DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response received 19 November 2025.
Claims 1-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea without significantly more).
Under step 1, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention (see MPEP 2106.03(II)). In the instant case, claims 1-20 are directed to a system.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites an abstract idea of shopping carts and checkout for retail items. Specifically, representative claim 1-20 recites the abstract idea of:
a plurality of retail items;
a shopping cart configured to receive a selected retail item from a respective retailer and add the selected retail items to a respective shopping cart by associating the selected retail item with at least one of a respective session and a user profile; and
a checkout processing the purchase of the selected retail item for a retail price including the input payment details, wherein
configured to detect when a number of retail items of the same type is added to a plurality of shopping carts across multiple sessions of different users and to control the checkout to adjust lower the retail price of the retail item based on the number of retail items of the same type exceeding a threshold.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in 2106.04(a) of the MPEP. Even in consideration of the analysis, the claims recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of a shopping cart and checkout for retail items, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity because it relates to sale activities since the claims specifically recite a plurality of retail items, a shopping cart that receives selected retail items from a retailer and the added selected items are associating the selected retail item with at least one respective session and a user profile, a checkout processing the purchase of the selected retail item for a retail price including the input payment details, and configuring to detect when a number of retail items of the same type are added to a plurality of shopping carts across multiple session of different users and to control the checkout to adjust lower the retail price of the retail item based on the number of retail items of the same type exceeding a threshold, thereby making this a sales activity or behavior.
Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements: e-commerce platform, a server, a plurality of webpages hosted by the server, wherein the plurality of the web pages serve, a subsystem hosted by the server, controller, web page, browser, controller, and the subsystem.
Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., a shopping cart and checkout for retail items) being applied on a general-purpose computer using general purpose computer technology. MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the 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). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements e-commerce platform, a server, a plurality of webpages hosted by the server, wherein the plurality of the web pages serve, a subsystem hosted by the server, controller, web page, browser, controller, and the subsystem recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘ad[d] nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’… [and] [v]iewed as a whole…[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-20 do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claim 1. The claims of 2-20 merely act to provide further limitations of the abstract idea and are ineligible subject matter.
It is noted that dependent claims includes the additional elements of button (claim 6), e-commerce platform across a wide area network (claim 10), a plug-in executed by the server (claim 11), a browser plug-in (claim 13), and a database (claim 14). Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the claimed additional elements as being anything other than a generic element. The claimed additional elements, individually and in combination do not integrate into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept because they are merely being used to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claims 6, 10-11 and 13-14 are directed towards an abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claims 6, 10-11, and 13-14, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. It is further noted that the remaining dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, 12, and 15-20 do not recite any further additional elements to consider in the analysis, and therefore would not provide additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and would not provide an inventive concept.
As such, claims 2-20 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or
nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadapurath, J., et al. (PGP No. US 2024/0127216 A1), in view of Kumar, S., et al. (PGP No. US 2019/0236679 A1).
