Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/616,908

PROBABILITY MODELING

Non-Final OA §101
Filed
Mar 26, 2024
Examiner
AIRAPETIAN, MILA
Art Unit
3688
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
EBAY INC.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
699 granted / 959 resolved
+20.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+14.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
996
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
37.6%
-2.4% vs TC avg
§103
34.5%
-5.5% vs TC avg
§102
17.0%
-23.0% vs TC avg
§112
6.4%
-33.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 959 resolved cases

Office Action

§101
DETAILED ACTION 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 1-2,4-10,12-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (a judicial exception without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1-2,4-10,12-16 and 18-20, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 recites a method. Claim 9 recites a system. Claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer-readable media. Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of providing bidding notifications. This idea is described by the following steps: A method comprising: receiving an indication of a selection of an item listing having a selected item listing characteristic data segment; determining item listings between the selected item listing and a current item listing, the current item listing having a current item listing characteristic data segment and the item listings determination being made based on a comparison between the selected item listing characteristic data segment and the current item listing characteristic data segment; determining an estimated time for commencement of bidding on the selected item listing, the estimated time for commencement being different at a first time period and a second time period, wherein the estimated time for commencement is determined at the second time period based on a bid velocity of the current item listing, the bid velocity being based on a set of time intervals extending between bids for closed item listings and the current item listing; generating a notification indicating the estimated time for commencement of bidding on the selected item listing; and causing presentation of the notification on to the user. Claims 9 and 15 recite equivalent limitations. This idea falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas as it is directed towards commercial interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors (i.e., determining item listings, determining an estimated time for commencement of bidding, etc.). Step 2A, prong 2: Claims 1, 9 and 15 recite additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claims 9 and 15 recite a hardware processing circuitry; and one or more hardware memories; and a machine-readable storage medium. However, these elements are generic computing components (see at least paragraphs 164-165) that are simply used to perform operations that would otherwise be abstract (see MPEP2106.05(f)). Claims 1, 9 and 15 also recites the limitations “a set of user interface elements enabling interaction with the selected item listing based on a dynamic bidding model” and “causing presentation of the notification on a user interface with the set of user interface elements”. However, these limitations are considered insignificant extra solution activity as they amount to necessary data gathering and outputting, wherein all uses of the recited abstract idea require such data gathering and data output (i.e. displaying a notification) (see2106.05(g)). Note how the abstract idea above includes the offer and menu communicating aspects of the claimed modifying steps. Step 2B: Claims 1, 9 and 15 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For the reasons identified with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, claims 1, 9 and 15 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For example, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). With respect to the limitations determined to be insignificant extra solution activity, these elements are similar to at least the following concepts determined by the courts to be insignificant extra solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). For example, at least paragraph 31 describes a network system that facilitates a request for services received from a user including a selection of a merchant. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. For example, at least paragraph 107describes presenting an offer for an add-on order to be added to a primary order. Dependent Claims Step 2A: The limitations of the dependent claims merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea identified at step 2A—Prong One, without changing the analysis already presented. Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims identified at step 2A—Prong Two. Dependent Claims Step 2B: The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. These do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known components for the same reasons presented with respect to the elements in the independent claims above. Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, the claims are not patent eligible. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-2,4-10,12-16 and 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILA AIRAPETIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3202. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-6:00 pm. 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 (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. /MILA AIRAPETIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 26, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 18, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §101
Jan 06, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 11, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jan 13, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 08, 2025
Final Rejection — §101
Mar 17, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 17, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jun 09, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §101 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12567099
MACHINE LEARNING COLLABORATION TECHNIQUES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12561724
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR GENERATING RECOMMENDATION REASON, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12541786
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DEVICE FOR MULTI-MODAL RECOMMENDER AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12493906
CROSS-SYSTEM RECOMMENDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Patent 12488376
Service Execution System and Related Product
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 02, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+14.7%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 959 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month