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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/27/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1, and 3-12 are currently pending and are presented for examination on the merits.
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 1, and 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because they recite non-patentable subject matter under MPEP § 2106, e.g., the 2019 PEG, October update. More particularly, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea, etc.) without practical application or significantly more.
More particularly, when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Broad categories of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices, certain methods of organizing human activities, an idea itself, and mathematical relationships/formulas. See, generally, MPEP § 2106; Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. __ (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294, 1297-98 (2012)); Federal Register notice titled 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (79 FR 74618), which is found at: http:// www. gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-16/pdf/2014-29414.pdf; 2015 Update to the Interim Guidance; the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Fed. Reg., Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019; and associated Office memoranda.
Under MPEP § 2106, Step 1, the claimed invention, taking the broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a process (i.e., a method), machine (e.g., apparatus, system, etc.), article of manufacture (e.g., a non-transitory computer readable medium) or composition of matter, and as such, is within a statutorily recognized category.
Under MPEP § 2106, Step 2a-prong 1, Claims 1, and 3-12 recite a judicial exception(s), including a method of organizing human activity (e.g. fundamental economic principle). More particularly, the entirety of the method steps is directed towards selectively providing a customized checkout flow interface, and the ability to save an inchoate transaction within a database and recall same using an identifier. This is a long-standing commercial practice previously performed by humans (e.g., online merchants, etc.) manually and via generic computing. That is to say, online merchants have long customized a user’s checkout experience, when selecting his or her cart for completing a transaction. For example, when a user signs in to his or her account, and clicks on the cart (after selecting an item(s) to purchase), Amazon.com provides stored payment instruments, delivery addresses, and offers, based on the user’s history. See, Amazon.com. Humans (e.g., Merchants) have long customized their own checkout process, depending upon merchant, transaction, and customer characteristics/metrics. Furthermore, online merchants have long enabled a user to save an inchoate transaction/application that is retrievable by a user identifier (see, TAXACT.com). As such, the inventions include an abstract idea under § 2106, and Alice Corporation.
Under step 2a-prong 2, the claims fail to recite a practical application of the exception, because the extraneous limitations (e.g., the structure—a checkout flow management system, a checkout flow proxy, merchant system, segmentation system, checkout flow database, a user interface, etc.) merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g), generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or generally instruct an artisan to apply it (the method) across generic computing technology. A claim does not cease to be abstract for section 101 purposes simply because the claim confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment in order to effectuate a real-world benefit. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 222; BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2018); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2014). That is to say, the claims are not directed to a new software or computer, but rather employs pre-existing software to do what’s been previously done, albeit less efficiently or slower. “[I]t is not enough, however, to merely improve a fundamental practice or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool.” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). More particularly, the claims fail to recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology (under MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the use of a particular machine (under § 2106.05(b)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article (§ 2106.05(c)), or apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (§ 2106.05(e)).
Under part 2b, the additional elements offered by the dependent claims either further delineate the abstract idea, add further abstract idea(s), adds insignificant extra-solution activity, or further instruct the artisan to apply it (the abstract idea(s)) across generic computing technology. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because no one claim effects an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, or move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Under Alice, merely applying or executing the abstract idea on one or more generic computer system (e.g., a computer system comprising a generic database; a generic element (NIC) for providing website access, etc.; a generic element for receiving user input; and a generic display on the computer, in any of their forms) to carry out the abstract idea more efficiently fails to cure patent ineligibility. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347 (claims reciting a “scanner” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Serv. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea).
Courts have recognized the following computer functions to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations, receiving, processing, and storing data, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, electronic recordkeeping, automating mental tasks, and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, MPEP 2106.05(d), wherein the italicized tasks are particularly germane to the instant invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1, and 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0292465 to Schnitt et al, in view of US 2016/0035005 to Kumar et al., and further in view of US 2013/0290203 to Purves et al.
With respect to Claim 1, Schnitt teaches a computer process (FIG. 2) for generating a checkout flow interface ([0005-06];[0014]), the computer process comprising the steps of: receiving at a processor, a checkout request from a user device ([0005-06]); receiving at a processor, segmentation parameters ([0005], checkout parameters); based on said segmentation parameters, assigning a correlated checkout flow identifier to the checkout request in a memory in communication with the processor ([0005], URL;[0151]); a checkout flow proxy (Abstract, “link generation service”) accessing a checkout flow database via the proxy ([0005]) and using the checkout flow identifier to retrieve from the checkout flow database a machine-readable (i.e. computer readable) checkout flow definition (i.e., instructions) associated with said checkout flow identifier; and presenting a checkout flow to complete the transaction ([0462];[0465]). Schnitt teaches wherein said segmentation parameters used to assign the transaction to one of a plurality of predetermined customer segments ([0428]); and based on an assigned predetermined customer segment, assigning the correlated checkout flow identifier ([0431-32]). The system in Schnitt is configured to perform the recited steps of the invention; although it does not use the exact same language, it would have taught one of ordinary skill in the art, armed with the state of the art at the time of filing, each and every limitation of the claim. Please note that the applied reference(s) need not use the same terminology, or disclose the limitation verbatim. Differences between Schnitt and the instant invention have been deemed obvious, as held in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007). For example, whereas Schnitt teaches the use of a database(s) for storing information, it would have been obvious to try a database dedicated to checkout flows amongst a finite set of database choices herein. As such, it would have been obvious to modify Schnitt to teach the instant invention.
