DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to Application Serial 17/733,360. In response to the Examiner’s action mailed dated April 2, 2026, Applicant submitted arguments and amendments, mail dated July 2, 2026. Applicant amended claims 1, 10, and 19. Applicant cancelled claims 3, 4, 9, 12, 13, 18 and 23. Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-11, 14-17, 19-22, 24- 30 are pending.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Applicant did not submit an additional information disclosure statement for consideration.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-11, 14-17, 19-22, 24- 30 are pending in this application. The claims 1, 10, and 19 are amended. The claims 3, 4, 9, 12, 13, 18, and 23 are cancelled.
The Applicant’s amendments are not persuasive. The claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-11, 14-17, 19-22, 24-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, see below.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection was withdrawn in the action is mail dated April 02, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 2, 2026, have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments are addressed below.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 101
On pages 11-14 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments, the Applicant traverses claim(s) 1, 2, 5-8, 10-11, 14-17, 19-22, 24-30 recite statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant traverses, the Examiner’s arguments regarding the limitations determining a number of acquisitions of the game title, 292766-00003ranking titles relative to one another based on geographic location, number of acquisitions, sales, and consumption history and the additional elements arguments. Applicant submits that the claims, as amended, integrate any alleges abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, prong two. Applicant submits the technical operations that are recited in the claims cannot be performed mentally and provide a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to the user based on region-specific sales data.
Applicant traverses the claims emphasize the technical character of the claims. Applicant points out the claims now explicitly recite “generating a user interface,” generating a first carousel of selectable icons,” “generating a second carousel of selectable icons”. Applicant submits the claims as amended do not merely display data using generic GUI elements – they recite generating a user interface with a specific arrangement of selectable icons in multiple carousels, each with icons ordered by sales levels.
Applicant traverses the present claims are analogous to USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Example 37. In Example 37 the claims recited : determining a number of acquisitions of the game title, 292766-00003ranking titles relative to one another based on geographic location, number of acquisitions, sales, and consumption history, “automatically moving the most used icons to a position on the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system based on the determined amount of use.” Applicant submits the limitations go beyond mere ranking to recite specific GUI elements and specific display arrangements, just as eligible Example 37.
Examiner respectfully acknowledges Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments. Examiner submits the claims involve an abstract idea, so the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims as recited do not amount to significantly more.
The claims recite the abstract idea describes a recommendation that tailors the recommendations based on the user is geographic location and the number of acquisitions in the region, and thus, the claims involve concept that is related to the abstract grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions. Thus, the claims are directed to a judicial exception.
Moreover, the claims recite ranked relative to one another based at least in part on the number of acquisitions within the geographic region in an order beginning with one or more content items associated with a highest level of sales and ending with one or more content items associated with a lowest level of sales which is abstract. The claims are related to the abstract grouping of mental concepts – evaluation and observation. Thus, the claims are directed to a judicial exception.
The claims are related to sales activities and marketing activities within a geographic region, which is abstract. The claims involve abstract concepts that are grouped into the abstract concept grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental concepts. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception at Step 2A, prong one.
At Step 2A, prong two, the claims are evaluated for integration into a practical application. Here, the claims recite additional elements (e.g., a computing device, Internet Protocol (IP) address, a first carousel of icons, a second carousel of icons) which are computer elements.
The additional elements a computing device and Internet Protocol (IP) address are broadly reciting a computer that is conducting computer functions. The additional elements a first carousel of icons and a second carousel of icons are data objects, similar to button or hyperlink, or thumb that is used to represent additional elements using a computer.
The claims are applying a computer and data objects to conduct sales activities and advertising. The claims are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims do not recite an improvement nor an integration into a practical application at step 2A, prong two. Examiner reviewed the Applicant’s specification in light of Example 37. See discussion below.
At Step 2B, as discussed above, the claims, as recited, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Regarding an improvement, a computer used to display computer elements that are displaying products (game titles) for sale is not novel. The claims do not amount to significantly more at Step 2B.
Examiner has considered Applicant’s SME Example 37, argument. In Example 37, the amount of use of each icon is automatically determined by a processor that tracks the number of times each icon is selected or how much memory has been allocated to the individual processes associated with each icon over a period of time (e.g., day, week, month, etc.), so claim 2 was found eligible. In contrast to Example 37, the Applicant’s claims are generating a first carousel of selectable icons corresponding to a first game category of the game titles ranked relative to one another based at least in part on the number of acquisitions within the geographic region in an order beginning with one or more game titles associated with a highest level of sales and ending with one or more game titles associated with a lowest level of sales. The relative ranking is not related to memory, allocated computer memory over a period of time.
Examiner reviewed the Applicant’s specification in light of Example 37. Examiner did not determine that the claims are integrated into a practical application at Step 2A, prong two. But the instant specification [015], [016], and [019 disclosed feature that are not currently within the Applicant’s claims. The Applicant’s rankings are determined based on sales data across a geographic region. The sales database is updated periodically, as recited in the instant specification [015]. The instant specification [016] discloses determine… sales level of multiple sales levels that is associated with the content item, such as a "high level of sales", "medium level of sales", and a "low level of sales" … the computing system may randomize the display of the icons. The instant specification discloses if a particular user often plays role-player games, then games associated with this category may be weighted more heavily than other games and, thus, may be listed closer to the top of the UI and/or more prominently than if the game were associated with a different category see [019].
