DETAILED ACTION
This rejection is in response to Amendments filed 11/11/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently 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 Objection
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: a user devices. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection to claims 8-11 and 13-18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection to claims 9-11 and 13-18 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-9 of remarks filed 11/11/2025 that the claims are not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity because the claim recites technical features such as associating data within a data structure and causing real-time display of item data on a user device based on detected inventory listing which is not related to activities of a sales associate, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
One of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas is defined as certain methods of organizing human activity that includes 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). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
The enumerated grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity is not limited to activities of a sales associate but also includes commercial interactions such as advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. The claimed invention recites commercial interactions such as advertising, marketing, and sales activities by receiving behavioral data from a user indicating an interest in a category or in a seller, dynamically associating the user and the category or the user and the seller within a data structure, and upon detecting that an item associated with the category or the seller has been listed in an inventory transmitting instructions to display item data associated with the item in real-time. The user device is not interpreted as directed to an abstract idea, but it interpreted as an additional element.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments on pages 9-13 of remarks filed 11/11/2025 that the claims are directed to a practical application because they are directed to improvements to internet searching that provide a solution that leverages a hierarchical data structure to associate users with interests and improves resource consumption by reducing frequency by dynamically associating users with interests and providing notifications in real-time, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The 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. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. See MPEP § 2106.05(a).
To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) and § 2106.05(a)(II).
It is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art how dynamically associating users with interests and providing notifications in real-time improves internet searching or reduces frequency and consumption. The instant claims do not recite limitations regarding performing internet searching, therefore it is unclear how internet searching is related to the claimed invention or how frequency or consumption is reduced. It is also unclear how providing notifications in real-time is related to or improves internet searching and reducing frequency and consumption. Therefore, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments on pages 13-14 of remarks filed 11/11/2025 that Harris does not disclose “upon detecting that an item associated with the category or the seller has been listed in an inventory transmitting instructions to a user device associated with the user to display item data associated with the item in real-time,” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Harris discloses “upon detecting that an item associated with the category or the seller has been listed in an inventory transmitting instructions to a user device associated with the user to display item data associated with the item in real-time” because this reference teaches mining behavioral data from a user (e.g. card transaction records) for consumption patterns that indicate user preferences (e.g. product categories and particular merchants), and the analysis of the behavioral data of the user allows the system to provide available products of interest to the user in real-time such as suggestions as to what offerings the user may be interested in. The product offerings with item data is rendered for display to the client of the user. (Harris, [0255]; [0261]; [0393]).
With respect to Applicant’s arguments on page 14 of remarks filed 11/11/2025 that claim 2-11, 13-18, and 20 further define novel features and depend on claims 1, 12, or 19 and the reference does not teach the dependent claims, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites: transmitting instructions to a user devices associated with the user the item data, rendering said claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the user the item data is the same or different from the previous recitations of the user and the item data. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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 (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. See MPEP § 2106. In the instant case, claims 1-11 are directed to a method, claims 12-18 is directed to one or more non-transitory computer storage media, and claims 19-20 are directed to a system ( which falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process/apparatus). Accordingly, the claims will be further analyzed under revised step 2:
Under step 2A (prong 1) of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it must be considered whether the claims recite a judicial exception if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. One of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas is defined as certain methods of organizing human activity that includes 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). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Regarding representative independent claim 1, recites the abstract idea of:
a method of providing real-time inventory mapping and notification, the method comprising:
receiving behavioral data from a user indicating an interest in a category or in a seller;
dynamically associating the user and the category or the user and the seller within a data structure;
and upon detecting that an item associated with the category or the seller has been listed in an inventory transmitting instructions... to display item data associated with the item in real-time.
The above-recited limitations amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity as it relates to sales activities and commercial interactions because the claim recites receiving behavioral data from a user indicating an interest in a category or in a seller, dynamically associating the user and the category or the user and the seller within a data structure, and upon detecting that an item associated with the category or the seller has been listed in an inventory transmitting instructions to display item data associated with the item in real-time. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.
The Step 2A (prong 2) of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP § 2106.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements such as:
…to a user device associated with the user… (Claim 1);
One or more non-transitory computer storage media storing computer-readable instructions that when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations, the operations comprising:… to a user device associated with the user… (Claim 12);
A system for providing real-time inventory mapping and notification: at least one processor; and one or more computer storage media storing computer-readable instructions that when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: to a user device associated with the user … (Claim 19).
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Independent claims and dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, independent claims and dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. See MPEP § 2106.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
…to a user device associated with the user… (Claim 1);
One or more non-transitory computer storage media storing computer-readable instructions that when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations, the operations comprising:… to a user device associated with the user… (Claim 12);
A system for providing real-time inventory mapping and notification: at least one processor; and one or more computer storage media storing computer-readable instructions that when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: …to a user device associated with the user … (Claim 19).
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the independent claims and dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because the recitations above do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. In addition, they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harris et al. (US Pub. No. 20130290234 A1, hereinafter “Harris”).
Regarding claim 1
Harris discloses a method of providing real-time inventory mapping and notification, the method comprising (Harris, [0255]: provide real-time product suggestions to user):
receiving behavioral data from a user indicating an interest in a category or in a seller (Harris, [0156]: obtain various human behavioral information; [0263]: user behavioral patterns based on aggregated records such as merchant name or category; [0255]: analysis of the aggregated user card transaction records may indicate a preference for shopping with particular merchants and for particular products types, and categories);
dynamically associating the user and the category or the user and the seller within a data structure (Harris, [0316]: data structure that contains nodes for entities and edges that represent the associations between the nodes that are actual observable entities, such as a user 4401 and a business 4403 as well as aggregated transaction data; [0255]: analysis of the aggregated user card transaction records may indicate a preference for shopping with particular merchants and for particular products types, and categories; [0183]: store each object (e.g., user, merchant, issuer, acquirer, IP address, household, etc.) as a node);
and upon detecting that an item associated with the category or the seller has been listed in an inventory transmitting instructions to a user device associated with the user to display item data associated with the item in real-time (Harris, [0255]: mining user transaction records for behavioral and consumption patterns of products for preferences based on particular merchant and/or product categories, determines that products of interest to the user are available to provide product suggestions and offers to user in real-time in response to user behavior with product; [0261]: generate a real-time product offer packet and client may render display of purchase offer with item data to user; [0393]: merchant’s available inventory).
Regarding claims 2 and 13
Harris discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving a selection from the user indicating to remove the interest in the category or in the seller (Harris, [0396]: user may be able to dynamically change his/her predictive shopping list by removing items from listings; [0407]: removing items based on rankings or feedback; [0255]: a preference for shopping within with particular merchants, for particular products types, categories).
Regarding claims 3 and 14
Harris discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising dynamically disassociating the user and the category or the user and the seller within the data structure (Harris, [0316]: data structure that contains nodes for entities and edges that represent the associations between the nodes that are actual observable entities, such as a user 4401 and a business 4403 as well as aggregated transaction data; [0327]: nodes are sequentially removed; [0255]: analysis of the aggregated user card transaction records may indicate a preference for shopping with particular merchants and for particular products types, and categories; [0183]: store each object (e.g., user, merchant, issuer, acquirer, IP address, household, etc.) as a node).
Regarding claim 4
Harris discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising, based on detecting that the item associated with the category or seller has been listed in an inventory, retrieving the item data corresponding to an association between the user and the category or the user and the seller (Harris, [0255]: mine user patterns from records, indicate product category and merchant preference of user, and provide product suggestions to user in real-time in response to user behavior and preferences (e.g. category and merchant) with product based on records).
Regarding claims 5 and 17
Harris discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the data structure is a graph database (Harris, [0183]: graph database; [0450]: database may be implemented as a mix of data structures).
Regarding claims 6 and 15
Harris discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the behavioral data corresponds to the user saving a search comprising one or more keywords (Harris, [0377]: search for product based on tone of keywords identified; [0190]: parse the trigger to extract keywords using which to perform an aggregated search; [0188]: query, e.g., 1017a-c, their search databases, e.g., 1002a-c, for search results falling within the scope of the search keywords; [0144]: store records of search request with key terms to be used on a second search).
Regarding claims 7 and 16
Harris discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the behavioral data corresponds to the user following the seller (Harris, [0159]: consumer obtains offers from merchant or browses merchant store; [0191]: user may communicate with a merchant server).
Regarding claim 8
Harris discloses the method of claim 1, wherein detecting that the item associated with the category has been listed in an inventory is a configurable trigger (Harris, [0255]: provide available products as suggestions or offers to user in real-time in response to mining records of user behavior that indicates preferences (e.g. category and merchant) with product; [0361]: aggregate consumer behavior, divided based on product category).
Regarding claim 9
Harris discloses the method of claim 1, wherein detecting that the item associated with the seller has been listed in an inventory is a configurable trigger (Harris, FIG. 30: [0262]: identify, e.g., 3005, merchants that may be able to provide the identified products, services, and/or offerings for the user; Harris, [0255]: provide available product suggestions or offers to user in real-time in response data mining records of user behavior to indicate preferences (e.g. category and merchant) with product; [0393]: inventory).
Regarding claim 10
Harris discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising detecting an incentive being provided for the item or by the seller (Harris, FIG. 30: [0262]: identify, e.g., 3005, merchants that may be able to provide the identified products, services, and/or offerings for the user; Harris, [0255]: provide product suggestions of deals and offerings to user in real-time in response to user behavior and preferences (e.g. category and merchant) with product).
Regarding claim 11
Harris discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising identifying the item as a fit for another associated with the user (Harris, [0377]: determine suitable alternative product for the user as a replacement item for another item).
Regarding claim 12
Harris discloses one or more non-transitory computer storage media storing computer-readable instructions that when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations, the operations comprising (Harris, [0969]: non-transitory medium and processor):
receiving behavioral data from a user indicating an interest in a category or in a seller (Harris, [0156]: obtain various human behavioral information; [0263]: user behavioral patterns based on aggregated records such as merchant name or category; [0255]: analysis of the aggregated user card transaction records may indicate a preference for shopping with particular merchants and for particular products types, and categories);
dynamically associating the user and the category or the user and the seller in a data structure (Harris, [0316]: data structure that contains nodes for entities and edges that represent the associations between the nodes that are actual observable entities, such as a user 4401 and a business 4403 as well as aggregated transaction data; [0255]: analysis of the aggregated user card transaction records may indicate a preference for shopping with particular merchants and for particular products types, and categories; [0183]: store each object (e.g., user, merchant, issuer, acquirer, IP address, household, etc.) as a node);
upon detecting that an item associated with the category or the seller has been listed in an inventory, retrieving item data for an item corresponding to an association between the user and the category or the user and the seller; and transmitting instructions to a user device associated with the user to display the item data in real-time (Harris, [0255]: mining user transaction records for behavioral and consumption patterns of products for user preferences based on particular merchant and/or product categories, determines that products of interest to the user are available to provide product suggestions and offers to user in real-time in response to user behavior with product; [0261]: generate a real-time product offer packet and client may render display of purchase offer with item data to user; [0393]: merchant’s available inventory).
Regarding claims 18 and 20
Harris discloses the one or more non-transitory computer storage media of claim 12, wherein the operations further comprise detecting an incentive being provided for the item or by the seller (Harris, FIG. 30: [0262]: identify, e.g., 3005, merchants that may be able to provide the identified products, services, and/or offerings for the user; [0255]: provide product suggestions of deals and offerings to user in real-time in response to user behavior and preferences (e.g. category and merchant) with product; [0377]: determine suitable alternative product for the user as a replacement item for another item; [0393]: inventory).
Regarding claim 19
Harris discloses a system for providing real-time inventory mapping and notification: at least one processor; and one or more computer storage media storing computer-readable instructions that when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising (Harris, [0418]: computer employing processor and memory storage, [1167]: memory in communication with processor; [0393]: merchant’s available inventory):
receiving behavioral data from a user indicating an interest in a category or in a seller (Harris, [0156]: obtain various human behavioral information; [0263]: user behavioral patterns based on aggregated records such as merchant name or category; [0255]: analysis of the aggregated user card transaction records may indicate a preference for shopping with particular merchants and for particular products types, and categories);
dynamically associating the user with the interest in a data structure (Harris, [0316]: data structure that contains nodes for entities and edges that represent the associations between the nodes that are actual observable entities, such as a user 4401 and a business 4403 as well as aggregated transaction data; [0255]: analysis of the aggregated user card transaction records may indicate a preference for shopping with particular merchants and for particular products types, and categories; [0183]: store each object (e.g., user, merchant, issuer, acquirer, IP address, household, etc.) as a node);
upon detecting that an item associated with the category or the seller has been listed in an inventory, retrieving item data for an item corresponding to an item in an inventory of items; and transmitting instructions to a user devices associated with the user the item data in real-time (Harris, [0255]: mining user transaction records for behavioral and consumption patterns of products for user preferences based on particular merchant and/or product categories, determines that products of interest to the user are available to provide product suggestions and offers to user in real-time in response to user behavior with product; [0261]: generate a real-time product offer packet and client may render display of purchase offer with item data to user; [0393]: merchant’s available inventory).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is cited as Henderson et al. (US Pub. No. 20220292543 A1) is related to providing e-commerce involving social media and detected trends or seasonal demands, Rathod (US Pub. No. 20180246983 A1) related to providing of a ‘web search engine’ that is designed to search for information, and non-patent literature, "Post-purchase recommendations in large-scale online marketplaces," related to recommendations shopping websites present to the users after a purchase based on learned relationships between items and users.
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 LATASHA DEVI RAMPHAL whose telephone number is (571)272-2644. The examiner can normally be reached 11 AM - 7:30 PM (EST).
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 A. Smith can be reached at 5712726763. 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.
/LATASHA D RAMPHAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688