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 action is in reply to the communications filed on 1/30/2026.
Claims 1-20 are cancelled.
Claims 21-40 are added.
Claims 21-40 are currently 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/11/2025 and 1/30/2026 has been entered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,380,467. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,380,467.
Instant application and Patent No. 12,380,467 claim the same invention as follows:
Instant Application
Patent No. 12,380,467
21. (New) A method, the method comprising:
via a first computing device:
receiving a request from a customer via a second computing device operated by the customer, wherein the request identifies a requested product;
identifying information associated with relationships between the customer and other customers of an e-commerce system according to social networking data obtained for the customer;
weighting purchase-related information associated with the other customers according to the relationship information;
identifying one or more purchase driving attributes associated with the requested product according to purchase-related information associated with the customer and the weighted purchase-related information associated with the other customers;
selecting an alternative product from a product database according to the purchase driving attributes;
generating a presentation comprising a comparison of the requested product and the alternative product and a marketing message that provides a justification of a price difference between a selling price of the requested product and a selling price of the alternative product;
automatically initiating, by one or more processors of the first computing device, a transmission of the presentation to the customer via a cellular network interface according to at least one predetermined condition, wherein the transmission is configured to optimize delivery timing to enhance user engagement; and
via the second computing device, displaying the presentation.
1. A method, the method comprising: via a first computing device:
receiving a request from a customer via a second computing device configured to be operated by the customer, wherein the request identifies a requested product from a product database;
identifying relationships between the customer and other customers of the e-commerce system based on social networking data obtained for the customer;
weighting purchase histories for the other customers of the e-commerce system based on the identified relationships;
identifying purchase-driving attributes of the requested product, based on a purchase history for the customer and the weighted purchase histories for the other customers; ranking products of the product database;
selecting, based on its ranking, an alternative product that has a marketing message that provides a justification of a price difference between a selling price of the requested product and a selling price of the alternative product;
generating a presentation of a comparison of the requested product and the alternative product; and
automatically initiating, by one or more processors of the first computing device, a transmission of the presentation of the comparison and the marketing message to the customer via a cellular network interface according to at least one predetermined condition, wherein the transmission is configured to optimize delivery timing to enhance user engagement; and
via the second computing device, displaying the presentation of the comparison.
22. (New) The method of claim 21, wherein the selling price of the alternative product is higher than the selling price of the requested product.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the selling price of the alternative product is higher than the selling price of the requested product.
23. (New) The method of claim 21, wherein the selling price of the alternative product is lower than the selling price of the requested product.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the selling price of the alternative product is lower than the selling price of the requested product.
24. (New) The method of claim 21, wherein the requested product and the alternative product differ by a single purchase driving attribute, and the justification provided by the marketing message is according to the single purchase driving attribute.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein: the requested product and the alternative product differ by only a single attribute of the one or more of the purchase-driving attributes in the comparison; and the justification provided by the marking message is based on the single attribute.
25. (New) The method of claim 21, wherein the requested product and the alternative product differ by multiple purchase driving attributes, and the justification provided by the marketing message is according to the multiple purchase driving attributes.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein: the requested product and the alternative product differ by at least two attributes of the one or more of the purchase-driving attributes in the comparison; and the justification provided by the marking message is based on the at least two attributes.
26. (New) The method of claim 21, wherein selecting the alternative product comprises ranking at least a subset of products according to a comparison between attributes associated with the requested product and attributes associated with products stored in the product database.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein ranking products of the product database comprises: comparing the purchase-driving attributes of the requested product to corresponding attributes of products stored in the product database; and ranking at least a subset of the products stored in the product database based upon said comparing.
27. (New) The method of claim 21, comprising obtaining the social networking data from a customer profile associated with the customer.
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising accessing the social networking data for the customer from a customer profile for the customer.
28. (New) The method of claim 21, wherein identifying the one or more purchase driving attributes comprises dynamically selecting attributes from a stored list of attributes.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein identifying the purchase-driving attributes of the requested product comprises dynamically selecting the purchase-driving attributes from a manually-ranked list of attributes.
29. (New) An e-commerce system, comprising:
a first computing device operably coupled to a cellular network interface and configured to receive a request identifying a requested product from a second computing device operated by a customer; and
one or more processors of the first computing device configured to:
identify relationship information associated with the customer according to social networking data;
weight purchase-related information associated with other customers according to the relationship information;
identify one or more purchase driving attributes associated with the requested product according to purchase-related information;
select an alternative product according to the purchase driving attributes;
generate a presentation comprising a comparison of the requested product and the alternative product and a marketing message that provides a justification of a price difference between a selling price of the requested product and a selling price of the alternative product; and
automatically initiate transmission of the presentation via the cellular network interface according to at least one predetermined condition, wherein the transmission is configured to optimize delivery timing to enhance user engagement.
9. An e-commerce system, comprising:
a first computing device, operably coupled to a network interface via a cellular protocol, configured to receive a request from a customer via a second computing device configured to be operated by the customer, wherein the request identifies a requested product from a product database; and
a first processor, of the first computing device, configured to:
identify relationships between the customer and other customers of the e-commerce system based on social networking data obtained for the customer;
weight purchase histories for the other customers of the e-commerce system based on the identified relationships;
identify purchase-driving attributes of the requested product, based on a purchase history for the customer and the weighted purchase histories for the other customers;
rank products of the product database, based at least upon matching attributes of each product to corresponding attributes of the purchase-driving attributes for the requested product;
identify a plurality of alternative products from the product database, based on a predetermined match, stored in the product database, between the requested product and the plurality of alternative products;
identify a second plurality of attributes according to the purchase histories that are weighted per relationships identified in the social networking data;
select, based on its ranking, an alternative product that has a marketing message that provides a justification of a price difference between a selling price of the requested product and a selling price of the alternative product;
generate a presentation of a comparison of the requested product and the alternative product; and
automatically initiate, by one or more processors of the first computing device, a transmission of the comparison and the marketing message that attempts to justify the price difference to the second computing device for presentation to the customer, wherein: the transmission is initiated according to at least one predetermined condition, the transmission is configured to optimize delivery timing to enhance user engagement, and the presentation of the comparison is displayed via a second processor of the second computing device.
30. (New) The e-commerce system of claim 29, wherein the selling price of the alternative product is higher than the selling price of the requested product.
10. The e-commerce system of claim 9, wherein the selling price of the alternative product is higher than the selling price of the requested product.
31. (New) The e-commerce system of claim 29, wherein the selling price of the alternative product is lower than the selling price of the requested product.
11. The e-commerce system of claim 9, wherein the selling price of the alternative product is lower than the selling price of the requested product.
32. (New) The e-commerce system of claim 29, wherein the requested product and the alternative product differ by a single purchase driving attribute, and the marketing message is generated according to the single purchase driving attribute.
12. The e-commerce system of claim 9, wherein: the requested product and the alternative product differ by only a single attribute of the one or more of the purchase-driving attributes in the comparison; and the justification provided by the marking message is based on the single attribute.
33. (New) The e-commerce system of claim 29, wherein the requested product and the alternative product differ by multiple purchase driving attributes, and the marketing message is generated according to the multiple purchase driving attributes.
13. The e-commerce system of claim 9, wherein: the requested product and the alternative product differ by at least two attributes of the one or more of the purchase-driving attributes in the comparison; and the justification provided by the marking message is based on the at least two attributes.
34. (New) The e-commerce system of claim 29, wherein the one or more processors select the alternative product by ranking products stored in a product database according to attributes associated with the requested product.
14. The e-commerce system of claim 9, wherein the first processor is configured to rank products of the product database by: comparing the purchase-driving attributes of the requested product to corresponding attributes of products stored in the product database; and ranking at least a subset of the products stored in the product database based upon said comparing.
35. (New) The e-commerce system of claim 29, wherein the one or more processors obtain the social networking data from a customer profile associated with the customer.
15. The e-commerce system of claim 9, wherein the first processor is configured to access the social networking data for the customer from a customer profile for the customer.
36. (New) The e-commerce system of claim 29, wherein the one or more processors identify the one or more purchase driving attributes by dynamically selecting attributes from a stored list.
16. The e-commerce system of claim 9, wherein the first processor is configured to identify the purchase-driving attributes of the requested product by dynamically selecting the purchase-driving attributes from a manually-ranked list of attributes.
37. (New) A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing device, cause the computing device to:
identify relationship information associated with a customer according to social networking data;
weight purchase-related information according to the relationship information;
identify one or more purchase driving attributes associated with a requested product;
select an alternative product according to the purchase driving attributes;
generate a presentation comprising a comparison of the requested product and the alternative product and a marketing message that provides a justification of a price difference between a selling price of the requested product and a selling price of the alternative product; and
automatically initiate transmission of the presentation via a cellular network interface according to at least one predetermined condition, wherein the transmission is configured to optimize delivery timing to enhance user engagement.