Applicant is invited to request an Examiner’s Interview to discuss the Example 37 and the above instant application excerpts for consideration as Step 2B.
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 1,2, 5-8, & 27-30 are process.
Claims 10, 11, 14-17, & 26 are machine.
Claims 19-22,24-25 are manufacture.
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-11, 14-17, 19-22, 24- 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims 10 ( and similarly claims 1 and 19) recite, “ … storing an indication that each content item of a set of content items offered for acquisition is associated with a promotion … storing sales information associated with respective content items; receiving, … , a request for information associated with the promotion; determining an Internet Protocol (IP) address associated with the request; mapping the IP address to a geographical location; determining a geographic region that includes the geographical location; updating … based on recent sales data at a predefined periodicity; determining, for each content item of the set of content items, a number of acquisitions of each content item within the geographic region …, wherein the number of acquisitions within the geographic region represents an interest of one or more communities of users for each content item of the set of content items in the geographic region; associating each content item of the set of content items with a corresponding level of sales of multiple levels of sales based on the number of acquisitions; ranking each content item of the set of content items relative to one another based at least in part on the number of acquisitions within the geographic region; causing … to display information associated with the promotion in a manner that is based at least in part on the ranking, wherein the causing comprises: generating … based at least in part on the ranking, wherein the generating comprises: causing … to display a first carousel of icons generating a first carousel of selectable icons corresponding to a first content category of content items ranked relative to one another based at least in part on the number of acquisitions within the geographic region in an order beginning with one or more content items associated with a highest level of sales and ending with one or more content items associated with a lowest level of sales; causing … to display a second carousel of icons generating a second carousel of selectable icons corresponding to a second content category of content items ranked relative to one another based at least in part on the number of acquisitions within the geographic region in an order beginning with one or more content items associated with a highest level of sales and ending with one or more content items associated with a lowest level of sales; and determining an order in which to cause the computing device to display at least the first carousel and the second carousel based at least in part on a consumption history of the user and sales data associated with the first content category of content items and the second content category of content items[[.]]; and sending … for presentation …, wherein the selectable icons are selectable to request acquisition of respective content items..” Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-11, 14-17, 19-22, 24- 27 in view of the claims limitations, are related to the abstract idea of, d describes a recommendation that tailors the recommendations based on the user is geographic location and the number of acquisitions in the region, and thus, the claims are recite an abstract grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions, and thus, the claims are directed to a judicial exception under the first prong of Step 2A prong one.
Moreover, the claims recite ranked relative to one another based at least in part on the number of acquisitions within the geographic region in an order beginning with one or more content items associated with a highest level of sales and ending with one or more content items associated with a lowest level of sales; and thus, the claims are related to the abstract grouping of mental concepts – evaluation and observation, and thus, the claims are directed to a judicial exception at Step 2A prong one.
This judicial exception is/are not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A prong two. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of, “a database”, “a computing device”, “an Internet Protocol (IP) address , “the database”, “a first carousel of icons”, “ a second carousel of icons”, “a user interface”, in claim 1; “a database”, “from a computing device”, “an Internet Protocol (IP) address”, “a first carousel of icons”, “a second carousel of icons”, “a user interface” in claim 10; “One or more computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to perform acts comprising”, “ a database”, “a computing device”, “an Internet Protocol (IP) address”, “a first carousel of icons”, “a second carousel of icons”, “a user interface”, in claim 19; however, when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recite adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05 (f)
Accordingly, the additional elements 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 also fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, or a technical field at Step 2A prong 2.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) – mere instructions to Apply an Exception.
At step 2B, it is MPEP 2106.05 (d) – Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
Dependent claims 2, 5-8 & 27-30 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 1. Dependent claims 10 -11, 14–17, & 20 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 10. Dependent claims 20-22, 24 further narrow the abstract idea of claim 19. The claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-11, 14-17, 19-22, 24- 30 are not patent eligible.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10-11, 14-17, 19-22, 24- 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Saradar (IS 20210011939 A1) is a Valve, Assignee application that discloses algorithms.
Kane (US 2015/0,066,648 A1) teaching geographic regions and sales.
Labato (2019 Netflix Nations p. 89) disclosing the infrastructure of streaming (including Xbox One Games Download p. 18, 42, Figure 1.2) illustrating Carousel interfaces /Catalog Netflix New Release, and Watch Again Carousels (p.25) disclosing distributed television uses filtering, aggregation and recommendation systems. Carousels (p. 26) leveraging video game technology and interaction.
Demetriou (US 2022/0174123 A1) disclosing location-based, single user-centric application, context awareness and targeted advertising.
White US (2014/0,289,753 A1) disclosing machine learning and purchasing online items.
Belle (US 9,639,848 B1) disclosing historical data describing product sales or other types of transactions, indicator scores may be calculated for users who have purchased, reviewed, or otherwise consumed products.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 THEA LABOGIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9149. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached on 571-270- 5396. 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.
/THEA LABOGIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
