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
2. This communication is in response to the Application filed on 06.09.2025. Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending in this application, and are presented for examination below.
Oath/Declaration
3. The Applicant’s oath/declaration has been reviewed by the Examiner and is found to conform to the requirements prescribed in 37 C.F.R. 1.63.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the Applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) dated 07.23.2026 is acknowledged by the Examiner. The cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims. As required by M.P.E.P 609 C (2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed, signed and dated by the Examiner is attached to the instant Office action.
Priority / Filing Date
5. Applicant’s claim for priority of PRO 62/906,716 Application filed on 09.26.2019 is acknowledged. The Examiner takes the PRO 62/906,716 Application date of 09.26.2019 into consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 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), an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-10 are directed to the field of automated procurement systems and methods.
Independent claim 1 has been identified as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. The claim recites an abstract idea of determining and recommending buying options for a retail item based on organization specific procurement rules. The claim comprises the steps of:
scanning a webpage for an image or a keyword that identifies a retail item;
transmitting the image or the keyword;
querying one or more data stores to obtain potential buying options corresponding to the retail item;
analyzing query results based on at least on proprietary, organization-specific procurement rules resulting in determination of at least one recommended buying option; and
causing rendering of a pop-up graphical user interface (GUI).
These limitations collectively describe the commercial practice of assisting or directing a purchasing decision according to an organization’s supplier preferences and procurement policies. Purchasing, procurement, supplier selection, and the recommendation of buying options constitute commercial interactions, including sales and purchasing activities or behaviors. Claim 1, therefore falls within a certain method of organizing human activity.
The limitations requiring "analyzing query results based on at least on proprietary, organization-specific procurement rules resulting in determination of at least one recommended buying option” also recite an evaluation, judgment, or opinion. These steps can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. Therefore, claim 1 recites a judicial exception, explicitly mental processes.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites at least one judicial exception, specifically, the abstract idea of determining and presenting a recommended purchasing option according to supplier information and organization specific procurement rules. This abstract idea constitutes both a commercial interaction, and with respect to the recited evaluation and selection, a mental process.
Further, evidence is cited to: Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, Bilski v. Kappos, and buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, one or more processors, a server, a web-browser plug-in, a network device, a keyword, a display screen, one or more data stores, and a graphical user interface. However, these elements are recited at a high-level of generality and function as generic computer components. These elements are generic computing components performing their well-understood, routine, and conventional functions, such as: scanning, processing, identifying, transmitting, querying, obtaining, analyzing, determining and recommending.
Accordingly, these additional elements or components, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any particular processor architecture, storage medium structure, network configuration, data store architecture, or server arrangement. These components merely provide a generic computer environment in which the procurement recommendation process is carried out.
Thus, when claim 1 is considered as a whole, the additional claimed elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements or components that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as “inventive concept”) to the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept. The claim merely uses a generic computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea of digital buying assistant plug-in, which fails to add an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
Accordingly, these additional elements/components do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered individually and as an ordered combination as there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., System and Method for Digital Buying Assistant Plug-In Application) without significantly more. Accordingly, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements/components do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Alice Corp v CLS).
Furthermore, claims 2-10 define the same that is present in their respective independent claim 1, are considered to be part of the abstract idea above and merely act to further limit it. In the dependent claims, the additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than: mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer functioning in a standard mode of operation or matters that are routine and conventional in the field. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Additionally, claims 2-10 do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Alice Corp v CLS).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
9. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirovski et al., Pub., No.: US 2008/0091546 in view of Avery, Jr. et al., Pub. No.: US 2020/0272968.
As per claim 1, Kirovski discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon logic that, upon execution by one or more processors implemented within a server [see at least the abstract (e.g., a computer-implemented architecture that can provide a non-invasive comparative shopping tool, such as a browser plug-in), and as illsuatted in FIG. 1 below]:
FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a computer-implemented system that can provide a non-invasive comparative shopping tool.
PNG
media_image1.png
418
305
media_image1.png
Greyscale
performs operations comprising:
scanning, by a web-browser plug-in processing on a network device, a webpage for an image or a keyword that identifies a retail item [see at least ¶0033 (e.g., the comparison component 106 can scan the source code for particular indicators)], wherein the webpage is rendered on a display screen of the network device [see at least ¶0041 (e.g., FIG. 2, an example browser component 102 that displays an example purchase page)]:
FIG. 2 is an exemplary computer-implemented browser component that displays an example purchase page.
