DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the RCE filed on 9/15/2025.
Claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 16, and 17 have been amended.
Claims 2-21 are pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/9/2025 has been entered.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 2-8 are directed to a method. Claims 9-15 are directed to a system. Claims 16-22 are directed to a control circuit. Thus, on their face they fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A prong 1:
Claims 2, 9, and 16 recite virtually identical claim limitations. Claim 2 will be used as representative. Each claims additional elements will be addressed individually. The following limitations, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, are merely descriptive of abstract concepts:
Claims 2, 9, 16:
facilitate purchase of items during a shopping experience at a retail facility by the user;
receiving input regarding universal product codes (UPC) of the items scanned at the retail facility;
displaying a shopping cart page that includes the scanned items;
receiving a checkout indication indicating that the user is ready to purchase the scanned items; and
in response to detecting the checkout indication:
retrieving a purchase history associated with the user, the purchase history including a plurality of candidate items;
determining, for each of the plurality of candidate items from the retrieved purchase history, an affinity score based on a decaying sigmoid function placing more weight on recent purchases;
identifying a first additional item of the candidate items based on the affinity score to present to the user for purchase during the shopping experience and a first merchandise category of the first additional item;
selecting a plurality of second additional items of the candidate items to include along with the first additional item to form a group of additional items to present to the user, wherein the plurality of second additional items are selected at least by assessing a level of diverseness of a merchandise category of each of the plurality of second additional items compared to the first merchandise category;
ranking the group of additional items based at least partially on the affinity score for each item of the group of additional items;
in response to determining that the group of additional items should be presented to the user based on past responses by the user, transmitting the group of additional items for purchase by the user and location information for locating the group of additional items in the retail facility to the user according to the ranking of the group of additional items;
in response to determining that the group of additional items should not be presented to the user based on the past responses by the user, blocking transmission of the group of additional items to the user.
The following dependent claim limitations, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, are merely further descriptive of abstract concepts:
Claims 3, 10:
wherein the group of additional items and the location information are displayed overlapping the shopping cart page
Claims 4, 11, 17:
further comprising: ranking the group of additional items further based on the merchandise category of each item of the group of additional items and determining a predetermined number of top-ranked second additional items.
Claims 5, 12, 18:
wherein the group of additional items comprises the predetermined number of top-ranked second additional items.
Claims 6, 13, 19:
further comprising determining the group of additional items based at least on a price of each item of the group of additional items.
Claims 7, 14, 20:
further comprising: determining, for each of the plurality of second additional items, a category diversity score relating to the diverseness of the merchandise category of the second additional item relative to the first merchandise category.
Claims 8, 15, 21:
further comprising: ranking the plurality of second additional items at least partially based on their respective category diversity scores.
The claims provide a manner of providing a user that is shopping with recommendations of additional items to purchase. The user accumulates items they wish to purchase in a store and adds them to a list. When the user wishes to checkout, a first additional item is identified and plurality of second additional items are selected based on a level of diversity comparted to the first item. The recommended items are ranked and then presented to the user. Thus, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claims embody certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, such activity is in the form of commercial interactions (in the form of advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors).
Step 2A prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements: user device of a user (claims 2, 9, 16) with camera (claims 2, 9, 16) with interface (claims 2, 9, 16) executing an application (claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16); control circuit (2, 4, 6-11, 13-21); purchase database (claims 2, 9, 16);
The user device, control circuit, and purchase database are recited at a high level of generality and amount to merely “apply it” (the abstract idea) using generic computing components. (See spec [0030], Fig. 2 element 210; Fig. 3, element 300). The control circuit merely processes data (identifying, selecting, displaying) The user device merely sends and receives data (receiving) and processes data (executing, displaying). The database is merely used as a means of storing data. Nothing in the claims improves upon user device, control circuit, or database technology or a technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The interface merely provides a general link to implementing the abstract idea in particular technological environment (i.e. on a computer). There are no recited interface elements that could be seen as an improvement to interface technology or the technical field. Presently it is merely used as a means of generic displaying in a computer environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Similarly, the “application” is merely a general link to perform the abstract idea in a computing environment. Nothing in the claims improves upon application technology itself or a technical field (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). It is little mere than generic implementation using generic computing components and thus does not go beyond the “apply it” level of implementation.
The camera is considered insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering. The use of the camera is only tangentially related to the invention. Nothing in the claims improves upon camera technology or a technical field. It is merely used as a means of data gathering such as a mobile phone using a camera to scan barcodes of products (paragraph [0027]) (See MPEP 2016.05(g)).
Accordingly, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly, as above with regard to practical application, the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept as they merely provide generic computing components used as a tool to implement the abstract idea, provide a general link to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. on a computer), and provide insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering.
Further, using a mobile device with a camera to read barcodes or the like is well-understood, routine, and conventional at the time of the invention (See https://www.nanalyze.com/2020/06/a-smartphone-barcode-scanner-from-scandit/ - 2020 – largest grocery retailer in Denmark provides mobile app allowing customers to scan products using their smartphones including 1.6 million downloads and up to 250,000 people using the app daily for an average of 4 minutes in 2019)
As a result, the claims are not patent eligible.
Examiner comment regarding prior art:
While each limitation can be found individually in the prior art, the examiner was unable to find a reasonable combination of references to teach and every limitation in the context of the claimed invention. As a result, such rejection has been withdrawn.
Karmakar et al (US 2019/0019237) is considered the closest prior art. Karmakar generally teaches am application that a user can obtain on their mobile device that can be used to scan items in the store. The items can be added to a shopping cart and used for an expedited checkout. Additional items can be recommended to user at checkout based on past history and items currently in the cart.
Karmakar does not expressly teach identifying a category for the additional recommended items, selecting additional items based on diverseness of merchandise category, or calculating an affinity score based on a decaying sigmoid function placing more weight on recent purchases.
DePizzol (US 2019/0130471) teaches identifying a category for the additional recommended items.
Das Gupta et al (US 2023/0162258) teaches selecting additional items for recommendation based a diverseness of merchandise between categories. A score is calculated to determine a degree of diverseness amongst recommended products.
Shen et al (US 2012/0197732) teaches determining an affinity score based on a decay function that weights recent purchases more. For example, a user's intent-strength score may start at 0.9, but may linearly decrease 1/10 each day so that after 10 days, the intent-strength score is eliminated
Ellis et al (US 8,924,292) teaches displaying recommended products to a user along with directions for where to obtain the items in the store.
O’Brien et al (US 2020/0320561) teaches ranking deal and providing them to the user in rank order.
Carr et al (US 2016/0125506) teaches ranking recommended items based on purchase frequency, last purchase date, and number of times a recommendation has been declined.
Response to Arguments
The examiner has considered but does not find persuasive applicant’s arguments regarding rejections under 35 USC 101. With regard to reciting an abstract idea, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims provide a manner of providing a user that is shopping with recommendations of additional items to purchase. The user accumulates items they wish to purchase in a store and adds them to a list. When the user wishes to checkout, a first additional item is identified and plurality of second additional items are selected based on a level of diversity comparted to the first item. The recommended items are then presented to the user. Thus, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, the claims embody certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, such activity is in the form of commercial interactions (in the form of advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors).
The examiner finds no similarities between the present claims and example 23. Example 23 claim 2 is about scaling textual information on graphical user interfaces. Applicant’s invention merely displays information on an interface. Nothing in the claims improves interfaces themselves, technology, or a technical field. Further, “blocking transmission of the items” is merely deciding not to send the user the recommendation which is merely part of the abstract idea.
With regard to practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements are recited at the apply it level of implementation, general linking, and insignificant extra solution activity. None of the additional elements, alone or in combination, provide a practical application. Nothing in the claims improves technology or a technical field. Applicant does not point out how such features provide a practical application and appears to merely state that they link the invention to a particular technological environment which is one of the criteria for not providing practical application.
Similarly, the claims fall short under step 2B. The additional elements are recited at the apply it level of implementation, general linking, and insignificant extra solution activity. None of the additional elements, alone or in combination, provide a practical application. Nothing in the claims improves technology or a technical field. Further, using a camera to scan UPC’s was well understood, routine, and conventional at the time of the invention as evidenced above.
Applicant’s arguments regarding rejections under 35 USC 103 are found persuasive. As a result, such rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER STROUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7930. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 9AM-5PM.
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, Waseem Ashraff can be reached at (571) 270-3948. 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.
CHRISTOPHER STROUD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3621B
/CHRISTOPHER STROUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621