Schnitt fails to expressly teach, but Kumar further teaches accessing a checkout flow database via a checkout flow proxy (Abstract; [0038-39], cart engine) and using the checkout flow identifier to retrieve from the checkout flow database a checkout flow associated with said checkout flow identifier ([0047]); and presenting the checkout flow to complete a transaction ([0039]) wherein said segmentation parameters are used to assign the transaction to one of a plurality of predetermined customer segments ([0043]); and based on an assigned predetermined customer segment, assigning the correlated checkout flow identifier (Abstract; [0043];[0047]). Kumar teaches inflexibility in sharing carts with family and friends having similar needs. [0002-03]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Schnitt to include a checkout flow proxy that enables the recited function, in order to increase flexibility when shopping online, and particularly the ability to share one’s cart.
Schnitt fails to expressly teach, but Purves teaches the checkout flow proxy comprising an Application Programming Interface (API) gateway ([0045]); and generating, at the processor, a checkout flow user interface based on the machine-readable checkout flow definition; transmitting from the processor to the user device the interface for a user at the user device to complete a transaction . . . the checkout flow proxy routing the transaction to one or more checkout microservices for processing via the API gateway. ([0070]; FIG. 4B; [0086]; FIG. 6) Purves teaches the desire to add the benefit of making the CWI’s (customizable widgets and integration) more reliable ([0213]). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Schnitt to include the use of API and microservice/gateway, so as to make the checkout flow experience more reliable.
With respect to Claim 3, Schnitt teaches wherein after transmitting the checkout flow user interface, transmitting to a merchant system metrics associated with each checkout flow. [0476]
With respect to Claim 4, Schnitt teaches wherein said request for checkout from the user device is received at the merchant system ([0464]); said merchant system retrieves customer metadata and passes the customer metadata to a segmentation system to complete customer segmentation based on said customer metadata ([0105];[0333-340];[0423]).
With respect to Claim 5, Schnitt teaches upon receiving the assigned predetermined customer segment, assigning one of a plurality of checkout flow identifiers associated with the assigned predetermined customer segment ([0471], URL’s); and providing the merchant system with metrics associated with each of the plurality of checkout flow identifiers ([0471]).
With respect to Claim 6, Schnitt teaches the assignment of the checkout flow identifier is completed at the segmentation system ([0471]); and said checkout flow identifier is transmitted from said segmentation system to said checkout flow proxy ([0471]).
With respect to Claim 7, Schnitt teaches wherein the assigned predetermined customer segment is transmitted from said segmentation system to said checkout flow proxy (link generation service); and said checkout flow proxy assigns said checkout flow identifier in the memory ([0471]).
With respect to Claim 8, Schnitt teaches wherein said metadata includes at least one or more of the following: device type, screen size, cart status, method of accessing merchant webpage, customer persona, customer location, and cookies. ([0315];[0423];[0438], location)
With respect to Claim 9, Schnitt teaches wherein said step of transmitting the checkout flow user interface to complete for the transaction includes said checkout flow proxy communicating directly or indirectly with a payment gateway provider to complete an electronic payment ([0005];[0464]).
With respect to Claim 10, Schnitt teaches a system for making and evaluating check out flows for facilitating transactions (Abstract; [0005];[0464]) comprising; a merchant system ([0464]) for receiving a checkout request; a segmentation system for segmenting metadata associated with said checkout request into a customer segment ([0423]); a flow identifier (URL) that is associated with the customer segment (set of parameters); a checkout flow proxy (link service) configured to communicate with a checkout flow database; the checkout flow database containing a plurality of checkout flows each associated with a unique flow identifier; said checkout flow proxy configured to retrieve the checkout flow associated with said checkout flow identifier ([0464]); said checkout flow proxy configured to communicate the checkout flow associated with said checkout flow identifier to the merchant system ([0470]); and a user interface for presenting the checkout flow associated with said checkout flow identifier to a user ([0470]). See Claim 1.
Schnitt fails to expressly teach, but Kumar further teaches accessing a checkout flow database via a checkout flow proxy (Abstract; [0038-39], cart engine) and using the checkout flow identifier to retrieve from the checkout flow database a checkout flow associated with said checkout flow identifier ([0047]); and presenting the checkout flow to complete a transaction ([0039]) wherein said segmentation parameters are used to assign the transaction to one of a plurality of predetermined customer segments ([0043]); and based on an assigned predetermined customer segment, assigning the correlated checkout flow identifier (Abstract; [0043];[0047]). Kumar teaches inflexibility in sharing carts with family and friends having similar needs. [0002-03]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Schnitt to include a checkout flow proxy that enables the recited function, in order to increase flexibility when shopping online, and particularly the ability to share one’s cart.
Schnitt fails to expressly teach, but Purves teaches the checkout flow proxy comprising an Application Programming Interface (API) gateway ([0045]); and generating, at the processor, a checkout flow user interface based on the machine-readable checkout flow definition; transmitting from the processor to the user device the interface for a user at the user device to complete a transaction . . . the checkout flow proxy routing the transaction to one or more checkout microservices for processing via the API gateway. ([0070]; FIG. 4B; [0086]; FIG. 6) Purves teaches the desire to add the benefit of making the CWI’s (customizable widgets and integration) more reliable ([0213]). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Schnitt to include the use of API and microservice/gateway, so as to make the checkout flow experience more reliable.
With respect to Claim 11, Schnitt teaches a second user interface for presenting metrics associated with each of said plurality of checkout flows. ([0483])
With respect to Claim 12, Schnitt teaches a checkout flow management system (Abstract, platform) comprising; a checkout flow proxy (link management service) configured to receive customer segmentation data (parameters) and associate the customer segmentation data with a checkout flow identifier ([0005];[0464]); a checkout flow database comprising a plurality of checkout flows each identified with a unique checkout flow identifier (databases); said checkout flow proxy having a processor ([0468]) used to match the checkout flow identifier with said corresponding checkout flow ([0005];[0464]); and said checkout flow proxy configured to communicate said corresponding checkout flow to an external user ([0465], notifying an external system). See Claim 1.
Schnitt fails to expressly teach, but Kumar further teaches accessing a checkout flow database via a checkout flow proxy (Abstract; [0038-39], cart engine) and using the checkout flow identifier to retrieve from the checkout flow database a checkout flow associated with said checkout flow identifier ([0047]); and presenting the checkout flow to complete a transaction ([0039]) wherein said segmentation parameters are used to assign the transaction to one of a plurality of predetermined customer segments ([0043]); and based on an assigned predetermined customer segment, assigning the correlated checkout flow identifier (Abstract; [0043];[0047]). Kumar teaches inflexibility in sharing carts with family and friends having similar needs. [0002-03]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Schnitt to include a checkout flow proxy that enables the recited function, in order to increase flexibility when shopping online, and particularly the ability to share one’s cart.
Schnitt fails to expressly teach, but Purves teaches the checkout flow proxy comprising an Application Programming Interface (API) gateway ([0045]); and generating, at the processor, a checkout flow user interface based on the machine-readable checkout flow definition; transmitting from the processor to the user device the interface for a user at the user device to complete a transaction . . . the checkout flow proxy routing the transaction to one or more checkout microservices for processing via the API gateway. ([0070]; FIG. 4B; [0086]; FIG. 6) Purves teaches the desire to add the benefit of making the CWI’s (customizable widgets and integration) more reliable ([0213]). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Schnitt to include the use of API and microservice/gateway, so as to make the checkout flow experience more reliable.
Response to remarks
Applicant’s remarks submitted on 2/27/2026 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive where objections/rejections are maintained. The amendment overcomes the prior Claim objections. As per § 101, the claims continue to recite inventions including an abstract idea (e.g., provisioning a checkout interface). Different types of checkout interfaces (e.g., single page, 2-page, 3-page, etc.) and metrics for determining which to use have long been considered by merchants and payment processing services in an online, retail setting. The extraneous limitations offered by the amendment (e.g., an API, etc.) fail to offer an innovative concept or significantly more. Terms, such as “machine-readable,” “definition,” “microservice” are given their ordinary meaning, as such terms are not substantially discussed in the specification. As per the prior art rejections, Purves has been added to bolster the § 103 rejection and teach the limitations added by the instant amendment. Kumar teaches an engine or proxy (FIG. 2) that links an identifier to a saved cart in a database (FIG. 3). Kumar further teaches former Claim 2, where segmentation includes the user requests and sharing.
As previously presented, under § 101, the claims continue to recite inventions including an abstract idea (i.e., linking a checkout workflow to an identifier in a database). The claims fail to recite an innovative concept and/or significantly more than the abstract idea in the particular context of a shopping cart or checkout workflow. As per the prior art rejections, the claim terms are afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation. The term checkout flow is interpreted to include checkout workflow/template creation, display, etc. (a standard shopping cart that is customizable for the customer). Schnitt teaches a customizable shopping cart (e.g., with advertisements, etc.) based on stored user characteristics. Kumar teaches a standard shopping cart created by an engine (i.e., checkout flow proxy), and customer segmentation (i.e., distinguishing characteristics) associated with the identifier (See Abstract). As such, Applicant’s remarks directed to the prior combination is moot. Please note that the applied reference(s) need not use the same terminology, or disclose the limitation verbatim, and also that the entirety of a prior art reference is to be applied to the respective claim(s), such that the pinpoint citations above are exemplary and provided for Applicant’s benefit; other locations within the applied reference(s) may further support the rejection. MPEP 2141.02(VI).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-3082. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00, alternating Fri. off.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached on 5712723955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM J JACOB/Examiner, Art Unit 3696