DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, these claims are indefinite for the following reason:
The term “imminent” in claims 1, 8, and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “imminent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected due to their dependence on independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea which may be summarized as determining interaction amounts (prices).
Step 1 Analysis
Applicants claims are directed to a process (claims 8-14), machine (claims 1-7), and manufacture/product (claims 15-20).
Step 2A, Prong 1 Analysis
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the abstract idea/limitations of:
monitoring… activity of a user accessing a website on a user device;
determining based on monitoring the… activity that an interaction by the user for a particular item is imminent;
identifying, from the… activity and based on determining that the interaction is imminent, a domestic interaction amount associated with the particular item;
performing, based on determining that the interaction is imminent, searching of one or more international databases for item data indicating an international item corresponding to the particular item,
wherein the one or more international databases are associated with a plurality of international countries,
wherein the one or more international databases are searched based on a prioritized order of the plurality of international countries, and
waiting to perform searching the one or more international databases until determining that the interaction by the user for the particular item is imminent;
identifying, from the one or more international databases, an international interaction party that is associated with the international item,
wherein the international interaction party is based in an international country of the plurality of international countries;
determining, based on a rate, that an international interaction amount associated with the international item is less than the domestic interaction amount; and
transmitting international item data indicating the international item, the international interaction amount, and the international interaction party.
As drafted these limitations are a process that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas; but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites performance of the limitation as commercial/legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. By reciting/claiming a certain method of organizing human activity, Applicant’s claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only recites system components for implementing the abstract idea and extra-solution activity. The claims recite the additional limitations of a device, a website, a user device, a first machine learning model, databases, one or more memories; one or more processors, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, a set of instructions; and they are recited at a high level of generality. These system components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. These limitations generally link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment and are not indicative of integration into a practical application. The limitations of:
transmitting international item data indicating the international item, the international interaction amount, and the international interaction party.
as drafted are insignificant extra-solution activity. These steps are mere data gathering and storing of information and do not qualify as a practical application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). These additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device, a website, a user device, a first machine learning model, databases, one or more memories; one or more processors, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, a set of instructions; amount to no more than mere components to implement the judicial exception using a generic computer components. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The limitations of:
transmitting international item data indicating the international item, the international interaction amount, and the international interaction party.
as drafted are insignificant extra-solution activity. These steps are mere data gathering and storing and do not qualify as significantly more than the judicial exception as they are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when clamed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). See MPEP 2106.05(g). See Applicant’s specification paragraphs [0043-0059], about implementation of the abstract idea using general purpose or special purpose computing devices; and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus Applicant’s claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims Analysis
As for dependent claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-19, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Therefore, claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-19 are considered ineligible subject matter for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 7, 14, and 20, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. In addition, the recite the additional elements of a second machine learning model. The components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. This is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 2-7 are considered ineligible subject matter.
Thus, the dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are not patent-eligible either.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 USC 112(a) or 35 USC 112 first paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Prior Art
Examiner has reviewed the parent application. Examiner has conducted an updated prior art search in view of the new claims and cannot provide an art rejection at this time.
Examiner would like to cite but not rely upon the following references which generally teach the state of the art at the time of filing
US 20210334722 A1 Di
US 20120143685 A1 Miller
US 20120022965 A1 Seergy
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J WARDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9602. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F; 9-6 CDT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/MICHAEL J. WARDEN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3694
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights