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 .
Priority
Applicant claims continuation priority to U.S. Patent Application No. 14/468,013 (now Patent No. 10,319,016), filed on August 25, 2014 which claims the benefit of provisional U.S. Patent Application No. 61/870,038, filed on August 26, 2013. Examiner notes the Figures of provisional U.S. Patent Application No. 61/870,038 disclose tagging an image with products from the database by querying the product database for a match of the product name or UPC code, displaying the results when the match between the member data input matches the product name or UPC code, the user selecting the exact product from the list, and tagging the image with the specific product in a specific location of the image that is directed associated with the specific product (e.g., lipstick on lips, shoe on foot, etc.).
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS submitted on 7/14/2020 was previously considered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amended claims, filed 9/15/2025, have been entered. Claims 1-20, 22-40, 45, 50, 53, 56, 57, 63, and 64 have been canceled. Claims 21, 47, 54, 66, and 68, and 70 have been amended. Claims 21, 41-44, 46-49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 58-62, and 65-70 are currently pending in this application and have been examined.
Allowable Subject Matter
As noted in the Office Action mailed 8/27/2024, claims 21, 41-44, 46-49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 58-62, and 65-70 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 21, 41-44, 46-49, 51, 52, 54, 55, and 58-62, and 65-70 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 21, 47, and 54 recite “…storing the gathered product data and the generated product identifiers in a product database of the marketplace server…” in lines 17-18 of claim 21, lines 16-17 of claim 47, and lines 15-16 of claim 54 and should recite “…storing the gathered product data and the generated product identifiers in a product database of [[the]]a marketplace server…” Claims 41-44, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 55, 58-62, and 65-70 inherit the objections in claims 21, 47, and 54.
Claim 66 recites “…wherein the CRM enables…” in line 1 and should recite “…wherein [[the]]a real-time customer relationship management (CRM) system enables…” Claim 67 inherits the objections in claim 66.
Claim 68 recites “…the O/S of the marketplace system…” in line 1 and should recite “…[[the]]an operating system (O/S) of the marketplace system…”
Claim 69 recites “… the real-time CRM manages…” in line 2 and should recite “…[[the]]a real-time customer relationship management (CRM) system manages…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 21, 41-44, 46-49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 58-62, and 65-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the system, as claimed in claims 21, 41-44, 46, and 60-62, 65-70 are directed to a machine; the method, as claimed in claims 54, 55, 58, and 59 are directed to a process; and the non-transitory computer storage media, as claimed in claims 47-49, 51, and 52 are directed to an article of manufacture (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A (prong 1), claim 21, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
bringing many products from many different merchants and manufacturers onto one platform from which the many products are accessible to users for discovery, engagement, and purchase without a need for the users to leave the one platform to visit each merchant retailer site of the different merchants, the marketplace system comprising:
gathering product data of different merchants including a first merchant and a second merchant, the product data including for each of a respective first product offered by the first merchant and a second product offered by a second merchant: a product available, a merchant identifier for the particular merchant, a merchant’s product identifier for the particular product, a description of the particular product, an image or video of the particular product, and a name for the particular product;
for each of the respective first product offered by the first merchant and the second product offered by a second merchant: generating a new product identifier for the particular product;
storing the gathered product data and the generated product identifiers in a product of the marketplace, wherein the marketplace is at a separate location from but connects the different merchants;
receiving from a first user connected with the marketplace data representing selection of a control that indicates a search request for initiating a product query of the product;
executing a query on the product in response to receiving the data representing selection of the control that indicates a search request for initiating the product query of the products to determine the product available according to the gathered and stored data;
tagging a "look" image or video (LIV) with multiple tags by
for a first tag, associating as a result of the query and a first user tapping (a) a first selected portion of the LIV with (b) product data for the first product that includes at least the merchant identifier of the first merchant, wherein the first product appears in the first selected portion of the LIV, wherein the first product does not appear in every part of the LIV, and
for a second tag, associating as a result of the first user tapping (c) a second selected portion of the LIV with (d) product data for the second product that includes at least the merchant identifier of the second merchant, wherein the second product appears in the second selected portion of the LIV, wherein the second product does not appear in every part of the LIV;
storing the LIV with the first and second tags to a member profile associated to a first member ID that is unique to the first user;
presenting for a second user connected with the marketplace a collection of images and/or videos that includes the LIV;
detecting from the second user an expand content user interaction with the LIV in the collection of images and/or videos;
retrieving from the member profile associated to the first member ID the LIV with the first and second tags;
presenting, in response to detecting the expand content user interaction, for the second user a layout which shows together
