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 .
1. Applicant’s amendment filed 05/11/2026 is entered. Claims 1, 4-5, 10, 11, 14-15, 18 are currently amended. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
This is a Final Rejection.
Double Patenting
2. 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.
3.1. Claims 1-7, 9-18, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11436655 B2, hereinafter Patent’ 655. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
As an illustration, all the highlighted limitations of claim 1 of the instant application, when comparted with the claims 1, 3-4 of the Patent’ 655 are covered and anticipated by the underlined limitations of claims 1 and 3-4 of the Patent’ 655 and are directed to the same concept of displaying two separate listings in a comparison view with each listing enabling different actions for different set of items and the user selection of an action transitions him to another stage,
Claim 1 of the instant Application:
1. (Currently Amended) A method comprising:
displaying, via a user interface of a listing platform, a first listing and a second listing concurrently in a comparison view;
displaying only one action element in the first listing of the comparison view that is selectable to initiate an action with respect to the first listing, the action selected from a plurality of actions available for use in connection with the listing platform, wherein user selection of the one action element in the first listing causes a transition to a stage in relation to the first listing; and
displaying only one action element in the second listing of the comparison view that is selectable to initiate a different action with respect to the second listing, the different action selected from the plurality of actions, wherein user selection of the one action element in the second listing causes a transition to a different stage in relation to the second listing.
Claim 1of the Patent’ 655:
1. A method implemented at least partially in hardware of a computing device, the method comprising:
displaying, via a user interface of a listing platform, an initial set of action user-interface components that are selectable to initiate actions for an initial set of listings, the actions determined for the initial set of listings according to an initial policy for determining the actions;
refining the policy, using a machine learning model, based on user interactions with the initial set of action user-interface components monitored over a time period;
displaying, via the user interface of the listing platform, a plurality of listings concurrently in a comparison view, the plurality of listings including at least a first listing representing a first item and a second listing representing a second item;
determining which action of a plurality of actions to associate with each listing of the plurality of listings using the refined policy; and
displaying, in each listing of the plurality of listings in the comparison view and concurrently, only one respective action user-interface component including: a first respective action user-interface component selectable via the user interface to initiate a first action with respect to the first item; and a second respective action user-interface component selectable via the user interface to initiate a second action with respect to the second item, the second action being different from the first action.
3. The method as described in claim 1, wherein selection of the first respective action user-interface component displayed in the first listing initiates one of: buying the first item at a time of the selection; adding the first item to a cart; submitting a bid for an auction of the first item; entering an offer to buy the first item; sharing the first item; or adding the first item to a watch list of items.
4. The method as described in claim 3, wherein selection of the second action user-interface component displayed in the second listing initiates a different one of: buying the second item at a time of the selection; adding the second item to the cart; submitting a bid for an auction of the second item; entering an offer to buy the second item; sharing the second item; or adding the second item to the watch list of items.
The limitations of the other two independent claims 10 and 18 of the instant application are similar to the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application and are rejected on the same basis based on the limitations of claims 1, 3-4 of the Patent’ 655..
The limitations of the dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, of the instant application are disclosed and obvious in view of the limitations of the claims 1, 3, 19, 19, 12-14, 3-4 and 20, and 10 respectively of the Patent’655. The limitations of dependent claims 13-17, from base claim 10 and the dependent claim 20 from base claim 18 of the instant application are similar to the limitations already covered in the limitations of 2-5, 7, and 9 of the instant application. The limitations of the dependent claims 11-12 are covered in the limitations of claim 1 Patent’ 655.
3.2. Claims 1-5, 7-15, 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12112364 B2, hereinafter Patent’ 364. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
As an illustration, all the highlighted limitations of claim 1 of the instant application, when comparted with the claims 1, 11-12 of the Patent’ 364 are covered and anticipated by the underlined limitations of claims 1 and 11-12 of the Patent’ 364 and are directed to the same concept of displaying two separate listings in a comparison view with each listing enabling different actions for different set of items and the user selection of an action transitions him to another stage,
Claim 1 of the instant Application:
1. (Currently Amended) A method comprising:
displaying, via a user interface of a listing platform, a first listing and a second listing concurrently in a comparison view;
displaying only one action element in the first listing of the comparison view that is selectable to initiate an action with respect to the first listing, the action selected from a plurality of actions available for use in connection with the listing platform, wherein user selection of the one action element in the first listing causes a transition to a stage in relation to the first listing; and
displaying only one action element in the second listing of the comparison view that is selectable to initiate a different action with respect to the second listing, the different action selected from the plurality of actions, wherein user selection of the one action element in the second listing causes a transition to a different stage in relation to the second listing.
Claim 1 of Patent’364:
1. A method comprising:
monitoring user interactions with previously displayed action elements displayed in association with listings of a listing platform and corresponding to actions previously selected using a machine learning model;
refining the machine learning model based on the monitored user interactions;
determining, using the machine learning model, which action of the actions to associate with a first listing and a second listing to be displayed concurrently in a comparison view;
displaying, in the comparison view, only one action element in the first listing that is selectable to initiate an action with respect to the first listing; and
displaying, in the comparison view, only one action element in the second listing that is selectable to initiate a different action with respect to the second listing.
11. The method of claim 1, further comprising displaying, in each listing of the comparison view, a comparison explanation identifying a reason for including a respective listing in the comparison view.
12. The method of claim 1, further comprising displaying a user interface of the listing platform including the comparison view and a listing specific portion, the listing specific portion corresponding to one listing of the comparison view and including multiple, different action elements that are selectable to initiate multiple, different actions with respect to the one listing.
The limitations of the dependent claims 2, 3, 4-5, 7, 8, and 9 of the instant application are disclosed and obvious in view of the limitations of the claims 1, 6, 7-8, 11-12 of the Patent’364. The limitations of dependent claims 13-15, 17, from base claim 10 and the dependent claims 19-20 from base claim 18 of the instant application are similar to the limitations already covered in the limitations of 2, 3, 4-5, 7, 8, and 9 of the instant application. The limitations of the dependent claims 11-12 are covered in the limitations of claim 1 Patent’ 364.
Thus, all pending claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting in view of claims of the Paten’364 and the Patent’ 655.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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 an abstract idea without significantly more, when analyzed as per MPEP 2106.
Step 1 analysis:
Claims 1-9, are to a process comprising a series of steps, clams 10-17 are to a system /apparatus, and claims 18-20 to manufacture, which are statutory (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A Analysis:
Claim 1 recites:
1. A method comprising:
1. (Currently Amended) A method comprising:
displaying, via a user interface of a listing platform, a first listing and a second listing concurrently in a comparison view;
displaying only one action element in the first listing of the comparison view that is selectable to initiate an action with respect to the first listing, the action selected from a plurality of actions available for use in connection with the listing platform, wherein user selection of the one action element in the first listing causes a transition to a stage in relation to the first listing; and
displaying only one action element in the second listing of the comparison view that is selectable to initiate a different action with respect to the second listing, the different action selected from the plurality of actions, wherein user selection of the one action element in the second listing causes a transition to a different stage in relation to the second listing.
Step 2A Prong 1 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claims 1--20 recite abstract idea.
The highlighted limitations comprising, “ displaying a first listing and a second listing concurrently in a comparison view of a listing platform; displaying only one action element in the first listing of the comparison view that is selectable to initiate an action with respect to the first listing, the action selected from a plurality of actions available for use in connection with the listing platform; and displaying only one action element in the second listing of the comparison view that is selectable to initiate a different action with respect to the second listing, the different action selected from the plurality of actions”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, and in view of the Applicant’s disclosure of the invention, see at least para 0003 [“s 0018—0019, “ By way of example, an input is received to navigate to a web page of a particular item listed by a listing platform, where the comparison view is to be included as a component of the web page. ……. The comparison view system may determine which listings to include based on one or more criteria, such as the listings being similar (e.g., to a listing being viewed currently), the listings being included in a list of listings (e.g., a watch or wish list), the listings having been added to an online shopping cart for potential purchase, the listings having been bid on in an online auction, and so forth. 0019]……..—the comparison view system determines which action of a plurality of actions, available for use in connection with the listing platform, to associate with each of the listings. In this way, the listings in the described comparison view may include action user-interface components that are selectable to initiate different actions. For instance, the action user interface component in a first listing of the comparison view may be selectable to initiate an “Add to Cart” action while the action user interface component in a second listing of the comparison view is selectable to initiate an “Add to Watch List” action, but not the “Add to Cart” action.”] relate to a commercial activity of presenting two different listing of items meant for sale and selection of actions like adding items to a shopping cart or an intention to bid on the items in the second listing and providing a comparison before a buyer decides to opt for a sting and item. Thus, the limitations of claim 1 and the dependent claims 2-9 fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II.
Since the other two independent claims 10 and 18 recite limitations similar to the ones discussed for claim 1, they and their dependent claims 11--17 and 19-20 are analyzed on the same basis as reciting “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, pending claims 1--20 recite abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong 2 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claims 1-20: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of using generic user interface on a generic computer platform executing the following steps:
(i)displaying a first listing and a second listing concurrently in a comparison view; (ii)displaying only one action element in the first listing of the comparison view that is selectable to initiate an action with respect to the first listing, the action selected from a plurality of actions available for use in connection with the listing platform, wherein user selection of the one action element in the first listing causes a transition to a stage in relation to the first listing; and (iii) displaying only one action element in the second listing of the comparison view that is selectable to initiate a different action with respect to the second listing, the different action selected from the plurality of actions, wherein user selection of the one action element in the second listing causes a transition to a different stage in relation to the second listing.
The limitations in all the three steps recite using generic computer components comprising a generic computer interface displaying data providing a comparison review for displayed listings for the intended actions on the items in the listing are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the listings data ), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra‐solution activity. Providing buttons for initiating actions on the displayed items are generic computer functions and by clicking on a button representing an action it , such as” add to cart” or “checkout”, etc. will transition the current web page to a different web page showing items added to cart or providing a webpage for checking out requiring payment information. Using buttons to initiate actions on a webpage transitioning to different web pages , such as by clicking on a button representing an action , such as” add to cart” or “checkout”, etc. the user is transitioned to a different web page showing items added to cart or providing a webpage for checking out requiring payment information, are generic computer functions and the claim limitations, as drafted, are not directed to an improvement in the computer functioning or hardware or software.
Accordingly, even when considered individually and in combination, the additional elements in claim1 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims 1 is directed to the abstract idea. Since the other two independent claims 10 and 18 recite similar limitations as claim 1, they are analyzed on the same basis as directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 2 recites non-functional descriptive subject matter and claims 3-9, 13-17 and 19-20 are directed to displaying selecting data , explanations, identified reasons and initiating actions such as “add to cart” or “purchase”, or “bid” or “change or edit the selection” etc. which are a form of insignificant extra‐solution activity, as discussed above, and generic computer functions of making selections or making change to the selections . As such these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Limitations in dependent claims 11 and 12 recite using a machine learning model to associate a selection of an action with the listings using machine learning model or refining an initial policy based on monitored user interactions as to which action should be associated for each of the different listings. The use of machine learning model is recited in a nominal way without providing details describing the steps executing the machine learning model in selecting actions to associate with the listings. Such recitation of the machine learning model in a nominal way does not reflect any technical improvement in a computer function or implementing of a machine learning algorithm. The limitations, “select, the different action to associate with the second listing from the plurality of actions”, and refining an initial policy as to which action to be associated with different listings based on monitored user interactions are mere extension of the abstract idea and does not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The recitation of using a machine learning model merely amounts to applying machine learning to an abstract idea and confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (machine learning) but does not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, recitations of using a machine learning model fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
None of the limitations in claims 1-20, as analyzed above are indicative of any of the following meaningful limits, see “ MPEP 2106.04 (d)::
• An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; See MPEP 2106.05(a).
• an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; See MPEP 2106.05(b).
• an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; see MPEP 2106.05(c).and
• an additional element applies or uses 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.29 an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; See MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo .
Even when viewed individually and in combination, the additional elements in claims 1--20 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because they do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claims 1-20 are directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). Step 2A=Yes. Claims 1-11, 13-20 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claims 1--20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since claims are as per Step 2A are directed to an abstract idea, they have to be analyzed per Step 2B, if they recite an inventive step, i.e., the claim recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to “Significantly More” than the judicial exception in the claim.
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims 1--20 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components executing generic computer functions, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using a generic computer components implementing generic computer functions cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Additional elements displaying data were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering/transmitting/outputting/displaying/presenting/storing data . However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). ). The background of the example does not provide any indication that the computer components are anything other than a generic, off the shelf computer component and the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs, Versata court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d) (ii) indicate that mere data gathering/ transmitting/ outputting/displaying/presenting/ data steps using a generic computer are well-understood, routine, conventional function when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the displaying/outputting data steps are well-understood, routine conventional activities are supported under Berkheimer Option 2. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) 2: Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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 Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements in claims 1--20 represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Thus, claims 1--20 are patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
4.1. Claims 1-8, 10, 13-17, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajyaguru et al. [US 8,401, 924 B1], hereinafter Rajyaguru [cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 04/23/2026] in view of Tkachuk et al. [US Patent# 8347320 B2], hereinafter Tkachuk..
Reference claim 1, Rajyaguru teaches a method comprising:
displaying, via a user interface of a listing platform, a first listing and a second listing concurrently in a comparison view of a listing platform; displaying only one action element in the first listing of the comparison view that is selectable to initiate an action with respect to the first listing, the action selected from a plurality of actions available for use in connection with the listing platform,; and displaying only one action element in the second listing of the comparison view that is selectable to initiate a different action with respect to the second listing, the different action selected from the plurality of actions [See Fig.7and associated description in col. 17, lines 6-49; Fig.7 discloses displaying a plurality of item listings side by side in a comparison view and each listing [represented by separate column] displays one action element selected from a plurality of actions available, such as “add item to cart” which can be selected to initiate an action and the second listing/column display different action such as “buy both” or “Buy three”. Though Rajyaguru teaches that by clicking one of those buttons users may purchase the item from that listing, “ The system may provide users viewing a research note with a convenient way to purchase an item within the research note. For example, an "Add to Cart" button could appear below each item's image or description in the research note.”, it does not state wherein user selections of the one action elements in the first listing and the second listing causes a transition to a stage in relation to the listings. Thachuk, in the same field of using GUI in connection with the World Wide Web, teaches selection of an action element transitions to a stage in relation to the action, see col.2, lines 46-52, “ GUI and Web applications are generally open event-driven systems that take sequences of events (e.g., button clicks in a browser window or a GUI page or screen) and produce changes in the user interface displayed to a user (e.g., a transition to a different page or screen) or the underlying application (e.g., an online shopping cart at an online store becoming empty). “. Therefore, in view of the teachings of Thachuk in the same field of operating on a GUI in connection with World Wide Web, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rajyaguru to include the concept of user selections of action elements in the first listing and the second listing cause a transition to a stage in relation to the first listing and the second listing, because as, intended in Rajyaguru to purchase the item a transition will be required to a new webpage for adding the item to the web cart and secondly, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Rajyaguru teaches that the method of claim 1, wherein the first listing represents a first item, and the second listing represents a second item {see Fig.7 which shows that each listing representing a different items such as one listing displays a Blackberry Playbook and the other listing displays Apple iPad or Samsung Galaxy , etc.. ].
Regarding claim 3, Rajyaguru teaches that the method of claim 1, wherein the one action element displayed in the first listing and the one action element displayed in the second listing are selectable to initiate different ones of: purchasing a respective item; adding the respective item to a cart; submitting a bid for an auction of the respective item; entering an offer to purchase the respective item; sharing the respective item; and adding the respective item to a watch list of items [see Fig.7 which displays in one listing an action to “Buy Both” and in the other to “Buy all 3”].
Regarding claim 4, Rajyaguru teaches that the method of claim 1, wherein the action to associate with the first listing is selected from the plurality of actions based on at least one of: action elements previously leading to conversion for a user to which the comparison view is displayed; a category of items associated with the first listing; a price associated with the first listing; and a number of user interactions with an item of the first listing by other users of the listing platform [See Fig.7 wherein in the listing of the Apple iPad a category of Ranking is displayed as # 2 and a price of $499and two interactions allowed such as “add to cart” and “Buy both”.].
Regarding claim 5, Rajyaguru teaches that the method of claim 1, wherein the different action to associate with the second listing is selected from the plurality of actions based on at least one of: action elements previously leading to conversion for a user to which the comparison view is displayed; a category of items associated with the second listing; a price associated with the second listing; and a number of user interactions with an item of the second listing by other users of the listing platform [See column displaying Dell product referred to second listing ] which shows that the ranking category is $3, the price is $649 and a different action from the first listing to “Buy all 3”.. ].
Regarding claim 6, Rajyaguru teaches that the method of claim 1, wherein the one action element displayed in the first listing includes a first visual characteristic, and the one action element displayed in the second listing includes a second visual characteristic [See Fig.7 different action elements such as “Buy Both” in one listing and “Buy all 3” in the second listing are displayed as visual characteristics.