Claim 1-
Kadapurath discloses An e-commerce platform (Kadapurath, see: paragraph [0026] disclosing “enterprise checkout system 200”) comprising:
a server (Kadapurath, paragraph [0116] disclosing “computing system 202”; also see FIG. 10);
a plurality of webpages hosted by the server, wherein the plurality of web pages serve a plurality of retail items (Kadapurath, see: paragraph [0004] disclosing “third party websites and services”; and see FIG. 1 and FIG. 10 rendering the computer system);
a subsystem hosted by the server including (Kadapurath, see: Claim 21 disclosing “subsystem storing instructions”):
a shopping cart controller configured to receive a selected retail item from a respective web page and add the selected retail items to a respective shopping cart by associating the selected retail item with at least one of a respective browser session and a user profile (Kadapurath, see: paragraph [0026] disclosing “cart 250 manages the containers of data that includes input and outputs from multiple APIs for each user” and “receive inputs from a plurality of tenant interfaces”; and paragraph [0027] disclosing “enterprise cart 250…contain data including, for any particular user [i.e., user profile]: a list of items to buy and associated quantities…”; and paragraph [0059] disclosing “The enterprise cart system 500 uses store checkout APIs” and paragraph [0060] disclosing “access guest profile information like addresses and payment instructions”; and see: [0094] disclosing “Guest order data” and “includes online tracking and browsing history”); and
a checkout controller processing the purchase of the selected retail item for a retail price including with input payment details (Kadapurath, see: paragraph [0032] disclosing “When an order is placed at any of the tenants, processed through the enterprise cart 250. The enterprise cart 250 takes the information received from the tenants, and communicates with other APIs to complete the transaction”; Also see: FIG. 3),
wherein the subsystem is configured to detect when a number of retail items is added to a shopping cart and to control the checkout controller to adjust lower the retail price of the retail item (Kadapurath, see: paragraph [0035] disclosing “Price API 256 receives the selected item and outputs the price associated with the item. Price API 256 is also able to calculate the price of multiple items, including when a sale price is associated with the items”; and see: paragraph [0037] disclosing “API 260 is receives the selected item and associated quantity”; and paragraph [0072] disclosing “cart API…update price overrides; price the cart including discounts [i.e., lower the retail price] and taxes”).
Although Kadapurath discloses detecting when items are added to the cart and that the system of Kadapurath can override and update prices of the items in the cart, Kadapurath does not disclose that there are the same type of items added to a plurality of carts. Kadapurath does not disclose:
items of the same type is added to a plurality of shopping carts across multiple sessions of different users;
the number of retail items of the same type exceeding a threshold;
Kumar, however, does teach:
items of the same type is added to a plurality of shopping carts across multiple sessions of different users (Kumar, see: paragraph [0031] teaching “can provide relevant products for a group of users (e.g., shoppers, buyers) that purchase products online (e.g., browsing the webpages of the website of a retailer)”; and paragraph [0036] teaching “monitoring a number of products of a particular brand in shopping carts that exceeds a threshold of a pre-determined number of such products within a pre-determined period of time and/or browsing a web site a number of times [i.e., multiple sessions] for a particular brand that exceeds a pre-determined threshold number within a pre-determined period of time.”);
the number of retail items of the same type exceeding a threshold (Kumar, see: paragraph [0036] teaching “can include monitoring a number of products of a particular brand [i.e., same type] in shopping carts that exceeds a threshold of a pre-determined number of such products within a pre-determined period of time”);
This step of Kumar is applicable to the system of Kadapurath, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to users that purchase a specific type of item. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kadapurath, to include the features of items of the same type is added to a plurality of shopping carts across multiple sessions of different users, and the number of retail items of the same type exceeding a threshold, as taught by Kumar. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Kadapurath to improve sales of items that users would have an affinity to (Kumar, see: paragraph [0027]).
Claim 2-
Kadapurath in view of Kumar teach the e-commerce platform claimed in claim 1, as described above.
Kadapurath discloses:
wherein the subsystem is configured for storing checkout data, retrieving the checkout data when detecting using the retrieved checkout data to process the purchase of the retail item for the plurality of shopping carts (Kadapurath, see: paragraph [0026] disclosing “enterprise cart 250 manages the containers of data that includes inputs and outputs…associated local cart” and paragraph [0027] disclosing “contain data including, for any particular user: a list of items to buy and associated quantities” and “cart level offers”; and paragraph [0032] disclosing “When an order is placed at any of the tenants, processed through the enterprise cart 250. The enterprise cart 250 takes the information received from the tenants, and communicates with other APIs to complete the transaction”; and paragraph [0054] disclosing “engine 416 determines product availability” and “determines how many items are available and if there is an adequate quantity to fulfill the purchase”).
Kadapurath does not disclose:
detecting that the number exceeds the threshold;
Kumar, however, does teach:
detecting that the number exceeds the threshold (Kumar, see: paragraph [0036] teaching “monitoring a number of products of a particular brand in shopping carts that exceeds a threshold of a pre-determined number of such products within a pre-determined period of time”).
This step of Kumar is applicable to the system of Kadapurath, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to users that purchase a specific type of item. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kadapurath, to include the features of detecting that the number exceeds a threshold, as taught by Kumar. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Kadapurath to improve sales of items that users would have an affinity to (Kumar, see: paragraph [0027]).
Claim 4-
Kadapurath in view of Kumar teach the e-commerce platform as claimed in claim 2, as described above.
Kadapurath discloses:
wherein the subsystem generates a credit card token in relation to credit card details, the credit card token generated in accordance with a credit card details and associated with a respective user profile (Kadapurath, see: paragraph [0069] disclosing “facilitate interactions with platform level APIs, such as ‘Guest,’ in order to access guest profile information, such as address and payment information”; and see: paragraph [0074] disclosing “Payment gateway API authorizes payments using EKMC or tokenized payment information”).
Claim 5-
Kadapurath in view of Kumar teach the e-commerce platform as claimed in claim 2, as described above.
Kadapurath does not disclose:
wherein, when detecting when that the number exceeds the threshold, the shopping cart controller is configured to count only those retail items for which respective payment details have been input.
Kumar, however, does teach:
wherein, when detecting when that the number exceeds the threshold, the shopping cart controller is configured to count only those retail items for which respective payment details have been input (Kumar, see: paragraph [0036] teaching “users (e.g., shoppers, buyers) that frequently purchase a product in a category of that brand online or in a physical store (e.g., brick and mortar) exceeding a pre-determined number of times within a pre-determined period of time can be determined to likely have an affinity” and “when a shopper purchases a lot of items that belong to the same brand it also can be determined that the shopper” and “based on the following approaches that can include exceeding a threshold of a pre-determined number of times a user added items to a shopping cart (e.g., online and/or at a physical store)”).
This step of Kumar is applicable to the system of Kadapurath, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to users that purchase a specific type of item. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kadapurath, to include the features of wherein, when detecting when that the number exceeds a threshold, shopping cart controller is configured to count only those for which respective payment details have been input, as taught by Kumar. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Kadapurath to improve sales of items that users would have an affinity to (Kumar, see: paragraph [0027]).
Claim 6-
Kadapurath in view of Kumar teach the e-commerce platform as claimed in claim 2, as described above.
Kadapurath discloses:
wherein the checkout controller inserts a checkout later button into at least one of a retail item webpage and a checkout webpage for allowing the user to purchase an item at a later date ( paragraph [0097] disclosing “digital shopping process includes adding the item 622 to a digital cart. A price 624 is associated with each item added to the cart” and “include options such as pay now…or pay later”).
Kudapurath does not disclose:
the user to purchase if the threshold is met;
Kumar does disclose:
the user to purchase if the threshold is met (Kumar, see: paragraph [0036] teaching “retailers can be interested in determining a segment and/or population of users (e.g., shoppers, buyers) that can frequently purchase more products that belong to the same brand” and “include exceeding a threshold of a pre-determined number of times a user added items to a shopping cart”).
This step of Kumar is applicable to the system of Kadapurath, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to users that purchase a specific type of item. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kadapurath, to include the features of the user to purchase if the threshold is met, as taught by Kumar. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Kadapurath to improve sales of items that users would have an affinity to (Kumar, see: paragraph [0027]).
Claim 7-
Kadapurath in view of Kumar teach the e-commerce platform as claimed in claim 2, as described above.
wherein the subsystem is configured to monitor a rate at which retail items are added to shopping carts and determining a time remaining until the threshold number may be reached (Kadapurath, see: paragraph [0087] disclosing “another product restriction may include a time restriction for purchasing…for pre-sale items” and “quantity restrictions when there is a limited quantity for purchase”; and see: [0089] disclosing “Cart activity data can be used to track items that were placed in a cart and either subsequently purchased”)
Kadapurath does not disclose:
items of the same type are added to shopping carts;
Kumar, however, does teach:
items of the same type are added to shopping carts (Kumar, see: paragraph [0036] teaching “additional conclusions that the user (e.g., shopper, buyer) is more loyal to that brand than other brands for the same line of product categories can include monitoring a number of products of a particular brand in shopping carts that exceeds a threshold of a pre-determined number of such products within a pre-determined period of time”).
This step of Kumar is applicable to the system of Kadapurath, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to users that purchase a specific type of item. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kadapurath, to include the features of items of the same type are added to shopping carts, as taught by Kumar. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Kadapurath to improve sales of items that users would have an affinity to (Kumar, see: paragraph [0027]).
Claim 8-
Kadapurath in view of Kumar teach the e-commerce platform as claimed in claim 1, as described above.
wherein the subsystem modifies a webpage for a respective retail item to display an indication of the retail item having been added (Kadapurath, see: paragraph [0052] disclosing “A promotional engine 412 determines if the at least one item is associated with an offer or other promotion. The promotional engine 412 receives information associated with the item placed in the cart. If the item is associated with an offer or promotion, the promotional engine 412 communicates that back to the enterprise cart 410” and paragraph [0072] disclosing “The cart APІ is able to…update price overrides; price the cart including discounts and taxes”).
Kadapurath does not disclose:
added to other shopping carts;
Kumar, however, does teach:
added to other shopping carts (Kumar, see: paragraph [0036] teaching “monitoring a number of products of a particular brand in shopping carts that exceeds a threshold of a pre-determined number of such products within a pre-determined period of time”).
This step of Kumar is applicable to the system of Kadapurath, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to users that purchase a specific type of item. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kadapurath, to include the features of added to other shopping carts, as taught by Kumar. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Kadapurath to improve sales of items that users would have an affinity to (Kumar, see: paragraph [0027]).
Claim 9-
Kadapurath in view of Kumar teach the e-commerce platform as claimed in claim 1, as described above.
Kadapurath discloses:
wherein the subsystem is configured to monitor a rate of the retail item being added to shopping carts, determining a time remaining until the threshold number may be reached and updating the indication of the retail item (Kadapurath, see: paragraph [0087] disclosing “another product restriction may include a time restriction for purchasing…for pre-sale items” and “quantity restrictions when there is a limited quantity for purchase”; and see: [0089] disclosing “Cart activity data can be used to track items that were placed in a cart and either subsequently purchased”).
Kadapurath does not disclose:
indicate the remaining time;
Kumar, however, does teach:
indicate the remaining time (Kumar, see: paragraph [0036] teaching “exceeds a pre-determined threshold number within a pre-determined period of time”).
This step of Kumar is applicable to the system of Kadapurath, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to users that purchase a specific type of item. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kadapurath, to include the feature of indicate the remaining time, as taught by Kumar. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Kadapurath to improve sales of items that users would have an affinity to (Kumar, see: paragraph [0027]).
Claim 10-
Kadapurath in view of Kumar teach the e-commerce platform as claimed in claim 1, as described above.
Kadapurath discloses:
wherein the subsystem interfaces a plurality of e-commerce platforms across a wide area network (Kadapurath, see: paragraph [0022] disclosing “common cart and item checkout process across both digital and in-store systems, including third party digital platforms” Also see FIG. 1 rendering the network 110).
Claim 12-
Kadapurath in view of Kumar teach the e-commerce platform as claimed in claim 1, as described above.
Kadapurath discloses:
wherein the subsystem is implemented by a client-side code (Kadapurath, see: paragraph [0111] disclosing “a user may be a customer accessing an inventory of a retailer online using a computer or other mobile device” and paragraph [0116] disclosing “device 1026 is able to store software instructions”).
Claim 14-
Kadapurath in view of Kumar teach the e-commerce platform as claimed in claim 1, as described above.
Kadapurath discloses:
further comprising a database comprising the plurality of retail items and wherein each retail item has an associated threshold at which the subsystem is configured to adjust the retail price (Kadapurath, see: [0054] disclosing “engine 416 determines how many items are available and if there is an adequate quantity to fulfill the purchase” and paragraph [0057] disclosing “can…update item quantities” and paragraph [0072] “update price overrides”).
Claim 15-
Kadapurath in view of Kumar teach the e-commerce platform as claimed in claim 14, as described above.
Kadapurath discloses:
wherein at least one item has an associated number of thresholds at each of which the subsystem is configured to adjust the retail price differently (Kadapurath, see: [0054] disclosing “engine 416 determines how many items are available and if there is an adequate quantity to fulfill the purchase” and paragraph [0057] disclosing “can…update item quantities” and paragraph [0072] “update price overrides”).
Claim 16-
Kadapurath in view of Kumar teach the e-commerce platform as claimed in claim 1, as described above.
Kadapurath discloses:
wherein, for users who are not logged in, the shopping cart controller uses session identifiers for recording web browser sessions for which the same type of retail item has been added to a shopping cart (Kadapurath, see: paragraph [0028] disclosing “Inputs received from an in-store third party retailer 216 include orders placed when a customer is at the checkout counter of a third party retailer within the store tenant's brick and mortar location”).
Claim 17-
Kadapurath in view of Kumar teach the e-commerce platform as claimed in claim 16, as described above.
Kadapurath discloses:
wherein the shopping cart controller is configured to build a lookup table of retail item identifiers wherein a count is incremented for each retail item when the respective retail item is added to the shopping cart (Kadapurath, see: paragraph [0068] disclosing “Aggregate APIs 516 provide a view of historical sales data, historical purchases, items aggregated from multiple tenants, search history, and other information captured at the guest level”; and paragraph [0089] disclosing “Cart activity data maintains historical data on a per customer per cart basis. Cart activity data can be used to track items that were placed in a cart”).
Claim 18-
Kadapurath in view of Kumar teach the e-commerce platform as claimed in claim 17, as described above.
Kadapurath discloses: wherein, for session-based users, entries from the lookup table are be removed from the lookup table upon expiration of the associated session (Kadapurath, see: paragraph [0089] disclosing “Cart activity data maintains historical data on a per customer per cart basis. Cart activity data can be used to track items that were placed in a cart and…removed from the cart”).
Claim 19-
Kadapurath in view of Kumar teach the e-commerce platform as claimed in claim 17, as described above.
Kadapurath discloses:
wherein, for registered users, entries from the lookup table are stored in relation to user profile. (Kadapurath, see: paragraph [0068] disclosing “Aggregate APIs 516 provide a view of historical sales data, historical purchases, items aggregated from multiple tenants, search history, and other information captured at the guest level” and paragraph [0069] disclosing “facilitate interactions with platform level APIs, such as ‘Guest,’ in order to access guest profile information”).
Claim 20-
Kadapurath in view of Kumar teach the e-commerce platform as claimed in claim 17, as described above.
Kadapurath discloses:
wherein the shopping cart controller purges entries from the lookup table for at least one of upon expiration of a predetermined time period, when an item is checked out, and when the item is removed from the shopping cart by the user. (Kadapurath, see: paragraph [0087] disclosing “Another product restriction may include a time restriction for purchasing”; and see: [0089] disclosing “Cart activity data maintains historical data on a per customer per cart basis. Cart activity data can be used to track items that were placed in a cart and…removed from the cart”).
Claims 3, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadapurath, J., et al., in view of Kumar, S., et al., and Kim, Y., et al. (PGP No. US 2014/0244447 A1).
Claim 3-
Kadapurath in view of Kumar teach the e-commerce platform as claimed in claim 2, as described above.
Kadapurath discloses:
wherein the subsystem encrypts the checkout data when retrieved (Kadapurath, see: paragraph [0070] disclosing “the PaymentWEB API captures payment information” and “payment information using an encrypted payment device” and “includes capturing clear-text payment account numbers within the digital user interface, encrypting the information”).
Kadapurath does not disclose:
data which is decrypted;
Kim, however, does teach:
data which is decrypted (Kim, see: paragraph [0171] teaching “enter payment information such as a credit card number” and “decode the payment information from the shared click geometry”).
This step of Kim is applicable to the system of Kadapurath, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to users that purchasing products. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kadapurath, to include the feature of data which is decrypted, as taught by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Kadapurath to increase ecommerce sales by improving branded commerce infrastructure for delivery of products to consumers (Kim, see: paragraph [0015]).
Claim 11-
Kadapurath in view of Kumar teach the e-commerce platform as claimed in claim 1, as described above.
Kadapurath does not disclose:
wherein the subsystem is a plug-in executed by the server of the retail platform.
Kim, however, does teach:
wherein the subsystem is a plug-in executed by the server of the retail platform (Kim, see: paragraph [0327] teaching “to complete the purchase a local function is executed to handle the financial transaction (sometimes required as part of PCI compliance). The cloud application performs a handoff to a local function with the Remote Browser Client Plugin starting the local function”).
This step of Kim is applicable to the system of Kadapurath, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to users that purchasing products. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kadapurath, to include the feature of wherein the subsystem is a plug-in executed by the server of the retail platform, as taught by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Kadapurath to increase ecommerce sales by improving branded commerce infrastructure for delivery of products to consumers (Kim, see: paragraph [0015]).
Claim 13-
Kadapurath in view of Kumar teach the e-commerce platform as claimed in claim 1, as described above.
Kadapurath does not disclose:
wherein the subsystem is implemented by a browser plug-in.
Kim, however, does teach:
wherein the subsystem is implemented by a browser plug-in (Kim, see: paragraph [0327] teaching “to complete the purchase a local function is executed to handle the financial transaction (sometimes required as part of PCI compliance). The cloud application performs a handoff to a local function with the Remote Browser Client Plugin starting the local function”).
This step of Kim is applicable to the system of Kadapurath, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to users that purchasing products. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kadapurath, to include the feature of wherein the subsystem is a plug-in executed by a web server of the retail platform, as taught by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Kadapurath to increase ecommerce sales by improving branded commerce infrastructure for delivery of products to consumers (Kim, see: paragraph [0015]).
Response to Arguments
With respect to the invocation of 35 USC § 112(f), in light of the Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the 112(f) invocation has been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) and 112(b), and in light of the Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the rejections have been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 19 November 2025, have been fully considered but are not considered persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on pages 10-11 of the remarks stating that “the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter” and “Applicant submits that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea under step one,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Even when considering the amendments to the claims, under Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of shopping carts and checkout for retail items. The abstract idea falls into the enumerated grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity and the activities are related to sales activities or behaviors since the claims specifically recite features of a plurality of retail items, and the steps of a shopping cart that receives selected retail items from a retailer and the added selected items are associating the selected retail item with at least one respective session and a user profile, a checkout processing the purchase of the selected retail item for a retail price including the input payment details, and configuring to detect when a number of retail items of the same type are added to a plurality of shopping carts across multiple session of different users and to control the checkout to adjust lower the retail price of the retail item based on the number of retail items of the same type exceeding a threshold. The amendments to the claims are further limiting the abstract idea and therefore the Examiner maintains that the claims are directed to the abstract idea.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on pages 11-12 of the remarks stating “The claims, as recited are directed to a specific technological solution to a technological problem in the field of e-commerce systems” and “describe a specific technological implementation that addresses the technical problem of dynamic pricing coordination across multiple shopping cart instances in distributed e-commerce systems” and further “components that work together to solve the technical problem of real-time pricing coordination across distributed shopping cart instances that trigger a specific event on the system detecting a threshold has been reached,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis, the claims do not recite or reflect any type of specific technological solution toa technical problem. The additional elements that are included in the amended claims are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because when considering the additional elements individually and in combination, they are still recited in a generic manner, merely applying the abstract idea with a generically recited computer and computing components.
Further, the improvements reflected in the claims are improvements to the abstract idea and are providing commerce solutions to a commerce issue. The MPEP (2106.05(a)) provides further guidance on how to evaluate whether claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For example, as indicated in 2106.05(d)(1) of the MPEP “the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement,” and that “[t]he specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Looking to the specification is a standard that the courts have employed when analyzing claims as it relates to improvements in technology. For example, in Enfish, the specification provided teaching that the claimed invention achieves benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, in Core Wireless the specification noted deficiencies in prior art interfaces relating to efficient functioning of the computer. Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs. Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed Cir. 2018). With respect to McRO, the claimed improvement, as confirmed by the originally filed specification, was “…allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters…’” and it was “…the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks”. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In this case, Applicant’s specification provides no explanation of an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology. Rather, the claims focus “on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool”. Id citing Enfish at 1327, 1336. This is reflected in paragraphs [0002]-[0006], of Applicant’s specification, which describe Applicant’s claimed invention is directed toward deficiencies in shopping cart and checkout functionalities. Although the claims include computer technology such as e-commerce platform, a server, a plurality of webpages hosted by the server, wherein the plurality of the web pages serve, a subsystem hosted by the server, controller, web page, browser, controller, and the subsystem, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the courts in cases such as Enfish, Core Wireless, and McRO. Unlike precedential cases, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement to computer capabilities. The instant claims are not directed to improving the existing technological process but are directed to improving the commercial task of shopping carts and checkout for retail items. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in improvements to pricing coordination across shopping carts, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving the processor and computer components that operate the system. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing different data while still employing the same processor and computer components used in conventional systems to improve the pricing of shopping carts and checkout for retail items, e.g. commercial processes. As such, the claims do not recite specific technological solutions to a specific technological problem.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on page 11 of the remarks stating “Even if the claims were found to recite an abstract idea, the Applicant submits that the claims contain significantly more under step two of the Alice analysis” and “recite specific technical elements that provide an inventive concept,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, the amended claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and do not provide an inventive concept. The claimed additional elements when considered in an ordered combination and individually, are recited in a generic manner and are recited at a high level of generality, being used to apply the abstract idea with a generically recited computer components. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transforms the abstract idea into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself, and thus, maintains the 101 rejection.
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 103, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 19 November 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on pages 12-13 of the remarks stating that “The Applicant respectfully submits that the obviousness rejection should be withdrawn” and “Neither reference describes detecting anything ‘across multiple sessions of different users’” and “Both references also fail to teach or suggest ‘adjust[ing] lower the retail price of the retail item based on the number of retail items of the same type exceeding a threshold’,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Even when considering the amendments of the claims, the references of Kadapurath in view of Kumar still teach the limitations. The reference of Kadapurath discloses the limitation of wherein the subsystem is configured to detect when a number of retail items is added to a shopping cart and to control the checkout controller to adjust lower the retail price of the retail item. For example, the system receives and outputs prices associated with the selected items, where the system is capable of calculating and updating that price associated with the items selected, in this in a specific quantity, and then overriding the system to apply discounts to the items in carts, encompassing the limitation feature of lower the retail price (Kadapurath, paragraphs [0035], [0036], and [0072]). The Examiner relies upon Kumar to teach the remaining features of items of the same type is added to a plurality of shopping carts across multiple sessions of different users and the number of retail items of the same type exceeding a threshold, as Kadapurath describes the that as the items of a quantity are added to the carts and the system overrides and updates prices of the items in the cart based on a number of items placed in carts, but Kadapurath does not explain that the items are specifically the same added to across multiple sessions of different users, where the number of items exceeds a threshold. The reference Kumar first describes that a group of users (i.e., shoppers), browsing and purchasing products via websites, where the system of Kumar is monitoring the amount of products of a specific type, in this case a brand, that are added to carts in a pre-determined period of time during browsing sessions of users that exceed a threshold number in that pre-determined period of time (Kumar, see: paragraphs [0031], [0036]). Since Kumar describes that a group of users browsing and shopping in browsing sessions encompasses the amended limitations of the instant claims, as Kumar specifically states that the group of users and their browsing activities during browsing sessions over a number of times, are monitored for the purposes of determining when a specific brand of the item [i.e., same type], is added to carts of the group of users exceeding a pre-determined threshold number of times (Kumar, paragraph [0031] and [0036]). Therefore, the references of Kadapurath in view of Kumar still teach the amended limitations, and therefore the Examiner maintains the 103 rejection.
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 ASHLEY PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4399. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey 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.
/ASHLEY D PRESTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688