a first popup display overlaid on top of the LIV retrieved from the member profile that includes a representation of at least a portion of the product data retrieved from the product for the first product other than the image or video for the first product, wherein the first pop up display is positioned pointing to the first selected portion of the LIV to visually associated the first popup display with the first product appearing in the first selected portion of the LIV, and
a second popup display overlaid on top of the LIV retrieved from the member profile that includes a representation of at least a portion of the product data retrieved from the product for the second product other than the image or video for the second product, wherein the second popup display is positioned pointing to the second selected portion of the LIV to visually associate the second popup display with the second product appearing in the second selected portion of the LIV;
presenting for the second user identification of the first user from whose member profile the LIV was retrieved;
transmitting data to the second user which causes the second user to display to allow a user interaction configured to initiate a financial transaction from a single shopping cart for the first product from the first merchant and the second product from the second merchant;
receiving a single user button click to initiate the financial transaction for both the first product and the second product;
in response to the user button click, assigning a master order ID for the financial transaction and assigning a separate sub-order ID for each of the first product and the second product, wherein each sub-order ID is associated with the master order ID;
sending, from the marketplace to a first merchant of the first merchant, the sub-order ID for the first product so the first merchant can fulfill an order for the first product without the second user visiting the site of the first merchant;
sending, from the marketplace to a second merchant, the sub-order ID for the second product so the second merchant can fulfill an order for the second product without the second user visiting the site of the second merchant;
wherein "look" image or video (LIV) is defined as an image or video captured with a camera in which multiple products from multiple merchants appear together.
These limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity, such as performing commercial interactions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined by MPEP 2106.04 as including “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” In this case, the abstract ideas recited in representative claim 21 are certain methods of organizing human activity because associating products within an image with different merchants and fulfilling an order of at least two products from at least two merchants (i.e., managing interactions with products from different merchants) is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations. Additionally, since the claimed abstract idea provides product information based on user interactions, the abstract idea is a certain method of organizing human activity because it is managing personal behavior or interactions between people. Further, as currently claimed, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “tagging” information and “detecting” information is that those steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Thus, claim 21 recites an abstract idea.
Independent claims 47 and 54 recite the same abstract idea as recited in independent claim 21. As such, the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1 is the same for independent claims 47 and 54 as described above for independent claim 21.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception (see MPEP 2106.04). As stated in the MPEP, when “an additional element merely recites the words ‘apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In this case, representative claim 21 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A marketplace system for bringing many products from many different merchants and manufacturers onto one platform from which the many products are accessible to users for discovery, engagement, and purchase without a need for the users to leave the one platform to visit each merchant retailer site of the different merchants, the marketplace system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to implement a marketplace manager that performs operations comprising:
gathering product data from databases of different merchants including a first merchant and a second merchant, the product data including for each of a respective first product offered by the first merchant and a second product offered by a second merchant: a product available online, a merchant identifier for the particular merchant, a merchant’s product identifier for the particular product, a description of the particular product, an image or video of the particular product, and a name for the particular product;
for each of the respective first product offered by the first merchant and the second product offered by a second merchant: generating a new product identifier for the particular product;
storing the gathered product data and the generated product identifiers in a product database of a marketplace server, wherein the marketplace server is at a separate location from but connects via the Internet with the databases of different merchants;
receiving from a first user device connected with the marketplace manger via the Internet data representing selection of a control that indicates a search request for initiating a product query of the product database;
executing a query on the product database in response to receiving the data representing selection of the control that indicates a search request for initiating the product query of the products to determine the product available online according to the gathered and stored data in the product database;
tagging a "look" image or video (LIV) with multiple tags by
for a first tag, associating as a result of the query and a first user tapping a display of the first user device (a) a first selected portion of the LIV with (b) product data for the first product that includes at least the merchant identifier of the first merchant, wherein the first product appears in the first selected portion of the LIV, wherein the first product does not appear in every part of the LIV, and
for a second tag, associating as a result of the first user tapping the display of the first user device (c) a second selected portion of the LIV with (d) product data for the second product that includes at least the merchant identifier of the second merchant, wherein the second product appears in the second selected portion of the LIV, wherein the second product does not appear in every part of the LIV;
storing the LIV with the first and second tags to a member profile associated to a first member ID that is unique to the first user;
presenting in a user interface for a second user device connected with the marketplace manager via the Internet a collection of images and/or videos that includes the LIV;
detecting from the second device an expand content user interaction with the LIV in the collection of images and/or videos;
retrieving from the member profile associated to the first member ID the LIV with the first and second tags;
presenting, in response to detecting the expand content user interaction, in the user interface for the second user device a layout which shows together
a first popup display overlaid on top of the LIV retrieved from the member profile that includes a representation of at least a portion of the product data retrieved from the product database for the first product other than the image or video for the first product, wherein the first pop up display is positioned pointing to the first selected portion of the LIV to visually associated the first popup display with the first product appearing in the first selected portion of the LIV, and
a second popup display overlaid on top of the LIV retrieved from the member profile that includes a representation of at least a portion of the product data retrieved from the product database for the second product other than the image or video for the second product, wherein the second popup display is positioned pointing to the second selected portion of the LIV to visually associate the second popup display with the second product appearing in the second selected portion of the LIV;
presenting in the user interface for the second user device identification of the first user from whose member profile the LIV was retrieved;
transmitting data to the second user device which causes the second user device to display a single interface configured to allow a user interaction configured to initiate a financial transaction from a single shopping cart for the first product from the first merchant and the second product from the second merchant from the single interface;
receiving at the second user device a single user button click in the single interface to initiate the financial transaction for both the first product and the second product;
in response to the user button click, assigning a master order ID for the financial transaction and assigning a separate sub-order ID for each of the first product and the second product, wherein each sub-order ID is associated with the master order ID;
sending, from the marketplace server over the Internet to a first merchant computing device of the first merchant, the sub-order ID for the first product so the first merchant can fulfill an order for the first product without the second user visiting the online site of the first merchant;
sending, from the marketplace server over the Internet to a second merchant computing device of the second merchant, the sub-order ID for the second product so the second merchant can fulfill an order for the second product without the second user visiting the online site of the second merchant;
wherein "look" image or video (LIV) is defined as an image or video captured with a camera in which multiple products from multiple merchants appear together,
wherein the first and second user devices are desktop computers, laptops, netbooks, smart phones, tablets, smart glasses, iPods, or smart watches.
Independent claims 47 and 54 recite the additional elements of “one or more non-transitory computer storage media encoded with instructions,” a “device,” and “computer-implemented” in addition to the additional elements already addressed in the rejection for independent claim 21.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 21 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea) (see Figs. 1 and 13; paragraphs [0009]- [0010], [0015], [0018], and [0045]-[0052]). This description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
In addition to the above, the recited receiving/gathering/storing and transmitting/ communicating/presenting steps (even assuming arguendo they do not form part of the abstract idea, which the Examiner does not acquiesce), are at best little more than extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering, presentation of data) that contributes nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed system (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 21, 47, and 54 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claims 21, 47, and 54, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 21, 47, and 54 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claims 21, 47, and 54 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
presenting offers
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claims 21, 47, and 54 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claims 21, 47, and 54 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claim(s) 41, 44, 46, 48, 49, 52, 55, 58, 59, 60, 65, and 69, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claims 41, 44, 46, 48, 49, 52, 55, 58, 59, 60, 65, and 69 merely further define the abstract limitations of claims 21, 47, and 54 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claims 21, 47, and 54. Dependent claims 41, 44, 46, 48, 49, 52, 55, 58, 59, 60, 65, and 69 do not introduce any further additional elements. Thus, dependent claims 41, 44, 46, 48, 49, 52, 55, 58, 59, 60, 65, and 69 are ineligible.
Furthermore, it is noted that certain dependent claims recite additional elements supplemental to those recited in independent claims 21, 47, and 54: a tap action or mouse click (claims 43), a second device (claim 51), a second user interface region (claim 61, 62, and 42), local interfaces (claims 66, 67), an operating system (O/S) (claims 66, 68, and 70), databases (claim 68). However, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and thus do not act to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thus, dependent claims 42, 43, 51, 61, 62, 66-68, and 70 are also ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on page 18 of the Remarks filed 9/15/2025, with respect to the previous specification objection and claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments to the Specification and the currently amended claims. Accordingly the previous specification objection and claim objections are withdrawn. Due to the claim amendments, new claim objections have been applied.
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 18-29 of the Remarks filed 9/15/2025, with respect to the previous 35 USC §101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the amended claims overcome the rejection. As noted in the full rejection of the claims above, the amendments do not overcome the 101 rejection as the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applicant argues on pages 18-21 that the examiner errored in analyzing claim 21 under step 2A (prong 1). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner reminds Applicant that the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas, the groupings firmly rooted in precedent set by the courts. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determining in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Together, these prongs represent the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, which determines whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception. In Prong One examiner evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim.
Under Prong One, the Examiner maintains that the claims clearly set forth or describe an abstract idea because the claims sets forth or describe associating products within an image with different merchants and fulfilling an order of at least two products from at least two merchants. This falls under the group ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’ because it performs commercial interactions such as marketing or sales activities or behaviors. The presence of other ‘additional elements’ such as the argued “networked devices” and “executing database queries” does not negate the recitation of the abstract idea. The majority of the claim recites the specific abstract procedure for performing the commercial interaction by associating (i.e., tagging) information to a product within an image. Further, the instant claims recite ‘tagging’ a “look” image with multiple tags by “associating” information with a selected portion of the “look” image and product information, which under the broadest reasonable interpretation only requires information being associated with the “look” image and this “tagging/associating” does not require a computer to be performed. Applicant argues on page 21 an extremely narrow definition of “tagging” information that is not recited within the specification nor the claims. As described in the specification at paragraphs [0017], [0020], and [0030], “tagged” content merely means information associated with an image, but the claims as currently recited do not require the limitation of “tagging” the information to be “digital markups of images…with information sourced from databases and assigned to particular regions of the image…via ‘tapping a display’” as argued. For example, associating (i.e., tagging) an image with multiple associations (i.e., tags), for a first association (i.e., tag) as a result of a query and a user tapping on a display, associating (i.e., tagging) a first selected portion of the image (i.e., a “look” image) and product data for a first product, as currently claimed, can be done by a user mentally making associations.
However, even assuming arguendo that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “tagging” information step and the “detecting” information step does not fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas (which the Examiner does not acquiesce), as noted above in the full rejection of the claims as well as the previous rejection of the claims, these limitations still fall under the group of ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’ because these steps are directed to performing commercial interactions such as marketing or sales activities or behaviors.
Accordingly, Examiner maintains the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: Yes).
Applicant argues on pages 21-29 that the examiner errored in analyzing claim 21 under step 2A (prong 2). Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above and in the previous rejection, claim 21 was analyzed under step 2A, prong 2 by bolding the additional elements and analyzing the additional elements, taken alone and in combination, to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception (see MPEP 2106.04). Accordingly, Examiner maintains the additional elements of the claims were analyzed both individually and as a whole, which includes the claim language directed towards the abstract idea.
As stated in the MPEP, when “an additional element merely recites the words ‘apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. As an example, in claim 21 the amended claims recite “the marketplace system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to implement a marketplace manager that performs operations,” these additional elements are merely applying the abstract idea to a generic computing device. Further, as noted above and in the previous office action, the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)):
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data (Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321);
ii. Performing repetitive calculations (Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198);
iii. Electronic recordkeeping (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334);
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document (Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348); and
vi. A Web browser’s back and forward button functionality (Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348).
Accordingly, while the claims recite “gathering product data from databases,” “storing…data… in a product database of the marketplace server,” “the marketplace server is at a separate location from but connects via the Internet with databases of different merchants,” “presenting in a user interface,” etc., these additional elements are merely applying the abstract idea to a generic computing device and/or have been recognized by the courts as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions as they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Applicant argues claim 21 is patentable under 35 USC 101 because the claim specifics how interactions with the Internet are manipulated by a sequence of events which are not the routine and conventional sequence of events for online content discovery and purchase and are similar to the claims found eligible in DDR. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims of DDR recited no analogous real-world application and included specific links that overrode the conventional way a processor operated and therefore, they were a technological solution for a specifically technological problem (see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)). The instant invention, as currently claimed, does not specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result, and the specification as filed does not reveal to one of ordinary skill in the art the Applicant has provided an improvement to technology of computers, storage devices, databases, servers, user interfaces, or the like. Nor does the specification provide technical detail of how client/computing devices are configured to communicate (transmit/receive) differently than from generic devices communicating information over the Internet (i.e., the specification merely sets forth at a high level of generality the use of the Internet to connect separate devices (i.e., devices, servers, database/memory), store and retrieve information from databases differently than from generic devices storing/retrieving information from memory, and display information in display interfaces differently than from generic devices displaying information via an interface (i.e., the specification merely sets forth at a high level of generality the use of interfaces for displaying information on generic computing devices).
