DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to papers filed on 9/17/2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 16, these claims recite the limitation “wherein an amount of transferred data from the computing apparatus to the client device is limited based on the limited display”. However, this is not what the instant specification actually states. At Paragraph 00172 of the instant specification, it states “since the user 101 may find relevant items more easily and more quickly, the power consumption and amount of transferred data to/from the client device 100 may be reduced”. The amount of data transmitted is based on whether the user may find relevant items more quickly, not the limited display. Paragraph 00172 continues “if relevant items are ordered to be within the first item views 1301 in the item display interface 1300, the item views 1301 of less relevant items may not need to be displayed or loaded by the client device 100. Thus, the amount of transferred data may be reduced, since data, such as pictures, about less relevant items does not need to be transferred to the client device 100”. Once again, this is not based on the limited amount of display space based on the type of device, but rather based on how well the advertising is targeted and whether the user can find relevant items more quickly. Therefore, the limitation above is considered impermissible new matter and must be removed in the response to this Office Action. All dependent claims inherit this rejection through dependency from claims 1 and 16.
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.
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claims 1-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more and is NOT integrated into a practical application. In particular, the rationale for finding is explained below:
Regarding claims 1-13 and 15-20, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The Claims 1-13 and 15-20 are directed to a process and/or machine, however the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-13 and 15-20 are directed to sending and receiving data to analyze purchase data, pricing, user profile, and market data to send targeted advertisements which is practically the definition of marketing points. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claims 1-13 and 15-20 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea by analyzing the individual elements and the combination as explained below:
Independent Claim 1 which is representative of Independent Claim 16, will be the basis of the following 101 analysis.
STEP 1: Representative claim 1 is directed toward an apparatus, which is a statutory category of invention.
STEP 2a – Prong One: Per MPEP 2106, the claims must be determine if they contain an abstract idea.
Independent Claim 1 recites, in part,
obtain an item from a plurality of items;, (sending and receiving data, processing data and storing data, and/or electronic recordkeeping to perform the abstract idea),
calculate at least one similarity score between a user attribute profile vector of a plurality of users and an item attribute vector of the item by: obtaining the item attribute vector of the item comprising attribute values that are applicable to the item; obtaining the user attribute profile vector comprising attribute values associated with properties of user action history associated with the plurality of users; comparing the attribute values that are applicable to the item to attribute values in the user attribute profile vector; (sending and receiving data, processing data and storing data, and/or electronic recordkeeping to perform the abstract idea of math), and
update the at least one similarity score based on a user action; (sending and receiving data, processing data and storing data, and/or electronic recordkeeping to perform the abstract idea),
obtain a targeting constraint for the item indicating a desired threshold similarity score; (sending and receiving data, processing data and storing data, and/or electronic recordkeeping to perform the abstract idea),
select at least one targeted user from the plurality of users by comparing the targeting constraint for the item and the at least one similarity score; determine a size and layout of a client device associated with the at least one selected targeted user; execute scaling of an item view based on the determined size and layout on the client device so that the item view is a limited display and displayed with clarity based on a type of the client device; and (sending and receiving data, processing data and storing data, and/or electronic record keeping to perform the abstract idea), and
provide the item view for display to the client device of the at least one selected targeted user, wherein an amount of transferred data from the computing apparatus to the client device is limited based on the limited display. (sending and receiving data, processing data and storing data, and/or electronic recordkeeping to perform the abstract idea), and
These limitations set forth a concept of sending and receiving data to analyze purchase data, pricing, user profile, and market data to send targeted advertisements which is practically the definition of marketing. This concept falls within the methods of organizing human activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) grouping identified by MPEP 2106. As such, the claims are determined to recite an abstract idea.
STEP 2a – Prong Two: Per MPEP 2106, the additional elements of the claims must be considered for whether they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims describe the additional element of:
a computing apparatus,
at least one processor,
at least one memory
However the additional elements are recited at an extreme level of generality and is interpreted as a generic computing device, and its incorporation amounts to implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Per MPEP 2106, simply implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Figures 1-4 and their related text and Paragraphs 0070, 0071, 0190-0196 of the specification (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0256547 A1 – hereinafter specification and/or disclosure) detail any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. The claims recite the additional elements of a computing apparatus and/or a processor. However, these limitations simply generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Per the 2019 PEG, such a general linking does not constitute a practical application of the abstract idea. There are no further additional elements. Therefore, as the additional elements of the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception).
STEP 2b: Per MPEP 2106, the additional elements of the claims must be considered against for whether they constitute significantly more than the abstract idea. As previously noted, the claims describe the additional element of a computer. However, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. As such, these elements do not provide an inventive concept and do not constitute significantly more. As previously noted, the claims recite the additional element of receiving information from a client executing on a device and transmitting information to a user via a client application. However, per MPEP 2106, receiving and transmitting data over a network is a well-known, routine, and conventional computer functionality (Symantec), and processing that data network is a well-known, routine, and conventional computer functionality (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am), and storing data and electronic recordkeeping is a well-known, routine, and conventional computer functionality (Alice Corp).
As such, this limitation does not constitute significantly more either individually or with the above computing devices. There are no further additional elements. Therefore, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements of the independent claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-13, 15, and 17-20 further describe the abstract idea, and do not set forth further additional elements.
Conclusion: Accordingly, because the Applicant's claims reflect claims the Courts have determined to be abstract ideas, the Applicant’s claims likewise are directed to abstract ideas. Therefore, claims 1-13 and 15-20 either alone and/or as an ordered combination of elements are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, as the dependent claims remain directed to an abstract idea and as the additional elements of the dependent claims do not constitute a practical application, the dependent claims or the claims as a whole are not patent eligible.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 and 15-20 as currently written are novel/non-Obvious over prior art. However, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112a and 35 U.S.C. 101 are currently pending and represent a barrier to allowability. Examiner notes that any amendments made to the claims in an attempt to correct pending rejections could drastically alter the claim scope and could open up the possibility of prior art being applied in a future action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues “Applicant's amended claims are not directed to an "abstract idea" under Step 2A, but rather are rooted in a technical solution for overcoming problems with limited display areas when dealing with thousands of items to determine and display relevant items to a user in an arrangement determined based on a limited display area of a device. See ¶ [00172] of the Specification” and “the amount of transferred data is reduced, since items that are not relevant or less relevant are not sent for display”. However, Paragraph 00172 does not state that less relevant items are not sent for display. Rather, there is no guarantee that such benefits will occur, as this paragraph states that less data may be transferred should a user find what they’re looking for initially. How a user experiences an environment and whether that experience is improved is relative to each particular person.
Applicant argues “Similar to the claims of Core Wireless, the claims of the present application are directed to an improved user interface that provides an improvement in computer functionality. In particular, amended claim 1 recites, "provide the item view for display to the client device of the at least one selected targeted user, wherein an amount of transferred data from the computing apparatus to the client device is limited based on the limited display." Emphasis added. At least this additional claim element is rooted in a technical solution that improves the computing platform by limiting the amount of transferred data using the limited display of the client device”. However, as explained by the 112a rejection above, the specification does not actually limit the amount of transferred data based on the limited display. Further, the instant claims are not directed towards the interface itself, but rather towards a method and system of “item targeting”. Therefore, Core Wireless is still believed to not be analogous.
Applicant argues “none of the elements in the claims recite with is required for a method of organizing human activity”. However, the claims clearly recite targeting of content items to users, which is clearly Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and represents commercial interactions of at least advertising.
Applicant argues “In conventional systems, a user is shown many irrelevant items and must search for relevant items. Therefore, computation and transmission are repeated many times until a user is satisfied with their item choice and stops searching. Further, displays are often limited to a certain number of items at a time. The present application solves these issues by using the limited display area more efficiency by displaying relevant items to the user, reducing bandwidth, computational resources, and power consumption”. However, according to paragraph 0172 of the instant specification, “The computing apparatus 200 may improve the user experience by improving the utilization of the limited display space”. How a user experiences an environment and whether that experience is improved is relative to each particular person. Therefore, there is no guarantee that such benefits will occur. Further, paragraph 0172 further states “Additionally, since the user 101 may find relevant items more easily and more quickly, the power consumption and amount of transferred data to/from the client device 100 may be reduced. For example, if relevant items are ordered to be within the first item views 1301 in the item display interface 1300, the item views 1301 of less relevant items may not need to be displayed or loaded by the client device 100. Thus, the amount of transferred data may be reduced, since data, such as pictures, about less relevant items does not need to be transferred to the client device 100”. Once again, even if a user is targeted particular data, that data may not end up being sufficient and there is no guarantee that more items will not need to be transferred or loaded. Since the benefits disclosed in paragraph 0172 can’t be guaranteed, they do not fundamentally improve the computer technology or a technical field.
Applicant argues “due to the reduced computational load, it is more feasible to implement communication between the computing apparatus and the client device in real-time, which improves the overall user experience due to reduced latency”. However, there is no discussion anywhere in the specification about latency, or reducing that latency. There is no evidence that reduced latency was ever a consideration in the creation of the instant invention.
Applicant compares the present claims to Core Wireless again and argues “the present disclosure specifies the manner in which information is accessed and restrains the type of data that is displayed based on an executed "scaling of an item view based on the determined size and layout of the client device," well as limiting the "amount of transferred data." The user does not have to shuffle through irrelevant options to receive relevant information, nor does a user need to worry about the type of device they are using, as the system will automatically scale to the device. Therefore, the disclosed invention improves the efficiency of using the client device”. However, according to this analysis, should no content items be targeted to the individual (the instant invention isn’t used at all), theoretically the functioning of the computer would improve even more, as no data would be transferred. The fact remains, the instant invention is merely directed towards an improved way of targeting content. Because items are better targeted to an individual, the functioning of the computer is not improved and the functioning of any interface remains unchanged.
Applicant argues “Applicant's claims are "necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks." Performing the computation of the similarity score is not practically possible outside a computing network for the large subset of items”. However, just because it would be difficult to perform the computation without a computer does not mean it would be impossible. Simply using general purpose computer elements to apply an abstract idea does not represent more than the abstract idea. Examiner notes that Applicant states “The Office has not addressed this argument in its response”, however this response is copied verbatim from the previous Office Action.
Applicant argues “The claimed combination of elements enables determining the relevancy of items to a user. Accordingly, claim 1 provides an improvement over the conventional systems. The claimed combination of elements enables determining the relevancy of items to a user. See Specification [0003]. The claim elements also improve the user experience by "improving the utilization of the limited display space," thus reducing the "power consumption and amount of data" transferred from the client device. See Specification [00172]. At least these additional claim elements recite significantly more than the alleged abstract idea because they are rooted in a technical solution for improving the computing platform to allow a user to more efficiently find an item, based on the scaling and limited display of the items on the client device”. However, as explained above, there is no actual improvement to power consumption or amount of data transferred, and the improvement to determining relevancy of items to a user is merely an improvement to the abstract idea. In the SAP decision (See SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), the courts found that an improvement made to the abstract idea is not patent eligible. SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because there are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non- abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.
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 MICHAEL BEKERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3256. The examiner can normally be reached 9PM-3PM EST M, T, TH, F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, WASEEM ASHRAF can be reached at (571) 270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL BEKERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621