stores comprises receiving, via a network accessible feed, data related to one or more new unique items offered for sale” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g). -“storing information relating to the one or more new unique items in the one or more electronic data stores” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. At Step 2B: The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more. - "wherein maintaining the one or more electronic data stores comprises receiving, via a network accessible feed, data related to one or more new unique items offered for sale" is WURC as evidenced by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, … buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)" -"storing information relating to the one or more new unique items in the one or more electronic data stores" is WURC as evidenced by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, … OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363." Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 19, 29: At Step 2A, Prong One: The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea: -“adapting the regression formula based on the user response data” Which is a mental process because human mind can adapt the regression formula based on the user response data by evaluation and judgment. At Step 2A, Prong Two: The claims recite the following additional element: -“receiving, by the computer system, user response data indicative of a user interaction with the interactive result set” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g). At Step 2B: The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more. -“receiving, by the computer system, user response data indicative of a user interaction with the interactive result set” is WURC as evidenced by the court cases cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, … buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)". Accordingly, at step 2B, these additional elements, both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 20: At Step 2A, Prong Two: The claims recite the following additional elements: - “wherein the user interaction comprises a selection of an item represented in the interactive result set” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Claims 21, 30: At Step 2A, Prong Two: The claims recite the following additional elements: - “wherein the regression formula is adapted and the predicted conversion factors are updated on a real-time basis” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Claims 22 and 31: At Step 2A, Prong Two: The claims recite the following additional elements: -“wherein the item search criteria is associated with at least one of the plurality of attributes of the plurality of unique items” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Claim 23: At Step 2A, Prong Two: The claims recite the following additional elements: -“wherein the same category of the different unique items comprises a vehicle category” is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use by limiting it to a particular data source or type. See MPEP § 2106.05(h) and Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data). Prior arts consideration Prior arts of record Brukman et al. (US 8,620,915) teaches inputting users responses and metadata in a formula in col. 6, lines 40-50. Zheng et al. (US 2008/0208836) teaches inputting metadata into regression formula in fig. 1, paragraphs [0025, 0026]. MacIntyre et al. (US 2003/0144868) teaches regression analysis in paragraphs [0215, 0216]. Watson et al. (US 2005/0154717) teaches conversion factors in paragraphs [0029, 0030]. Prior arts of record do not in combination explicitly teach “determining, by the computer system, user responses to the interactive result set, the user responses comprising at least a user selection of one or more of the plurality of unique items; inputting, by the computer system, the user responses and metadata associated with the selected unique items into an analytics database; adapting, by the computer system, the regression formula based on the user responses and the metadata associated with the selected unique items; regenerating, by the computer system, at least a portion of the predicted conversion factors by inputting the metadata into the adapted regression formula; and causing display via the user interface an updated interactive result set, the updated interactive result set being prioritized based at least in part on the regenerated predicted conversion factors”, as recited in the independent claims. Conclusion 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 FATIMA P MINA whose telephone number is (571)270-3556. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. 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, Ann Lo can be reached on 571-272-9767. 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. /FATIMA P MINA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2159 /ANN J LO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2159