PNG
media_image2.png
482
434
media_image2.png
Greyscale
transmitting the image or the keyword identifying the retail item to logic processing on a server device [see at least ¶0045 (e.g., once the comparison component 106 has determined (with or without the aid of the comparative shopping server 302) the description 202 and the price 204, these values as well as other data such as the Internet address associated with the web document 104, etc. can be transmitted to the comparative shopping server 302, as indicated by the transfer of item data 304), and as illsuatted in FIG. 3 below]:
FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary computer-implemented non-invasive comparative shopping system that can determine a description and/or a price for an item.
PNG
media_image3.png
388
304
media_image3.png
Greyscale
querying, by the logic processing on the server device, one or more data stores to obtain potential buying options corresponding to the retail item, wherein each of the one or more data stores house information [see at least ¶0045 (e.g., Upon receipt of the item data 304, the comparative shopping server 302 can compare these values with stored data. For example, the comparative shopping server 302 can compare the price 204 with items that fit the description 202 (e.g., items that are the same or substantially similar) available at other shopping websites, brick-and-mortar stores that sell and/or advertise online, and the like. The comparative shopping server 302 can also create new records or update stored data relating to the present transaction including, but not limited to, any or all of the following: the price, the description, availability, the Internet address, etc.)];
resulting in determination of at least one recommended buying option [see at ¶0047 (e.g., comparative shopping server 302 can also be configured to transmit a list 306 to the comparison component 106. The list 306 can be, e.g., a set of N (e.g., 10) "best" comparative items similar to the item intended to be sold on the web document 104, where N is a positive integer configurable either on the server side (e.g., a default value adjustable based upon empirical data) or the client side (e.g., a configurable preference set by way of the comparison component 106). The N best comparative items can be chosen based upon pricing alone (e.g., the N lowest priced items) as well as based upon added features in connection with an excellent comparative price. In addition, the list 306 can include an Internet address (e.g., a URL, etc. to a web document 104 advertising the item) for each of the N comparative items), as illustrated in FIG. 3 below]:
FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary computer-implemented non-invasive comparative shopping system that can determine a description and/or a price for an item.
PNG
media_image3.png
388
304
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and causing rendering of a pop-up graphical user interface (GUI) on the display screen of the network device, wherein the pop-up GUI displays [see at least ¶0051 (e.g., displays 410, 412 can be embedded in the web document 104 or be configured as a pop-up window, an overlay, a tab, a frame, or other appropriate displaying style), and as illustrated in FIG. 4 below];
the at least one recommended buying option [see at least ¶0050 (e.g., the comparison component 106 can optionally generate a relatively small notification 410 that can, e.g., indicate comparable items are available for purchase at favorable prices. Should this notification 410 be clicked, the list 408 can be presented as indicated by display 412 or in another appropriate manner), and as illustrated in FIG. 4 below]:
FIG. 4 illustrates a system that can display non-invasive comparative shopping information.
PNG
media_image4.png
677
529
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Kirovski discloses all elements per claimed invention as explained above. Kirovski does not expressly disclose a preferred supplier; and analyzing query results based on at least on proprietary, organization-specific procurement rules. However, Avery discloses a preferred supplier [see at least Avery: ¶0104 (e.g., At 608, process 600 can receive a request to create and/or modify an order guide to be associated with the organization. Such an order guide is sometimes referred to herein as a general order guide, and can be referred to using other terms, such as a generic order guide, a corporate order guide, an organization order guide, an organization-wide order guide, a master order guide, a central order guide, a product catalog, a service catalog, a shopping list, a bid, a formulary, a preferred list, a recommended list, or the like), and also ¶0110 (e.g., At 616, process 600 can automatically create an order guide associated with the facility based on the one or more general order guides associated with the facility. Note that the order guide associated with the facility is sometimes referred to herein as ….. a peripheral order guide, a specific order guide, a local product catalog, a local service catalog, a facility bid, a facility formulary, a facility preferred list, a facility recommended list, or the like)]:
FIG. 6 shows an example of a process for creating and using an order guide to procure items for one or more facilities.
