DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 7-13, and 19-30 are pending in this application. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment dated December 17, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 7-9, 13, and 19-20 have been amended. Claims 21-30 have been newly added. Claims 2-6 and 14-18 have been canceled.
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, 7-13, and 19-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 7-13, and 19-30, under Step 1, the claims recite a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Under Step 2A claims 1-20 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites: A computer-implemented method, the method comprising: configuring, using one or more processors included in a computer system, a manner of scaling; detecting, by an e-commerce platform including in the computer system, one or more indicators indicative of an anticipated spike in a level of computing events, the computing events occurring on the computer system and corresponding to adding at least one of a set of one or more particular products to online shopping carts for an online store; determining, using the one or more processors included in the computer system and based on the detected one or more indicators, a predicted level of add-to-cart computing events occurring on the computer system and corresponding to adding the at least one of the set of one or more particular products to online shopping carts for the online store; and responsive to determining the predicted level of computing events, and prior to anticipated commencement of the anticipated spike in the level of computing events occurring on the computer system, performing a scaling intervention to address a limitation of the configured manner of scaling.
The above limitations set forth a procedure for organizing human activity, such as by performing commercial interactions including marketing activity and business relations. This is because the claim recites the steps performed in order to determine a predicted level of added products (Specification ¶0013). Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) the claim recites an abstract idea because the claim recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites additional elements, including one or more processors included in a computer system and an e-commerce platform.
These additional elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment. MPEP 2106.05.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claims 7-12 and 21-27 recite limitations which are similarly directed to and elaborate on the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 1. Thus, each of claims 7-12 and 21-27 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, claims 7-12 and 21-27 do not set forth further additional elements. Considered both individually and as a whole, claims 7-12 and 21-27 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Lastly, under step 2B, dependent claims 7-12 and 21-27 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and specified at a high level of generality.
Claims 13, 19-20, and 28-30 are parallel, i.e. recite similar concepts and elements, to claims 1, 7-12 and 21-27, analyzed above, and the same rationale is applied.
In view of the above, claims 1, 7-13, and 19-30 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 7-13, and 19-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al., US PG Pub 2022/0198452 A1 (hereafter “Chen”), previously cited, in view of Saad et al., US PG Pub 2024/0078572 A1 (hereafter “Saad”), previously cited, in further view of Pamidala et al., US PG Pub 2022/0164186 A1 (hereafter “Pamidala”).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a computer-implemented method, the method comprising:
configuring, using one or more processors included in a computer system a manner of scaling (¶¶0045, 0063, and 0076);
detecting, by an e-commerce platform included in the computer system, one or more indicators indicative of an anticipated spike in a level of computing events, the computing events occurring on the computer system and corresponding to adding at least one of a set of one or more particular products to online shopping carts for an online store (¶¶0081-0083);
determining, using the one or more processors included in the computer system and based on the detected one or more indicators, add-to-cart computing events occurring on the computer system and corresponding to adding the at least one of the set of one or more particular products to online shopping carts for the online store (¶¶0037, 0058-0062, 0078-0081, and 0091-0093); and
responsive to determining the predicted level of computing events, and prior to anticipated commencement of the anticipated spike in the level of computing events occurring on the computer system (¶0083).
Chen teaches a load estimator configured for identifying an anticipated spike or surge in requests, number of site visits, active shopping carts, and adding counts of selected product items but does not explicitly teach a predicted level. Saad teaches electronic shopping cart prediction and caching of electronic shopping cart computations including a predicted level (¶¶0041 and 0050). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Chen, to include a predicted level as taught by Saad, in order to “reduce the time it takes to respond to e-shopper commands and/or generate pages associated with a predicted electronic shopping cart,” as suggested by Saad “(¶0003).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Saad, the results of the combination were predictable.
Chen does not teach performing a scaling intervention to address a limitation of the configured manner of scaling. Pamidala teaches automated orchestration of containers by assessing microservices including the known technique for performing a scaling intervention to address a limitation of the configured manner of scaling (¶¶0068-0070 and 0084-0087). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Chen, to include a scaling intervention as taught by Pamidala, in order to provide “for easier management and discovery,” as suggested by Pamidala (¶0006).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Pamidala, the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 7, Chen in view of Saad and Pamidala teaches the method of claim 1, wherein performing the scaling intervention prior to anticipated commencement of the anticipated spike includes: determining that the manner of scaling is predicted to be inadequate to handle the anticipated spike in the level of computing events occurring on the computer system; and responsive to determining that the manner of scaling is predicted to be inadequate, performing the scaling intervention (Chen ¶¶0076-0083 and Pamidala ¶¶0068-0070 and 0084-0087). The combination would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons stated above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Chen in view of Saad and Pamidala teaches the method of claim 1, wherein performing the scaling intervention prior to anticipated commencement of the anticipated spike includes moving at least one or more of a plurality of online stores from a first server to a second server, wherein the plurality of online stores includes the online store (Chen ¶¶0035-0036, 0043, 0066, and 0113-0116 and Pamidala ¶¶0068-0070 and 0083-0087). The combination would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons stated above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Chen in view of Saad and Pamidala teaches the method of claim 1, wherein performing the scaling intervention prior to anticipated commencement of the anticipated spike includes increasing a computing resource available to a server hosting the online store (Chen ¶¶0081-0084 and Pamidala ¶¶0068-0070 and 0083-0087). The combination would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons stated above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Chen in view of Saad and Pamidala teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a level of confidence in the predicted level of add-to-cart computing events; determining a predicted level of a computing resource for adequately handling the predicted level of ATC computing events; and determining, based on the determined level of confidence, an amount by which to increase the level of the computing resource beyond the predicted level of the computing resource (Chen ¶¶0076-0084 and Saad ¶¶0041 and 0050). The combination would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons stated above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Chen in view of Saad and Pamidala teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the prediction is further based on historical data representing one or more historical spikes in the level of computing events occurring on the computer system and corresponding to adding the product to online shopping carts for the online store (Chen ¶0096).
Regarding claim 12, Chen in view of Saad and Pamidala teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the level of computing events occurring on the computer system include a rate of network request events for adding the particular product to online shopping carts for the online store (Chen ¶¶0077-0081).
Regarding claim 21, Chen in view of Saad and Pamidala teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein: the manner of scaling suffers from scaling lag (Pamidala ¶0079); and performing the scaling intervention includes overriding the configuration of the manner of scaling to address the scaling lag (Pamidala ¶¶0056-0058, 0068, and 0083-0084). The combination would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons stated above with respect to claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, Chen in view of Saad and Pamidala teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein: the manner of scaling is configured to cause scaling to occur during the anticipated spike (Chen ¶0081); and performing the scaling intervention causes scaling to occur and complete prior to the anticipated commencement of the anticipated spike (Pamidala ¶¶0066-0069 and 0083-0084). The combination would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons stated above with respect to claim 21.
Regarding claim 23, Chen in view of Saad and Pamidala teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein: the manner of scaling is configured to add capacity in response to a growth in demand for a computing resource (Chen ¶0083); and performing the scaling intervention adds capacity prior to the growth in demand for the computing resource instead of in response to the growth in demand for the computing resource (Chen ¶0083).
Regarding claim 24, Chen in view of Saad and Pamidala teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more indicators indicative of the anticipated spike in the level of computing events includes exceeding a threshold quantity of recipients of a notification, where the notification includes a discount or coupon code (Chen ¶¶0040-0053 and 0061-0063).
Regarding claim 25, Chen in view of Saad and Pamidala teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more indicators indicative of the anticipated spike in the level of computing events includes exceeding a threshold level of inventory of a product (Chen ¶¶0026, 0045-0046, 0053, and 0063-0064).
Regarding claim 26, Chen in view of Saad and Pamidala teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more indicators indicative of the anticipated spike in the level of computing events includes a bot mitigation event (Chen ¶¶0031 and 0079-0084).
Regarding claim 27, Chen in view of Saad and Pamidala teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more indicators indicative of the anticipated spike in the level of computing events includes an online shopping cart variance code configuration event (Chen ¶¶0059-0063 and 0081).
Regarding claims 13, 19-20 and 28-30, all of the limitations in claims 13, 19-20, and 28-30 are closely parallel to the limitations of method claims 1, 7-12, and 21-27 analyzed above, and are rejected on the same bases.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments regarding the §101 rejection (Remarks pp. 10-17), the examiner disagrees. Applicant alleges that the entirety of the claim language is identified as the abstract idea. This is false, and the examiner invites applicant to re-read the rejection. The rejection analyzes the claim language as required, identifies the abstract idea as determining a predicted level of added products which is described in the specification and explicitly claimed. Then the rejection identifies the additional elements as one or more processors included in a computer system and an e-commerce platform. The remaining claim limitations and elements are therefore directed to the abstract idea itself because they are not additional elements and they are in furtherance of the abstract idea. The claim language is applicant’s choice, and if applicant wishes to recite more additional elements applicant is free to do so. The examiner recommended reciting more additional elements during an interview on 11/14/2025 which applicant has ignored.
Applicant further argues that the “entirety of the claim language verbatim” is a technical solution to a technical problem. However, “configuring a manner of scaling,” “determining a predicted level of add-to-cart computing events occurring on the computer system,” and “the anticipated spike in the level of computing events occurring on the computer system, performing a scaling intervention to address a limitation of the configured manner of scaling,” are all abstract steps which can be performed mentally or by hand and are loosely tied to a generic processor which is not integrated into a practical application. Applicant’ asserts that “in assessing whether recited features are well-understood, routine, and conventional that a conclusion must be supported by a factual determination,” and that “no such analysis or determination appears in the current rejection.” However, the rejection does not assert that any limitation is well-understood, routine, and conventional, therefore no such determination is required. The examiner again invites applicant to re-read the rejection so that applicant’s arguments will be relevant.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art are moot in view of the newly cited reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bansal, US PG Pub 2023/0042767 A1, teaches reducing computing calls for webpage load times and resources.
Zhu et al., US PG Pub 2020/0160418 A1, teaches a hypergraph structure and truncation method that reduces computer processor execution time in predicting product returns based on large scale data.
Non-patent literature Alves Gomes, Miguel, et al. teaches predicting customer's purchase intention using embeddings.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-5549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights