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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 10/16/2025.
Claim 1 has been previously cancelled.
Claims 2, 10 and 17 have been amended.
5. Claims 2-21 are currently pending and are considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claims 2, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative claim 1, recites a method, which is a statutory class, executed by a processor, a memory and a user device: the method, comprising:
detecting that a user is engaging with a checkout process for one or more items or services during an online session with an online merchant;
monitoring session data for the online session between the application on the device and the online merchant, wherein the monitoring includes receiving a user input to the application performed in association with the online session, and wherein the user input is associated with an action executed in the application that is associated with the checkout process;
determining an effect caused in the application by the user based on the monitored session data, wherein the effect is associated with completing or abandoning the checkout process;
determining a likelihood of whether the checkout process will be completed in the application during the online session based at least on the effect;
predicting, based on an analysis of the action and one or more past abandonments of checkout processes by the user, a certain probability that the user will abandon the checkout process;
determining digital shopping cart data for the checkout process for the one or more items or services based on the session data;
accessing data from at least one of the online merchant or another online merchant, wherein the data corresponds to the checkout process and a plurality of options selectable for a completion of a transaction for the one or more items or services;
generating inputs for the plurality of options based on the digital shopping cart data and the checkout process, wherein the inputs are associated with recreating the digital shopping cart data with the at least one of online merchant or the other online merchant;
generating, based on the certain probability and the inputs, checkout data for the checkout process that enables the completion of the transaction for the one or more items or services with the at least one of the online merchant or the other online merchant;
in response to detecting an abandonment of the checkout process, storing the checkout data;
detecting a subsequent session by the user in the application;
providing the checkout data to the user during the subsequent session; and
automatically generating transaction data for the transaction in the application during the subsequent session based on the checkout data and an interaction by the user responsive to providing the checkout data.
The steps of
detecting that a user is engaging with a checkout process for one or more items or services during an online session with an online merchant;
monitoring session data for the online session between the application on the device and the online merchant, wherein the monitoring includes receiving a user input to the application performed in association with the online session, and wherein the user input is associated with an action executed in the application that is associated with the checkout process;
determining an effect caused in the application by the user based on the monitored session data, wherein the effect is associated with completing or abandoning the checkout process;
determining a likelihood of whether the checkout process will be completed in the application during the online session based at least on the effect;
predicting, based on an analysis of the action and one or more past abandonments of checkout processes by the user, a certain probability that the user will abandon the checkout process;
determining digital shopping cart data for the checkout process for the one or more items or services based on the session data;
accessing data from at least one of the online merchant or another online merchant, wherein the data corresponds to the checkout process and a plurality of options selectable for a completion of a transaction for the one or more items or services;
generating inputs for the plurality of options based on the digital shopping cart data and the checkout process, wherein the inputs are associated with recreating the digital shopping cart data with the at least one of online merchant or the other online merchant;
generating, based on the certain probability and the inputs, checkout data for the checkout process that enables the completion of the transaction for the one or more items or services with the at least one of the online merchant or the other online merchant;
in response to detecting an abandonment of the checkout process, storing the checkout data;
detecting a subsequent session by the user in the application;
providing the checkout data to the user during the subsequent session; and
automatically generating transaction data for the transaction in the application during the subsequent session based on the checkout data and an interaction by the user responsive to providing the checkout data,
as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a method for monitoring and processing past device input and usage to identify when current application usage indicates abandonment of application processing. The above identified method steps recite commercial interactions such as sales activities and/or tailored personalized marketing relating to providing data associated with the person. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interaction such as tailored personalized marketing, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a processor, a memory and a user device. The user device performing a generic computer functions of detecting that a user is engaging with a checkout process; monitoring session data for the online session includes receiving a user input; determining an action performed in the application; predicting, a certain probability that the user will abandon the checkout process; determining digital shopping cart data for the checkout process; accessing data from other online merchant; generating inputs; generating, checkout data; storing checkout data; detecting a subsequent session by the user; providing the checkout data to the user; and automatically generating transaction data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of processor, memory and user device amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional elements are similar to the additional elements found by courts to be mere instructions to apply an exception because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery to perform an existing process such as: a common business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 US 208, 223; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334); providing a user with tailored information like advertisements based on information known about the user such as a location, address, or personal characteristics and a time of day is a fundamental practice long prevalent in our system); In re Morsa, 809 F. App’x 913, 917 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. That is, a user device, performing commercial interactions including: detecting that a user is engaging with a checkout process; monitoring session data for the online session includes receiving a user input; determining an action performed in the application; predicting, a certain probability that the user will abandon the checkout process; determining digital shopping cart data for the checkout process; accessing data from other online merchant; generating inputs; generating, checkout data; storing checkout data; detecting a subsequent session by the user; providing the checkout data to the user; and automatically generating transaction data, amount to mere instructions to apply the steps to a computer comprising of a processor.
Thus, claims 2, 10 and 17 are not eligible.
As for dependent claims 3-4, 7-9, 11-12, 14-16, 18-19 and 21, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in claims 2, 10 and 17. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reason given above.
As for dependent claims 5, 13 and 20, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claims 2, 10 and 17. In addition, they recite the additional elements of determining a weighted score of an action associated with the user which further define the same abstract idea in claims 2, 10 and 17. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reason given above.
Claims 2-21 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed on 03/12/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 2-21 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
9. Applicant argued that “… Claims 2-21 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Without conceding the propriety of the Examiner's rejection, by the present amendment and response, Applicant amends the claims as presented and discussed with the Examiner during the Examiner Interview to include the patent eligible subject matter tentatively agreed upon by the Examiner. Applicant submits that the present claims overcome the subject matter eligibility rejection for at least the reasons stated below, i.e., the claims are statutory under Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B of the current guidance.
For example, Applicant submits that the limitations of the amended claims integrate the exception into a practical application and are thus statutory under Step 2A, Prong Two. In particular, the limitations relate to a specific usage (monitoring device application usage for checkout data processing) in a specific situation (when detecting user engagement with checkout processes and predicting abandonment likelihood) to provide a particular practical application that improves technology (e.g., by enabling automated generation of checkout data and transaction completion across multiple online sessions)…” Remarks pages 9-11
10. Examiner notes that aside from the " processor, memory and user device " which are "additional elements', the remainder of the claims have been identified as part of the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using a general-purpose computer (i.e., processing device coupled to a data storage device executing software). In order to overcome a 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 2 the purported improvement must be rooted in the "additional elements'. Additional elements are defined as those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. Thus, the "additional elements" as a whole are just a processing device coupled to a data storage device executing software upon which an abstract idea is merely being applied which is insufficient to transform the abstract idea into a practical application. Any purported improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matter. Thus, the rejection has been maintained.
11. Examiner notes that in order to overcome a 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2b
it is the "additional elements" that must be considered "significantly more". Additional
elements are defined as those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. In
the instant case, the only "additional elements" found in the claim are processor, memory and user device, which is merely a general-purpose computer upon which the abstract idea is being applied. Thus, the additional elements cannot be considered significantly more than the abstract idea. The purported improvement of the technology of "provide better and more effective completion of checkout processes across multiple online sessions" in the manner claimed is part of the abstract idea itself and, as such, cannot be considered "significantly more" than the abstract idea under Step 2b. Thus, the rejection has been maintained.
Conclusion
12. The closest prior art includes:
13 Nazer et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0133349), talks about reducing the number of incomplete transactions by offering or providing customers with incentives to complete shopping transactions they would otherwise abandon.
14. Kirti (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0364958) talks about an action may include a user clicking on a sponsored content of the sponsored content provider, or may include a user liking a page owned by the sponsored content provider and the weighted value of each action for the seed user may be combined into a score for that seed user such as adding the weighted values into a normalized score.
15. Whitnah et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0142354) talks about scoring based on user weights. And, Hu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0239486) talks about the actions may be weighted based on the type of actions to determine the measure of relevance of the candidate deals.
16. Kassan (U.S. Patent No. 7,225,148) talks about monitoring the keystroke and mouse-click actions of a visitor to an e-commerce web site. After receiving a signal that represents an attempt to terminate the on-line session between a visitor and the e-commerce web site, and an e-commerce shopping cart contains at least one good or service, or if the shopping has items removed from it, or even if the shopping cart is empty, the visitor is prompted to respond to one or more prompts in a display screen (see at least the Abstract).
17. Narasimhan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0193591) discloses providing purchase abandonment conversion includes receiving, by a service provider device, first item information associated with a first item. The first item is associated with a first shopping cart abandoned by the customer at a first merchant. Second item information associated with a second item is received by the service provider device from a social network device associated with a first social network. The customer provides an indication of interest in the second item. A consolidated shopping cart that includes the first item and second item is generated. At least part of the consolidated shopping cart is provided for display on the at least one customer device (see at least the Abstract).
18. The prior art recited above do not teach or suggest the amended limitations “determining an effect caused in the application by the user based on the monitored session data, wherein the effect is associated with a likelihood of whether the checkout process will be completed in the application during the online session based at least on the user input; predicting, based on an analysis of the effect and one or more past abandonments of checkout processes by the user, a certain probability that the user will abandon the checkout process; determining digital shopping cart data for the checkout process for the one or more items based on the session data; generating inputs associated with recreating the digital shopping cart data with the online merchant;”.
19. 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.
20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARILYN G MACASIANO whose telephone number is (571)270-5205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12:00-9:00 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, llana Spar can be reached on 571)270-7537. 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.
/MARILYN G MACASIANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622 06/04/2026
Prosecution Insights