Regarding claim 7, Rajyaguru teaches that the method of claim 1, wherein a set of listings are included in the comparison view based on at least one of: similarity with a particular listing in the set of listings; inclusion within an online shopping cart of a user to which the comparison view is displayed; and inclusion within a watch list of the user to which the comparison view is displayed [See Fig7 which displays similarity with a particular listing in the set of listings and inclusion within an online shopping cart of a user to which the comparison view is displayed [[See the imitating action “add to cart” in all the displayed listings]; and inclusion within a watch list of the user to which the comparison view is displayed
Regarding claim 8, Rajyaguru teaches that the method of claim 8 further comprising displaying, in each listing of the comparison view, a comparison explanation identifying a reason for including a respective listing in the comparison view, wherein the reason displayed in the first listing is different from the reason displayed in the second listing [Fig.7 displays a comparison explanation identifying a reason for including a respective listing in the comparison view, wherein the reason displayed in the first listing is different from the reason displayed in the second listing, for example a comparison view displays different rankings, different screen sizes, different resolutions, etc. for the items of each of the listings.
Regarding claims 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,since their limitations are similar to the claims 1, 3,4,5,6, and 7 analyzed and rejected above as anticipated by Rajyaguru, they are rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claims 18-19, since their limitations are similar to the claims 1, and 8 analyzed and rejected above as anticipated by Rajyaguru, they are rejected on the same basis.
4.2.. Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajyaguru in view of Tkachuk in view of WO 2016/164978 A1; hereinafter WO’978. [cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 04/23/2026].
Regarding claim 9, Rajyaguru in view of Tkachuk teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as analyzed above, but fails to disclose that that the method of claim 1, further comprising displaying, in each listing of the comparison view, an editing element that is selectable to change a respective action associated with a respective listing. WO’978 , in the same field of endeavor [see paras 141 -158 and Figs 7-10, providing a plurality of listings for items , which are real estate properties as an illustration, in a comparison view] and further includes a button in each of the listings to initiate an action including an editing element to remove one of the listings or to include another listing [see paras 155 -158]. Therefore, in view of the teachings of WO’978 in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and system of Rajyaguru in view of Tkachuk to provide an element initiating an editing action to remove or call back a listing because that will enable a customer to reduce the number of listing for final comparison.
Regarding claim 20, since its limitations are similar to the claim 9, it is analyzed and rejected above as unpatentable over Rajyaguru in view of Tkachuk in view of WO’978, it is rejected on the same basis.
4.3. Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajyaguru in view of Tkachuk in view of Kushman et al. [US 2011/0246881], hereinafter Kushman cited in the IDS filed 11/20/2024.
Regarding claim 11, Rajyaguru in view of Tkachuk teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as analyzed above and discussed for claim 1, but fails to disclose that system of claim 10, wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: select, using a machine learning model, the action to associate with the first listing from a plurality of actions; and select, using the machine learning model, the different action to associate with the second listing from the plurality of actions. Kushman , see paras 0073-0074 [“[0073] Determining whether an action is a Commit or Update action may not be as straightforward. There are cases where this labeling is fairly simple; for example, typing in a text box or checking a check box is clearly an update action. But to handle the more complex cases, the system may approach this problem in the same way a user would, such as by taking advantage of the visual cues on the screen. For example, Commit and Abort actions typically occur when the user clicks on a button, and the text associated with such buttons comes from a small vocabulary with words like {OK, Finish, Yes, Apply}, or {Abort, Cancel, No}. [0074] The system may capture all of this information using a Support Vector Machine (SVM), which is a state-of-the-art machine learning algorithm. The system does its mapping using 2 separate SVM classifiers, one for Updates and one for Commits, where each classifier decides whether the action belongs to a particular class, i.e., is it an Update? is it a Commit? Note that a single action can be a part of both classes to account for actions like clicking the "Clear Internet Cache" button which both updates the state and immediately commits that update”] , determines from a variety of actions and machine learning to determine actions to initiate based on the machine learning. Therefore, in view of the teachings of Kushman It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and system of Rajyaguru in view of Tkachuk to include the user of machine learning to determine the actions to take for the purposes of automating computer tasks rather than simply providing instructions on how to perform the tasks as taught by Kushman, and secondly, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
5 Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims [claims 11 and 12] and amending the independent claim to overcome 35 USC 101 rejection. Claims 11-17 depend from claim 10.
The prior art of record, alone or combined, neither teaches nor renders obvious at least the limitations comprising, “ the instructions further cause the at least one processor to refine an initial policy of the machine learning model for determining which action of the plurality of actions to associate with different listings of the comparison view based on monitored user interactions with action elements previously displayed via the listing platform in accordance with the initial policy, the action and the different action selected using the refined policy “.
Response to Arguments
6.1. 35 USC 101 rejection:
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026, see pages 10-16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are directed to Step 2A, Prong Two analysis that the limitations of the independent claims 1, 10, and 18 are not directed to an abstract idea, as the limitations are similar to Core Wireless” and Office “Example 37”. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons:
In the case of Core Wireless the claims are directed to an improved user interface comprising “summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices requiring “an application summary that can be reached directly from the menu” specifying a particular manner by which the summary window must be accessed. The claims further require the application summary window list a limited set of data, “each of the data in the list being selectable to launch the respective application and enable the selected data to be seen with the respective application”. This claim restrains the type of data that can be displayed in the summary window and the “summary window is displaced while the one or more applications are in an un-launched state”, a requirement that the device applications exist in a particular state. These limitations in claims of Core Wireless disclose a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user rather than using conventional user interface to display a generic index on a computer resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices similar to Enfish, and Finjan. Core Wireless has no applicability in the instant application, because the claim limitations in claims 1, 10, and 18 and , for example, the claim 1 limitations, “ displaying, via a user interface of a listing platform, a first listing and a second listing concurrently in a comparison view; displaying only one action element in the first listing of the comparison view that is selectable to initiate an action with respect to the first listing, the action selected from a plurality of actions available for use in connection with the listing platform, wherein user selection of the one action element in the first listing causes a transition to a stage in relation to the first listing; and displaying only one action element in the second listing of the comparison view that is selectable to initiate a different action with respect to the second listing, the different action selected from the plurality of actions, wherein user selection of the one action element in the second listing causes a transition to a different stage in relation to the second listing. “, are similar to transmitting data for display using GUI on a webpage enabling interactions, receiving data, selecting data and processing data, which is a “non-significant” and “extra solution” activity using generic computer to automate manual activity, see TTI v. CQG . Here the use of GUI, unlike TTI v. CQG, is directed to the routine steps of “setting, displaying, and selecting”, data for information that is visible on the GUI, known to be widely carried out by generic computers.
Office Example 37
In the Office Example 37, the claim recites the combination of additional elements of receiving, via a GUI, a user selection to organize each icon based on the amount of use of each icon, a processor for performing the determining step, and automatically moving the most used icons to a position on the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system based on the determined amount of use. The claim as a whole integrates the mental process into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific manner of automatically displaying icons. This Example is not applicable here, because the claim limitations in claims 1, 10, and 18 and , for example, the claim 1 limitations, “ displaying, via a user interface of a listing platform, a first listing and a second listing concurrently in a comparison view; displaying only one action element in the first listing of the comparison view that is selectable to initiate an action with respect to the first listing, the action selected from a plurality of actions available for use in connection with the listing platform, wherein user selection of the one action element in the first listing causes a transition to a stage in relation to the first listing; and displaying only one action element in the second listing of the comparison view that is selectable to initiate a different action with respect to the second listing, the different action selected from the plurality of actions, wherein user selection of the one action element in the second listing causes a transition to a different stage in relation to the second listing. “, are similar to transmitting data for display using GUI on a webpage enabling interactions, receiving data, selecting data and processing data, which is a “non-significant” and “extra solution” activity using generic computer to automate manual activity, see TTI v. CQG . Here the use of GUI, unlike TTI v. CQG, is directed to the routine steps of “setting, displaying, and selecting”, data for information that is visible on the GUI, known to be widely carried out by generic computers.
In view of the foregoing, the Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-16, are not persuasive, and the rejection of claims 1, 10, and 18 and their dependent claims, as analyzed in paragraph 2 above, is sustainable and maintained that they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, when analyzed as per MPEP 2106-Step 2A, Prong Two, and Step 2B..
6.2. Rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103:
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 17-20 filed 05/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 10, and 18 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments that the claim limitations recite displaying only single action for selection the prior art of Rajyaguru displays more than one action. In response to the applicant's argument, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Therefore, Examiner maintains that the prior art of Rajyaguru does teach the claim limitations of displaying at least one or more actions , which covers the claimed limitation of displaying an action.
Since, the applicant has amended the independent claims 1, 10, and 18 by adding new limitations, a new ground of rejection for the independent claims 1, 10, 18 and their dependent claims 2-9, 11, 13-17, and 19-20 under 35 USC 103 in view of an additional reference Tkachuk.
Conclusion
7 The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(i) Brown et al. [US Patent #11, 157, 148 B2 cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 04/23/2026; see col.19, lines 9-31 and Fig.10 ]describes enabling two or more action user interface elements displayed in association with each listed communication event. Using toggle action, the system allows to transfer from one listing to another listing.
(ii) Peterson et al. [US 20190228460 A1 cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 04/23/2026; see claim 1 ] describes a method for offering items for sale and delivery by a computerized platform causing presentation of listings for the items corresponding to the first delivery zone via a graphical user interface, each of the listings including an all-in price for a corresponding item and other relevant details wherein two or more of the listings are concurrently presented for a first item of the items via the graphical user interface, wherein the two or more of the listings have a different all-in price for the first item, and wherein the two or more of the listings differ by at least one of the seller handling time or the shipping service level for the first item.
(iii) Schoenberg [US 20140201649 A1 cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 04/23/2026; see para 0008] describes that a graphical user interface includes a plurality of listings of provider networks with which the service provided is associated with and some of the controls of the plurality of controls are juxtaposed the plurality of listings in the graphical user interface and with at least a different portion of the controls of the plurality controls juxtaposed items corresponding to provider practices.
(iv) Somaiya [US Patent# 10, 169, 799 B2 cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 04/23/2026 with the same assignee as the instant application but different inventive entities, see Fig.8 and col. 19, line 59-col.20, line 24] describes providing a plurality of listings of products, such as cameras in response to a search query, and a listing of the camera displayed includes a button to initiate an actions, to initiate, such as “Buy it now”
(v) Negrillo et al. [US 20120159379 A1 cited in the IDS filed 11/20/2024 ;See abstract and paras 0022, 0031, 0052, and 0056] describes a server presenting search results for items available for purchase to a user via a user interface and those items can be presented in a comparison view side by side with their attributes and descriptors and the descriptors could include “add items to an existing list” or “Buy Now”.
(vi) Publicover et al. [US 9823744B2 cited in the IDS filed 11/20/2024, See claim 17] describes providing plurality of menu items associated with different actions wherein an action associated with a first menu item is different than actions performed by other menu items.
(vii) Adika et al. [20190196932 A1 cited in the IDS filed 11/20/2024; see para 0089] describes using an analysis module 222 and applying statistical algorithms which could include machine learning algorithms to analyze and recognize patterns of users’ actions and identify one or more key words such as, “ ‘New’, ‘Buy’, ‘Upgrade’, ‘Save’, ‘Download’, ‘Add to Cart’, and/or the like that are presented by the application displaying the objects and then the analysis module can compare detected displayed objects and apply one or more common analyzed and recognized patterns while tracking interactions of the users.
(viii) Ellison [US20130346232 A1 cited in the IDS filed 11/20/2024; see para 0015] describes an application having a non-limiting tool automatically presenting multiple alternative for each of the items being sold and which of the alternatives is most eco-friendly such that the customer is provided with side-by-side view presentation of the items for comparing which of the item is more environmentally friendly alternative.
NPL reference:
(ix) V. L. R. Chinthalapati, N. Yadati and R. Karumanchi, "Learning dynamic prices in MultiSeller electronic retail markets with price sensitive customers, stochastic demands, and inventory replenishments," in IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews), vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 92-106, Jan. 2006, retrieved from IP.Com on 06242026 describes using reinforcement learning (RL) as a tool to study price dynamics in an electronic retail market consisting of two competing sellers, for offering identical products.
(x) Savetz, Dan; Gardiner, Kevin“ ehopper, Resources For Web Buying”; Computer Shopper; 124, SX2 Media Labs LLC. (Aug 1999); retrieved from Dialog on 03/20/2024 cited in the cited in the IDS filed 11/20/2024 describes under “ CDW www.cdw.com” providing side by side comparison view of selected five products including their photos, specs, prices, and warranties.
8. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 YOGESH C GARG whose telephone number is (571)272-6756. The examiner can normally be reached Max-Flex.
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.
/YOGESH C GARG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights