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 the Application
This final office action is in response to the arguments/amendments, filed 1/2/2026. Claims 7 and 19 have been amended. Claims 7-13 and 19-20 are currently pending and have been examined below.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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 7-13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, the claims are directed towards a process, machine, or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, Claim 7 recites specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) as follows:
receiving information regarding a first item type designation wherein the first item type identifies a future purchase within a first time range that is planned to be initiated by the user;
distributing the information regarding the first item type to the plurality of manufacturer user[s] in a[n] auction;
upon completion of the auction, transmitting a request to the plurality of manufacturer user[s] and receiving a plurality of advertisements for a second item type from the plurality of manufacturer user[s] in response to the request;
wherein the second item type matches the first item type transmitted the user;
wherein the plurality of advertisements identify at least one manufacturer user from the plurality of manufacturer user[s] and a set of time ranges that the plurality of advertisements are active;
removing an advertisement from the plurality of advertisements, wherein a second time range from the set of time ranges that is associated with the advertisement is outside the first time range identified for the future purchase planned by the user, wherein the removal creates a subset of advertisements;
determining a frequency of purchase associated with the future purchase and determining whether the frequency exceeds a threshold value, and automatically displaying additional advertisements based on the determination;
adding the additional advertisements to the subset of advertisements based on the frequency exceeding the threshold value;
determining that the future purchase was completed;
adjusting the subset of advertisements based on completion of the future purchase to remove advertisements corresponding to the second item type; and
displaying the adjusted subset.
As noted above, these limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Specifically, these limitations fall within the group Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (i.e., 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). That is, the limitations describe an advertising and sales activity of facilitating an advertising auction for manufacturers in order to display ads to users with an interest in purchasing a manufacturer’s product within a certain time frame, which is a method of organizing human activities. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Per step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner finds that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 7 recites the additional limitations of:
[information] transmitted from a user device at an advertising exchange computer network associated with a plurality of manufacturer user devices;
[the user and first item type are associated with] a user device;
[the manufacturers are associated with] manufacturer user devices;
[the auction is a] real-time auction;
[the request] is a digital request;
[the advertisements are] electronic advertisements;
wherein the display of the user device is configured to dynamically adjust based on the content of the subset of electronic advertisements; and
receiving an image from the user device and [determining that the future purchase was completed] based on image analysis to identify an object type in the image, wherein the identified object type matches the second item type, and wherein the identified object type is associated with the at least one manufacturer user device.
The additional limitations when viewed individually and when viewed as an ordered combination,
and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application because each of the additional elements are recited at high level of generality implementing
the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a
particular technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity.
With respect to limitation [information] transmitted from a user device at an advertising exchange computer network associated with a plurality of manufacturer user devices; Examiner notes that this limitation is recited at a high level of generality. Specifically, [information] transmitted from a user device at an advertising exchange computer network associated with a plurality of manufacturer user devices describes transmitting data over a network which is insignificant extra solution activity.
With respect to the user device and manufacturer user devices, Examiner notes that these devices are generic computer devices (see published specification paragraph [0032] “manufacturer user device, advertiser user device, and consumer user device (e.g., mobile device, personal computer, etc.).” Therefore, these limitations merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (generic user devices) to transmit or display advertisements.
With respect to [the auction is a] real-time auction; [the request] is a digital request; and [the advertisements are] electronic advertisements; Examiner notes that with respect to the item being transmitting “in a real time auction” based on digital requests for electronic advertisements, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality. Applicant’s specification only discusses the use of a “real-time auction” once in paragraph [0036] which discloses “the advertising exchange computer network may correspond with a digital marketplace that enables a plurality of advertiser user devices 132 (e.g., including advertisers, publishers, offer/coupon entities, affiliate networks, etc.) to buy and sell advertising space in real-time (e.g., through a real-time auction of the advertising space, etc.).” At this level of generality, specifying that the auction “a real time auction” only recites the idea of a solution (i.e., performing a real-time auction) at the “apply it” level without reciting the steps of performing the solution.
With respect to wherein the display of the user device is configured to dynamically adjust based on the content of the subset of electronic advertisements, Examiner notes that this limitation is recited at ahigh level of generality. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely requires that different advertisements on generically displayed (e.g., one advertisement is replaced with another advertisement) a on generic display based on a frequency of purchase of items. This merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., a generic display to display the ads).
Finally, with respect to the limitation receiving an image from the user device, and [determining that the future purchase was completed] based on image analysis to identify an object type in the image, wherein the identified object type matches the second item type, and wherein the identified object type is associated with the at least one manufacturer user device, Examiner notes that this limitation is recited at a high level of generality. First, receiving an image from a user device merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (generic user devices) to transmit an image, or at most amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (receiving/transmitting a generic image from a generic device). Further, Examiner notes that the recited “image analysis” is recited at a very high level of generality. At the level of generality cited, a human being could be capable of performing the analysis mentally (i.e., by reading a receipt for a product name). Examiner has reviewed Applicant’s specification which merely recites that “[t]he image may be analyzed (e.g., using optical character recognition (OCR), etc.) to identify components of the image” (spec paragraph [0043]). Examiner notes that electronically scanning or extracting data using a generic technique such as OCR is at most insignificant extra-solution activity. See Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Accordingly, even in combination, 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. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it) or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception in a particular technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Additionally, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here the limitation [information] transmitted from a user device at an advertising exchange computer network associated with a plurality of manufacturer user devices was analyzed as extra-solution activity, in Step 2A, and thus must be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. However, the transmitting limitation is not significantly more because the courts have held that receiving and transmitting data over a network is not significantly more than the abstract idea when it is claimed in a merely generic matter (as it is here) per MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, a conclusion that the transmitting limitation is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
Finally, the limitation receiving an image from the user device, and [determining that the future purchase was completed] based on image analysis to identify an object type in the image, wherein the identified object type matches the second item type, and wherein the identified object type is associated with the at least one manufacturer user device was analyzed as extra-solution activity, in Step 2A, and thus must be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. However, Examiner notes that electronically scanning or extracting data using a generic technique such as OCR is well understood, routine, and conventional activity. See Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, a conclusion that the identifying limitation is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims (e.g., product and process claims). Therefore, independent system claim 19 is also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent method claim 7. The system comprising a processor, memory, and non-transitory computer readable medium adds nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea for the reasons discussed above. At best, the components in independent claim 19 merely provide an environment to implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 8-13 and 20 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to the same abstract idea of independent claims 7 and 19 without significantly more. Specifically, Examiner notes that each of the additional limitations of dependent claims 8-13 and 20 only further limit the abstract idea or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., the user device or manufacture user devices discussed in the analysis above).
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-9 filed, filed 1/2/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of 7-13, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues:
Not only does the system transmit data to the user device, but the system configures a dynamic display on the user device based on the content of the subset of electronic advertisements. Furthermore, the system configures the display dynamically based on the content of the subset, the timing (i.e., if advertisements expire, and whether the user device successfully completes the purchase. Applicant respectfully submits that the claims go beyond generic transmitting data to integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application (remark page 8).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and replies that, selecting the advertisement to display based on when they expire and when the user completes a purchase are limitations that describe the abstract idea. The transmission and dynamic display of these advertisements merely amounts to displaying the advertisements selected based on these considerations and at most generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Second, Applicant argues that:
Moreover, the claim integrates the allegedly abstract concept into a practical application that imposes meaningful limits tied to specific computer functionality. The system and method are anchored to an "advertising exchange computer network" coordinating multiple remote manufacturer user devices, recites a real-time network auction, filters and removes advertisements based on machine-readable time-range data, and automatically governs what is rendered on a device display by dynamically adjusting content based on computed purchase frequency thresholds. It further ingests an image from the user device and performs computer-based "image analysis" to verify completion of the future purchase, and then updates system state by removing ads for the purchased item. These claim elements apply the allegedly abstract to effect concrete changes in the operation of a computing system, to wit: controlling network traffic, modifying data sets and UI states in response to computed conditions. For this additional reason, the claimed system and method are integrated into a specific technological process rather than preempting the field (remarks page 8).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The user devices are not positively recited. Simply receiving and transmitting data to other devices does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Additionally, filtering and removing advertisements based on when the ads expire describes the abstract idea. Similarly, adjusting what advertisements are displayed based on purchase frequency thresholds also describes the abstract idea. Additionally, there is no technological process of controlling network traffic or modifying UI states beyond selecting which advertisements are transmitted and displayed. Finally, with respect to the limitation receiving an image from the user device, and [determining that the future purchase was completed] based on image analysis to identify an object type in the image, wherein the identified object type matches the second item type, and wherein the identified object type is associated with the at least one manufacturer user device, Examiner notes that this limitation is recited at a high level of generality. First, receiving an image from a user device merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (generic user devices) to transmit an image, or at most amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (receiving/transmitting a generic image from a generic device). Further, Examiner notes that the recited “image analysis” is recited at a very high level of generality. At the level of generality cited, a human being could be capable of performing the analysis mentally (i.e., by reading a receipt for a product name). Examiner has reviewed Applicant’s specification which merely recites that “[t]he image may be analyzed (e.g., using optical character recognition (OCR), etc.) to identify components of the image” (spec paragraph [0043]). Examiner notes that electronically scanning or extracting data using a generic technique such as OCR is at most insignificant extra-solution activity. See Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Finally, Applicant argues that:
The Office Action further asserts that "a human being with access to user interaction and metadata would be able to compute the frequency of purchase." Office Action at 12. Applicant respectfully submits that a human being with access to user interaction and metadata would still require a discrete computing environment in order to (1) receive, route, synchronize, and reconcile and compile, in real time, the electronic advertisements transmitted through the advertising exchange computer network; (2) cultivate a subset of electronic advertisements by evaluating machine-readable time-range data and frequency thresholds, and automatically adjust a user device display based on the subset; and (3) dynamically update and adjust the user device display based on changes to the frequency of purchase, ingesting and analyzing image data provided by the user device, and adjustments to the subset based on time or other limitations. Furthermore, requiring metadata in itself leads to a non-abstract computing environment in addition to the dynamic display on the user device that is configured and updated. Applicant respectfully submits that no human, even with the benefit of metadata, can practically perform these real-time, networked, device-control, image-analysis, and payment-execution operations mentally or by hand; and human interactions would not be able to accomplish the system and method recited in independent claims 7 and 19 absent implementation in a non-abstract computing environment (remarks page 8)
Examiner respectfully replies that Examiner has not alleged that the entire claim can be performed by a human practically in the human mind. However, Examiner maintains that a human could read a receipt to determine if a product has been purchased. Regardless, Examiner respectfully refers Applicant to the updated 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection above which identifies which limitations recite an abstract idea and which limitations are additional elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Application Publication Number 20150112790 (“Wolinsky”) discloses manufactures bidding on real time auctions based on shopper interest
US Patent Application Publication Number 20210065239 (“Hylton”) discloses removing excluding promotions that will not be available during a period of interest of a user
US Patent Application Publication Number 20170093926 (“Chan”) discloses displaying a subset of advertisements selected to include a subset of promotions that are available based on relevance, interest, and availability
US Patent Application Publication Number 20170140357 (“Fricke”) discloses a system wherein a plurality of manufacturers provide coupons/offers which are aggregated and transmitted through a network to an offer server
US Patent Publication 10878448 (“Chu”) teaches collecting data about “intenders” who are in a market for particular products and services and predicting the probability the an “intender” who views an advertisement will convert
However, the prior art fails to teach each and every limitation as claimed, and would involve hindsight reasoning to arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, the claims are considered allowable over the prior art.
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 ALLAN J WOODWORTH, II whose telephone number is (571)272-6904. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at (571) 270-7537. 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.
/ALLAN J WOODWORTH, II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622