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 .
Response to Amendment
All pending claims 1-20 filed March 12, 2026 are examined in this final office action.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101-Subject Matter Eligibility
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks filed March 12, 2026 with respect to subject matter eligibility have been fully considered and are persuasive. Rejection under 35 USC 101 is withdrawn.
The allowed claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at least because the claims recite elements that reflect an improvement to a technology or technical field. Specifically, the claims improve the functioning of an online marketplace computer system. The claims recite a particular arrangement of machine learning layers and user segmentation operations. This arrangement reduces the volume of digital records that the system processes, stores, and transmits when matching supply-side inventory with demand-side activity.
The claimed method addresses this technical problem through a specific sequence of operations. One or more layers of a machine learning model identify an item based on an activity that indicates increased demand. The system determines a user segment associated with one or more attributes based on a second set of user accounts that each have a current listing of the item. The system then narrows a first set of user accounts to a subset using that user segment. Notifications are sent only to that subset rather than to a broad and undifferentiated population of user accounts.
This targeted filtering pipeline reduces the number of notifications generated, transmitted, and rendered by the system. It also reduces the number of notifications transmitted over the network and rendered on client devices. As a result, the system reduces network bandwidth consumption, server-side processing load, and client-side rendering operations that would otherwise be used for notifications directed to users who lack a relevant attribute-based correlation to the item.
Paragraph [0019] of the instant specification further explains the role of the machine learning layers. The machine learning layers perform user segmentation that directs surges to selected users. The machine learning method monitors in real time for surges in listing-for-sale activity and browsing activity. FIG. 6 and paragraph [0050] illustrate that the deep machine learning layers selectively expose selling opportunities to a targeted set of user accounts. The selection is based on factors such as demographic attributes, geographic location, and psychographic attributes. This approach differs from systems that broadcast notifications indiscriminately. The layered machine learning segmentation architecture therefore reduces the computational and network resources consumed by the online marketplace system.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, 9, 11, 17, 18 and 20 of Kumaresan et al., US 10,977,707.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because rejected claims 1, 11 and 20 achieve a non-distinct outcome using the same computing structures. Rejected claims 11 and 20 are represented by rejected claim 1 below. Parent claims 11, 19 and 20 are represented by parent claims 1 and 10.
Rejected claim 1. A method comprising:
Parent ‘707 claim 1. A method comprising:
identifying, using one or more layers of a machine learning model, an item based on a activity associated with the item; the activity indicating an increased demand for the item;
1. a first product item record for a first product item of interest that is in high demand on an online marketplace system;
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the first product item of interest is identified as being in high-demand based on a surge in sales of the first product item product through the online marketplace system, the surge being identified by a machine learning model.
determining a first set of user accounts associated with an interest to list the item;
1. determining, by the one or more processors from a user database, a first set of user accounts associated with obtaining the first product item of interest through the online marketplace system;
identifying a second set of user accounts, each account being associated with a current listing of the item;
determining, by the one or more processors from the user database, a second set of user accounts associated with listing the first product item of interest for sale on the online marketplace system;
determining, using the one or more layers of the machine learning model, a user segment associated with one or more attributes based on the second set of user accounts;
10. applying, by the one or more processors, a machine learning model to the fourth set of user accounts to determine a set of user segments each associated with a different set of factors, the different set of factors including at least one of a demographic attribute, a geographic location, or a psychographic attribute;
determining a subset of the first set of user accounts based on the user segment; and
10. determining, by the one or more processors from the user database, a subset of user accounts of the second set of user accounts based on at least one user segment from the set of user segments,
causing display of a notification on one or more devices associated with the subset of the first set of user accounts, the notification indicating an opportunity to list the item for sale.
1. causing, by the one or more processors, a notification to be sent to one or more client devices associated with the third set of user accounts, the notification informing the third set of user accounts of an opportunity to list the first product item of interest for sale on the online marketplace system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 3, 5, 9, 13, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Claims 3, 5, 9, 13, 15 and 19 recite the limitation " surge activity. " There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “surge activity” is indefinite. The claim as a whole when executed does not contain subject matter that objectively determine that a surge in activity is actually occurring.
Closest US Patent/US Pre-Grant Publication
Calafiore US 2013/0204701, recited during examination of parent patent application #16/015459 as the closest prior art, remains the closest prior art for this child application. Forward citations of Calafiore failed to reveal closer prior art. Prior art recited during prosecution of Calafiore, abandoned, failed to reveal closer prior art. Al tool, More Like This Document (MLTD) and Similarity, failed to reveal closer prior art. Calafiore alone or in combination with other cited prior art fails to teach and/or suggest the combination of methods as claimed.
Closest Non-Patent Literature
Terapeak, recited during examination of parent patent application #16/015459 as the closest prior art, remains the closest non-patent literature prior art. Terapeak alone or in combination with other cited prior art fails to teach and/or suggest the combination of methods as claimed.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following were considered in parent patent applications and for this instant application:
US 20140019285; US 20110004509; US 20140089044; US 7113917;
US 20130204701 US 20160232625; US 20060277130; US 20150019568;
US 20160148289: US 7464056 US 7493274; 8260666; and US 8719109.
Conclusion
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 ROBERT M POND whose telephone number is (571)272-6760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 AM-6:30 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 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.
/ROBERT M POND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688 March 25, 2026