DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicants application filing received on August 2, 2024. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are currently pending in the instant application. The application claim priority to U.S. application 17/323,717 filed May 18, 2021, now U.S. Patent 12,093,864.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicants filing of IDS references on November 4, 2024, April 8, 2025, and July 15, 2025. The references have been considered at this time. A copy of the annotated IDS sheet is included in this correspondence.
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.
Claims 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention (e.g. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The claims include a system or “apparatus”, method or “process”, or product or “article of manufacture” and is and method or system of inventory prediction which is a process (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 13 and product Claim 18. Claim 1 recites the limitations of (abstract ideas highlighted in italics and additional elements highlighted in bold)
receiving data that indicates a description of at least one item, the at least one item being associated with a first item category;
selecting an additional item associated with a second item category based on the second item category being related to the first item category and based on the description of the at least one item;
outputting, in real-time and based on a probability value that the additional item is currently trending, a display of a listing recommendation for the additional item, the listing recommendation for the additional item including an estimated value for the additional item and a selectable control; and
receiving input at the selectable control that indicates at least one of a first selection to generate a listing for sale of the additional item or a second selection to update a database record entry to add the additional item.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Receiving data regarding an item, selecting an additional item in the same category as the first item, outputting a probability value, a recommended listing, and an estimated price, and generating and listing or storing the information recites a commercial interaction. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The processor and memory in Claim 13 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions in Claim 18 appears to be just software. Claims 13 and 18 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as “Mental Process”. Receiving data regarding an item, selecting an additional item in the same category as the first item, outputting a probability value, a recommended listing, and an estimated price, and generating and listing or storing the information recites a concept performed in the mind. But for the “computer display” and “database” language the claim encompasses receiving item data, selecting a similar item, recommending a listing and estimating a price, and deciding to generate a listing or store the data using his/her mine and/or pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer display and database does not take the claim out of the mental processes grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The processor and memory in Claim 13 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions in Claim 18 appears to be just software. Claims 13 and 18 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite computer with display (Claim 1) a processor and a memory (claim 13) and/or non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions (Claim 18). The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1, 13, and 18 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0025] about implantation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices [The computing device 102, for instance, is configurable as a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a mobile device (e.g., assuming a handheld configuration such as a tablet or mobile phone as illustrated), and so forth. Thus, the computing device 102 ranges from full resource devices with substantial memory and processor resources (e.g., personal computers, game consoles) to low-resource devices with limited memory and/or processing resources (e.g., mobile devices).] and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1, 13, and 18 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-12, 14-17, and 19-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 13, and 18 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. The dependent claims include steps or processes which are similar to that disclosed in MPEP 2106.05(d), (f), (g), and/or (h) which include activities and functions the courts have determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a generic manner, or as insignificant extra solution activity, or as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception.
Claim 2 (19) is similar to activities and functions the courts have found to be well understood, routine, or conventional activity when claim in a generic manner or as insignificant extra solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d) “Presenting offers and gathering statistics”, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Claim 3 (15/19), similar to “storing and retrieving information in memory” Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Claims 4 (16), 5 (17), 7, 10 and 11, similar to “A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer”, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Claim 6 and 8, similar to “Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer”, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Claim 9 and 12, similar to “Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment”, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Therefore, the claims 2-12, 14-17, and 19-20 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
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) 1-4, 12-16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hale et al. U.S. Publication 2014/0258016 A1 (hereafter Hale).
Regarding claim 1, Hale discloses receiving data that indicates a description of at least one item, the at least one item being associated with a first item category (see at least [0051] a user may be presented with a user interface including descriptions of one or more items in the user's inventory. [0030] the user may be able to organize the items by category. As another example, the user may be able to view the current market value for each item individually, the total value for a selection of items, or the total value for all items.);
selecting an additional item associated with a second item category based on the second item category being related to the first item category and based on the description of the at least one item (see at least [0047] On the other hand, if the user owns many lighting-related items and is viewing a motorcycle headlamp, the recommendation module 260 may present recommendations for other headlamps instead. Of course, these recommendations can be based on any predictive correlation between the items owned by the user and the item being viewed, and is not limited to categorization.);
outputting, in real-time and based on a probability value that the additional item is currently trending, a display of a listing recommendation for the additional item, the listing recommendation for the additional item including an estimated value for the additional item and a selectable control (see at least [0087] The other two tabs 1240 and 1250 are labeled "Stuff I Want" and "Trending," respectively. The tab 1240 may be operable to display a set of items the user has indicated as wanting to own, such as a wish list. [0082] An area 960 may contain a list of recommendations to the user of items to sell. The list may be provided as a suggestion to sell one or more items in order to purchase the item for sale shown in area 910. The recommendations may be based on the inventory of items known to be owned by the user, the price of the items in the inventory, and the price of the item for sale.); and
receiving input at the selectable control that indicates at least one of a first selection to generate a listing for sale of the additional item or a second selection to update a database record entry to add the additional item (see at least Fig. 6 and 7, [0073] An element 675 shows information regarding an item from the user's inventory that is not listed for sale. The presented information regarding the item includes a description and a price of the item. The price of the item may be an estimated value of the item. An element 680 may be operable to create a listing for the item, while an element 690 may be operable to cause display of price trend data for the item.).
Regarding claim 2, Hale discloses wherein the input indicates the first selection, and wherein the method further comprises generating the listing for sale of the additional item (see at least [0057] the generation module 250 generates a listing for the item in the electronic commerce site. In some example embodiments, the listing for the item is an auction listing. In some example embodiments, the listing for the item includes a set price for sale. The listing may include information about the item and user from the item database 115. In some example embodiments, the listing for the item is created by the generation module 250 without user intervention.).
Regarding claim 3, Hale discloses wherein the input indicates the second selection, and wherein the method further comprises updating the database record entry to add the additional item (see at least [0087] The database structure for tracking a user's wanted inventory may be similar to the structure for tracking a user's owned inventory. The recommendation system that suggests items a user wants to purchase may use information about items in the user's wanted inventory to make such recommendations.).
Regarding claim 4, Hale discloses wherein selecting the additional item further comprises obtaining a graph comprising a plurality of nodes that indicate respective item categories associated with a plurality of items and a plurality of edges that link related nodes based on respective descriptions of the plurality of items, and wherein the first item category and the second item category are linked in the graph (see at least [0106] The UI 1700 also indicates a date the item was originally purchased, change in value of the item since the date of purchase, and distribution of prices (via a graph 1740) on the electronic commerce site. Also provided is a thermometer-shaped indicator 1720 that shows the strength of the recommendation. The indicator 1720 may be color coded. For example, the right-hand side of the indicator may be green, the left-hand side may be red, and the color may smoothly transition along the indicator 1720.).
Regarding claim 12, Hale discloses further comprising determining the estimated value based on comparing one or more attributes associated with the additional item to information describing at least one similar item (see at least [0073] The price of the item may be an estimated value of the item. An element 680 may be operable to create a listing for the item, while an element 690 may be operable to cause display of price trend data for the item.).
Claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 2 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 3 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 4 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18 is substantially similar to claims 1 or 13 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19 is substantially similar to claims 2 or 14 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claims 3 or 15 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 5-11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hale et al. U.S. Publication 2014/0258016 A1 (hereafter Hale) in view of Correa et al. U.S. Publication 2022/0058713 A1 (hereafter Correa).
Regarding claim 5, Hale discloses that of claim 1 but fails to disclose a ranked list of the plurality of items.
Correa discloses, in the same field of invention, further comprising: obtaining respective probability values that a plurality of items are currently trending based on information that indicates respective popularities of the plurality of items, wherein the plurality of items comprises the at least one item and the additional item; and generating, based on the respective probability values, a ranked list comprising at least a subset of items of the plurality of items (see at least [0009] revising a ranked list of recommendations disclosed herein includes non-transitory computer executable code embodied in a computer readable medium that, when executing on one or more computing devices, performs the steps of: generating a plurality of recommended items related to an item; characterizing the plurality of recommended items with a probability distribution that includes, for each of the plurality of recommended items, a probability of being selected by a user; ranking the plurality of recommended items according to the probability distribution; displaying the plurality of recommended items in a page according to the ranking; receiving an interaction with a first item of the plurality of recommended items; and in response to the interaction, adjusting the probability of being selected for each of the plurality of recommended items in the probability distribution by increasing the probability of being selected for the first item of the plurality of recommended items and decreasing the probability of being selected for at least a second item of the plurality of recommended items.) therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the recommendation and listing generation as disclose by Hale with the probability calculation and ranked list as taught by Correa for ranking and displaying based on probability of being selected as combining prior art elements is known to yield predictable results (KSR A).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hale and Correa discloses wherein the subset of items is based on a geographic location associated with the computing device (see at least Correa [0043] the event module 220 may be configured to gather information about events (e.g., events that have already occurred, are presently occurring, are expected to occur, or any suitable combination thereof). The event module 220 may store information about events in the item database 115, or retrieve information about events from the item database 115. In other example embodiments, the event module 220 uses a separate database (not shown) to store data about the event. The event may be a physical event (e.g., a concert, a war, a movie screening) or a publication event (e.g., an article about the concert, a blog post about the war, or a review based on the movie screening, or any suitable combination thereof). The information about an event may be static (e.g., a name of the event, a date of the event, an event's location, a cost of the event, or a size of the event) or dynamic (e.g., a current level of interest in the event or a probability of the event occurring), or both.).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hale and Correa discloses wherein the ranked list is generated periodically (see at least Correa; [0045] Thus, in one aspect, adjusting the probability of being selected for each of the recommended items in the probability distribution may include updating the probability distribution at periodic intervals on a batch basis by sequentially recalculating the probability distribution for each of a group of selection activities accumulated in an event log such as the interaction log.).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hale and Correa discloses further comprising generating the probability value based on comparing the additional item to at least one other item in the ranked list, the probability value based on at least one of a similarity between one or more attributes of the additional item and one or more attributes of the at least one other item, a rank of the at least one other item in the ranked list, or a value associated with the at least one other item (see at least Hale [0055] the recommendation module 260 accesses a record indicating a target price at which the user is willing to sell the item. The target price may be stored in the item database 115, and may have been previously set by the user via the communication module 240. In some embodiments, the recommendation module 260 compares the target price with the current price of the item.).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hale and Correa discloses wherein the one or more attributes of the additional item and the one or more attributes of the at least one other item comprise one or more of a product description, seller information, a category description, a brand, a condition, respective rank in the ranked list, or an average sale price (see at least Hale [0100] each "Item A" for sale may be included in the chart 1550 as a price point, with the vertical axis indicating the number of items for sale at each point. In this embodiment, the estimated value of the item is the average value of the price points, $160. The price distribution may be smoothed. For example, if one item is available at $90 and three items are available at $160, a line may be drawn from $90 at a height indicating one item to $160 at a height indicating three items. The smoothing may be done at different levels of granularity. In this example, a line may be drawn from one item at $90 to no items at $100, then from no items at $150 to three items at $160.).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Hale and Correa discloses wherein outputting the display of the listing recommendation for the additional item further comprises determining, based on a capability associated with the computing device to display one or more listing recommendations, a threshold probability value, and wherein the probability value satisfies the threshold probability value (see at least Correa [0061] a new recommended item may be added to the list of recommended items. For example, multiple recommenders may be running for a website and may display recommended items to users at various times. When the number of recommended items falls below a predetermined threshold or when an existing recommended item falls below a threshold for likelihood of selection, a new recommended item may be provided from an alternative recommender that provides recommendations related to the anchor item. Similarly, when a recommended item from another recommender is selected by a user, that new recommended item may automatically be added to the list of recommended items, either by replacing a low-ranked item in the list of recommended items or by increasing number of items in the list of recommended items.).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Hale and Correa discloses further comprising outputting a display of a plurality of listing recommendations for a plurality of items, wherein: the plurality of listing recommendations comprises the listing recommendation; the plurality of listing recommendations are ordered based on respective probability values associated with the plurality of items; and the respective probability values satisfy the threshold probability value (see at least [0062] when the number of recommended items falls below some predetermined threshold, a new recommended item may be randomly selected from a pool of items, selected by a human, automatically selected from a human-curated list, selected based on a similarity analysis (e.g., relative to the anchor item A or items in the current list of recommended items), or using any other suitable technique. The new recommended item may be assigned a probability based on the ranking parameter α using a formula).
Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 5 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art generally refers to item listing for sale or auction including associated methods and systems.
U.S. Publication 2017/0236182 A1 System and method of generating a recommendation of a product or service based on inferring a demographic characteristic of a customer.
U.S. Publication 2019/0272491 A1 Inventory placement recommendation system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN C WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-1406. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571)272-6737. 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.
/DYLAN C WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 October 31, 2025
Prosecution Insights