Bringing many products from many different merchants and manufactures onto one platform from which the many products are accessible to users for discover, engagement, and purchase without the need for the users to leave the one platform to visit each merchant retailer site of the different merchants address a business challenge with pre-excising analog equivalents and is not particular to the Internet/technology. Unlike the circumstances in DDR Holdings, the current claims are merely tied to the electronic (i.e. technical) environment rather than necessarily rooted in the electronic environment. Even assuming the claim to be rooted in technology, the limitations as currently claimed are not necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to address a problem specifically arising in the realm of computers or networks. Enabling a customer to go to one location and shop for products from a plurality of merchants and purchase a plurality of products in one transaction addresses a business challenge with pre-excising analog equivalents and therefore is not comparable to DDR Holdings. Further, Applicant seems to equate “tagging” an image with information as something only a computer can do, which is neither recited within the claims nor the specification. To the contrary, the term “tagging” originated from the manual process of placing a physical “tag” on a physical item. Therefore, placing a “tag” on a photo in a specific location of the photo where a product appears in the photo as determined by a users’ tap, wherein the tag contains information about a product including a first merchant and placing a second “tag” on the photo in a specific location of the photo where a second product appears in the photo as determined by a users’ tap, wherein the tag contains information about the second product including a second merchant is a pre-excising analog equivalent of the argued “tagging” limitation. While Applicant argues certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., enable the create of social media content by individual users, social network sharing of that content with digital markup (tags)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, Examiner maintains the present claims are not similar to the claims in DDR.
Applicant argues on pages 27-29 that claim 21 is patentable under 35 USC 101 because the claim solves multiple technological problems. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification as filed does not reveal to one of ordinary skill in the art the Applicant has provided an improvement to technology of computers, storage devices, databases, servers, user interfaces, or the like. Nor does the specification provide technical detail of how client/computing devices are configured to communicate (transmit/receive) differently than from generic devices communicating information over the Internet (i.e., the specification merely sets forth at a high level of generality the use of the Internet to connect separate devices (i.e., devices, servers, database/memory), store and retrieve information from databases differently than from generic devices storing/retrieving information from memory, and display information in display interfaces differently than from generic devices displaying information via an interface (i.e., the specification merely sets forth at a high level of generality the use of interfaces for displaying information on generic computing devices).
The problem of “commercialization of products depicted within the content without the necessity of visiting the…multiple independent third party merchants” as described on pages 24-25 of the Remarks is one that arises squarely in the commercial realm, and does not rise to improving the functioning of the computer or another technology or technical field. As understood from the specification, the intention of Applicant’s invention is to assist a shopper who may be ”overwhelmed and discouraged because they are bombarded with a plethora of information, comments, and reviews related to products available” (¶0003) by allowing a first user to associate products within an image with different merchants and allowing a second user to fulfill an order of at least two products within the image from at least two merchants in one transaction. The improvement manifested by the claimed invention is an improvement to the abstract idea itself, rather than the functioning of the computer or another technology or technical field, and is achieved leveraging generic computing hardware and software set forth at a high level of generality.
Even assuming a relationship of the claimed invention to another technology or technical field, if it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological process, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure most provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Even when a specification explicitly asserts an improvement, examiner should not determine a claim improves technology when only a bare assertion of an improvement is present without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
In review of the claimed invention, and in consideration of the specification as originally filed, the Examiner asserts that:
(i) the claimed invention does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, but instead improves an abstract, commercial process, and,
(ii) the specification, as originally filed, does not provide sufficient discloser or technical explanation such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have determined that the disclosed invention provided an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field.
Accordingly, the Examiner maintains claims 21, 41-44, 46-49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 58-62, and 65-70 are ineligible for patenting because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
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 LINDSEY B SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6 EST.
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, Jeff 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.
LINDSEY B. SMITH
Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/LINDSEY B SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688