17. A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions, wherein an execution of the instructions cause a first computing device, in response to a request from a second computing device, to at least:
identify relationships between a customer, operating the second computing device, and other customers of the e-commerce system based on social networking data obtained for the customer;
weight purchase histories for the other customers of the e-commerce system based on the identified relationships;
identify purchase-driving attributes of a requested product, based on a purchase history for the customer and the weighted purchase histories for the other customers;
rank products of a product database, based at least upon matching attributes of each product to corresponding attributes of the purchase-driving attributes for the requested product;
identify a plurality of alternative products from the product database, based on a predetermined match, stored in the product database, between the requested product and the plurality of alternative products;
identify a second plurality of attributes according to the purchase histories that are weighted per relationships identified in the social networking data;
select, based on its ranking, an alternative product that has a marketing message that provides a justification of a price difference between a selling price of the requested product and a selling price of the alternative product;
generate a comparison of the requested product and the alternative product; and automatically initiate, by one or more processors of the first computing device, a transmission of the comparison and the marketing message that attempts to justify the price difference to the second computing device for presentation to the customer, wherein the transmission is initiated according to at least one predetermined condition to optimize delivery timing and enhance user engagement; and
display the presentation of the comparison via the second computing device.
38. (New) The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 37, wherein the requested product and the alternative product differ by a single purchase driving attribute, and execution of the instructions causes generation of the marketing message according to the single purchase driving attribute.
18. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 17, wherein: the requested product and the alternative product differ by only a single attribute of the one or more of the purchase-driving attributes in the comparison; and execution of the instructions further causes the e-commerce system to generate, based on the single attribute, the justification provided by the marking message.
39. (New) The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 37, wherein the requested product and the alternative product differ by multiple purchase driving attributes, and execution of the instructions causes generation of the marketing message according to the multiple purchase driving attributes.
19. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 17, wherein: the requested product and the alternative product differ by at least two attributes of the one or more of the purchase-driving attributes in the comparison; and execution of the instructions further causes the e-commerce system to generate, is based on the at least two attributes, the justification provided by the marking message.
40. (New) The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 37, wherein execution of the instructions causes selection of the alternative product by ranking products stored in a product database.
20. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 17, wherein execution of the instructions further causes the e-commerce system to rank products of the product database by: comparing the purchase-driving attributes of the requested product to corresponding attributes of products stored in the product database; and ranking at least a subset of the products of the product database based upon said comparing.
Eligible Subject Matter
The claims include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and are also allowable over the prior art.
The claims include an automatic initiation step that ties the data processing directly to a real-world action, i.e., the transmission of the product comparison and marketing message based on a predetermined condition. This addition shifts the claims from abstract data manipulation to concrete, technical processes that optimize user engagement by controlling the timing of the transmission. This is akin to the automatic gift purchase feature in the claim 1 of the parent case, U.S. Patent No. 11,210,715, grounding the claims in practical application and technological improvement. Moreover, the dynamic ranking and weighted social data analysis serve a specific technological purpose, i.e., improving recommendation precision and customer interaction efficiency, which is not a generic business practice but an enhanced, data- driven process tailored to an e-commerce environment. Therefore, the abstract concepts recited in the claims are integrated into a practical application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-40 are allowable over the prior art though rejected on other grounds (e.g. 35 USC 101) as discussed above. The combination of elements and the claim as a whole are not found in the prior art.
With respect to independent claim 21, the prior art available does not teach A method, the method comprising:
via a first computing device:
receiving a request from a customer via a second computing device operated by the customer, wherein the request identifies a requested product;
identifying information associated with relationships between the customer and other customers of an e-commerce system according to social networking data obtained for the customer;
weighting purchase-related information associated with the other customers according to the relationship information;
identifying one or more purchase driving attributes associated with the requested product according to purchase-related information associated with the customer and the weighted purchase-related information associated with the other customers;
selecting an alternative product from a product database according to the purchase driving attributes;
generating a presentation comprising a comparison of the requested product and the alternative product and a marketing message that provides a justification of a price difference between a selling price of the requested product and a selling price of the alternative product;
automatically initiating, by one or more processors of the first computing device, a transmission of the presentation to the customer via a cellular network interface according to at least one predetermined condition, wherein the transmission is configured to optimize delivery timing to enhance user engagement; and
via the second computing device, displaying the presentation.
The most analogous prior art includes Baker (US 2012/0005045 A1), Musgrove (US 2005/0004880 A1), and Ofer (US 2010/0030619 A1).
Baker discloses receiving search criteria, providing results in the form of tabular data on a comparison display [0165], displaying item attributes including a statistical value and price [0007] color, model year and distance (first plurality of attributes) (Fig. 3), measuring the purchase habits of application users [0156], using price and mileage, and optionally a third variable (a second plurality of attributes of the first plurality of attributes) as key determinants in users’ vehicle-purchasing process and uses these as default variables for users that subsequently make a purchase [0049-0050], displaying item alternatives within price or mileage ranges for comparison, each item having different attributes, such as age of the vehicle [0052], [0019], and displaying the percentage of match as a variable on the graphical display, where items are ranked visually with higher degrees of match appearing in the upper left-hand side of the graph, for example [0114], [0105].
Baker is deficient in a number of ways. As written, the claims require specifically selecting a first product, identifying an alternative product based on the first specifically selected product, storing predetermined match product alternatives in a database, selecting from top ranked alternatives a second product as the alternative product, tying a marketing message to the attribute of the second product that’s different from the first product, and in response to receiving the request specifically identifying the first product, displaying a presentation of a product listing for the first product that includes an image of the first product, a description of the first product and a comparison of the first and the second product including the second plurality of attributes for the first product, corresponding attributes of the second product for each of the second plurality of attributes, and the marketing message that attempts to justify a price difference between the selling price of the first product and the selling price of the second product based on the at least one attribute of the second product that is different than the corresponding attribute of the second plurality of attributes for the first product. Baker displaying a comparison graph using variables that affect purchasing as the axes of the comparison graph. However, the concept of presenting a listing for the first product displaying an image and description, as well as a marketing message justifying a price difference based on an attribute that is different between the first and second products is not explicitly described. No first product is specifically selected, and no alternative product is chosen based on the first selected product, only a display of all products that fall within certain ranges of selectable variables.
In view of the above, Baker fails to disclose or render obvious the combination of features as emphasized above.
Regarding Musgrove, Musgrove teaches a consumer selected product, selection of an alternative product to be recommended [0228] the alternative product having similar features but a different price, for example when a Canon camera is selected, an alternative product recommendation might include the Sony Cybershot, which provides a higher resolution [0230, Fig. 2B. Other messages include “a substantial part of the price you are paying accounts for the Bluetooth ability.” [0198] Musgrove further teaches displaying a product summary including a description of the first product, as shown in Fig 2B [0084-0085]. However Musgrove does not display an image of the product within in a product listing for the first product.
Though disclosing these features, Musgrove does not disclose or render obvious the features emphasized above.
Regarding Ofer, Ofer teaches storing associated products (predetermined matches) in a products database [0046-0050], where associated products meet a threshold for association criterion or a matching threshold.
Though disclosing these features, Ofer does not disclose or render obvious the features emphasized above.
Ultimately, the particular combination of limitations as claimed, is not anticipated nor rendered obvious in view of Baker, Musgrove, Ofer, and the totality of the prior art. While certain references may disclose more general concepts and parts of the claim, the prior art available does not specifically disclose the particular combination of these limitations.
Moreover, even presuming such features could be shown individually in the prior art, when these features are viewed in combination with the remaining features of the claim, the claims would remain allowable over the prior art. The examiner hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence neither anticipates nor renders obvious the particular combination of elements as claimed above. That is, the Examiner emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for combining or otherwise modifying the available prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of the evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias in order to fill gaps in the prior art and connect disparate references.
Claim 29 is a system reciting similar functions as claim 21 and recites allowable subject matter for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 21.
Claim 37 is a computer readable medium reciting similar functions as claim 21 and recites allowable subject matter for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 21.
Claims 22-28, 30-36 and 38-40 are dependencies of independent claims 21, 29 and 37 and are allowable over the prior art for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 21.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wengxing Wang, "Recommendation strategies analysis in E-commerce," The 2nd International Conference on Information Science and Engineering, Hangzhou, China, 2010, pp. 1394-1397, doi: 10.1109/ICISE.2010.5690278. Wengxing teaches a recommendation system with special knowledge that can interact with customers in real time, to help find a most suitable product, compare description and products available to find similarities, and select products and adjust recommendations based on the customer revising selections. (P.3) Wengxing does not teach the claims as a whole.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michelle T. Kringen whose telephone number is (571)270-0159. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11am-7pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571)272-6764. 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.
/MICHELLE T KRINGEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights