DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 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 .
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 2, 9, or 16 be found allowable, claims 3, 10, and 17 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-20, 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: An automated user categorization and insight method, comprising: using a user identification algorithm stored in a memory and executed by a processor, identifying a user or device and capturing information associated with a failed or incomplete transaction to purchase a product via an external user interface; using a correlation algorithm stored in the memory and executed by the processor, associating the failed or incomplete transaction to purchase the product with a successful or completed transaction to purchase the product and determine a degree of association; and using an order manager stored in the memory and executed by the processor, generating an internal user interface providing a list of failed or incomplete transactions to purchase the product including the identified user or device and the captured information associated with the failed or incomplete transaction to purchase the product and visually indicating the determined degree of association.
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 identify incomplete transactions (Specification ¶0006). 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 a memory, a processor, and a user interface.
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 2-7 recite limitations which are similarly directed to and elaborate on the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 1. Thus, each of claims 2-7 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, claims 2-7 do not set forth further additional elements. Considered both individually and as a whole, claims 2-7 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Lastly, under step 2B, dependent claims 2-7 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 8-20 are parallel, i.e. recite similar concepts and elements, to claims 1-7, analyzed above, and the same rationale is applied.
In view of the above, claims 1-20 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Winters, US PG Pub 2011/0231224 A1 (hereafter “Winters”).
Regarding claim 1, Winters discloses an automated user categorization and insight method, comprising:
using a user identification algorithm stored in a memory and executed by a processor, identifying a user or device and capturing information associated with a failed or incomplete transaction to purchase a product via an external user interface (¶¶0043-0050, 0068, 0082-0086, 0090-0100, 0107-0116, 0222-0224, 0312-0324, 0331, and 0334-0348);
using a correlation algorithm stored in the memory and executed by the processor, associating the failed or incomplete transaction to purchase the product with a successful or completed transaction to purchase the product and determine a degree of association (¶¶0033-0036, 0044-0046, 0064, 0077-0080, 0085, 0092-0094, 0101-0118, 0313-0314, 0324-0331, and 0339); and
using an order manager stored in the memory and executed by the processor, generating an internal user interface providing a list of failed or incomplete transactions to purchase the product including the identified user or device and the captured information associated with the failed or incomplete transaction to purchase the product and visually indicating the determined degree of association (¶¶0040, 0104-0107, 0117, 0197-0198, 0243, 0257-0263, 0276-0277, 0295-0300, 0323-0331, and 0392).
Regarding claim 2, Winters discloses the automated user categorization and insight method of claim 1, further comprising, using the order manager, establishing a communication link between the order manager and an external sales device if the determined degree of association exceeds a predetermined threshold (¶¶0090, 0130, 0165, 0186, 0200, 0264, 0271, 0275, 0296, 0349, 0401, and 0471).
Regarding claim 3, Winters discloses the automated user categorization and insight method of claim 1, further comprising, using the order manager, establishing a communication link between the order manager and an external user device if the determined degree of association exceeds a predetermined threshold (¶¶0090, 0130, 0165, 0186, 0200, 0264, 0271, 0275, 0296, 0349, 0401, and 0471).
Regarding claim 4, Winters discloses the automated user categorization and insight method of claim 1, wherein the degree of association is based on one or more of name, family name, device identification, email address, phone number, address, and geographic location (¶¶0087-0094, 0156, and 0197).
Regarding claim 5, Winters discloses the automated user categorization and insight method of claim 1, wherein the degree of association is based on one or more of financial information, similar product selections, similar configurator preferences, similar configurator usage order and speed, and similar indications of desired delivery date (¶¶0068, 0186, 0197-0201, 0337, and 0432).
Regarding claim 6, Winters discloses the automated user categorization and insight method of claim 1, wherein the order manager is further configured to monitor the successful closure of secondary transactions and provide feedback to the correlation algorithm to assess a degree of association of future failed or incomplete transactions to purchase the product with future successful or completed transactions to purchase the product (¶¶0033-0036, 0044-0046, 0064, 0077-0080, 0085, 0092-0094, 0101-0118, 0313-0314, 0324-0331, and 0339).
Regarding claim 7, Winters discloses the automated user categorization and insight method of claim 1, further comprising, using the order manager, visually indicating preferenced failed or incomplete transactions to purchase the product based on a determined likelihood for transaction closure related to a predetermined product offering (¶¶0040, 0104-0107, 0117, 0197-0198, 0243, 0257-0263, 0271 0276-0277, 0295-0300, 0323-0331, 0392, and 0442-0445).
Regarding claims 8-20, all of the limitations in claims 8-20 are closely parallel to the limitations of method claims 1-7, analyzed above, and are rejected on the same bases.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jhamtani et al., US PG Pub 2017/0024807 A1, teaches identifying the end of an online cart session.
Isaacson et al., US PG Pub 2019/0306137 A1, teaches a system and method for providing a social media shopping experience.
Non-patent literature Jiang, Dan, Guangling Zhang, and Lu Wang teaches the effect of shopping cart item sorting on online shopping cart abandonment behavior.
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.
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, 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