PNG
media_image5.png
857
507
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and analyzing query results based on at least on proprietary [see at least Avery: ¶0187 (e.g., As shown in FIG. 10J, the user interface can include a user interface element that causes data to be downloaded to a user's device and/or presented by a user's device (and/or to another service associated with the user) that can be used to generate a chart detailing which items are included in each product group and each general order guide, in which portions of the distribution network each product is available (e.g., by including a character, such as S, D, or R, in a cell associated with both the item and the distribution center representing a particular portion of the distribution network) and the stocking status of that item in each of the portions (e.g., by including a specific character corresponding to the stocking status), which item was selected for inclusion in a facility order guide (e.g., by including a character indicative of selection, such as the “*” character in FIG. 10J), and whether an item is proprietary (e.g., by including a character indicative of the item being proprietary, such as a lower case p in FIG. 10J, which can indicate that the item can only be ordered by one or more particular organizations selected by the distributor). One example of a proprietary item is a branded item that includes a particular organization's name and/or logo. Another example of a proprietary item is an exclusive item that is available to select organizations (e.g., organizations that have a particular contractual relationship with the supplier of the item))]:
FIG. 10J shows an example of a report that can be generated to show details of several general order guides and coverage for product groups within those general order guides across various distribution centers.
PNG
media_image6.png
464
656
media_image6.png
Greyscale
organization-specific procurement rules [see at least Avery: ¶0147 (e.g., process 800 can determine the preferred instance of the item based on a one or more rules specified by the organization, which can be specified on an organizational level, a facility level, or a general order guide level), as illustrated in FIG. 8 below]:
PNG
media_image7.png
670
464
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Consequently, any person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, would have readily recognized the obvious and predictable desirability of incorporating Avery’s teaching, in order to provide systems, methods, and media for harmonizing procurement across distribution networks with heterogeneous product availability [see Avery: ¶0056].
As per claim 2, Kirovski discloses wherein scanning by the web-browser plug-in includes scanning Hyper Text Markup Language (HTML) code comprising the webpage for an indication of the image or the keyword [see at least ¶0063 (e.g., 702, source code (e.g., xml, html . . . ) relating to a web page/web document can be parsed, and at 704)].
As per claim 3, Kirovski discloses wherein rendering the pop-up GUI alters rendering of the webpage on the display screen of the network device [Refer to the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Kirovski and Avery, as noted in claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 3 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 3. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 4, Kirovski discloses wherein causing the pop-up GUI includes a button [see at least ¶0051 (e.g., a pop-up window)], wherein selection of the button initiates operations to add a first recommended buying option to a virtual shopping cart [see at least ¶0004 (e.g., a page that provides a purchase indicator such as "add to cart", etc.)].
As per claims 5 and 10, Kirovski discloses wherein scanning the webpage for the image or the keyword that identifies a retail item results in extracting attributes of the retail item, wherein the attributes are placed in a vector [see at least ¶0052 (e.g., a search engine based upon the description 402 keywords and/or from a seller that paid advertising fees to the search engine to be listed for those keywords)].
As per claims 6 and 7, Kirovski discloses wherein transmitting the image or the keyword identifying the retail item to the logic processing on the server device includes transmitting the vector of the attributes [see at least ¶0058 (e.g., component 106 can identify, extract, and/or transmit various data (e.g., item identifier/description, price . . . ) to the comparative shopping server 302)].
As per claims 8 and 9, Kirovski discloses wherein determining the at least one recommended buying option includes consideration of a Contribution Index (CI) score for one or more potential suppliers; and wherein the at least one recommended buying option includes a delivery option being one of at least (i) next day delivery, (ii) local pickup, or (iii) delivery via a rideshare service [Refer to the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Kirovski and Avery, as noted in claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claims 8 and 9 are hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claims 8 and 9. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
10. Claims 11-20, which are parallel to claims 1-10 in terms of scope, limitations, and share similar characteristics, as discussed and examined above. Consequently, they are rejected based on the same logical and underlying reasoning, and justification that apply to claims 1-10. The similarity between these claims necessitates the same grounds for rejection, as explained in detail above [note the discussion of claims 1-10].
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The PTO-1449 forms have been reviewed and considered the Examiner.
Ballaro et al., Pub. No.: US 2009/0182592: discloses multi-tenant procurement system, includes an access module to provide access to a plurality of end users associated with an organization to their respective accounts, each account being customized by a super user of the organization, a search engine to execute searches for products offered by one or more suppliers, a transaction module to process and track one or more requisitions generated by the plurality of end users, a business rules module to apply business rules established between the organization and the one or more suppliers to process the requisitions, and a data repository to store data generated on the system.
King, Patent No.: US 9,626,688: discloses a method of facilitating access to a promotional offer.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Garcia Ade whose telephone number is (571)272-5586. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached on 517-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Garcia Ade/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
GARCIA ADE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/GA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights