DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/20/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS submitted on 8/31/2026 has been considered. The IDSs submitted on 8/9/2022 and 12/18/2023 were previously considered.
Interview
Examiner invites the representative of this application to contact the Examiner to schedule an interview to expedite prosecution of this application.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amended claims, filed 8/20/2026, have been entered. Claims 1, 4, 15, 22-24, and 26 have been amended. Claims 6-9, 19, and 20 were previously cancelled. Claims 1-5, 10-18, and 21-26 are currently pending in this application and have been examined.
Allowable Subject Matter
For the reasons noted in the “Indication of Allowable Subject Matter” section in the office action mailed 5/08/2025, claims 1-5, 10-18, and 21-26 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office Action.
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 1-5, 10-18, and 21-26 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 method, as claimed in claims 1-5, 10-18, and 21-26, are directed to a process (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A (prong 1), claim 1 recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
receiving a request to initiate a transaction for an item in an environment from a first user account of a service provider system, the request transmitted;
receiving image data depicting the item generated associated with the first user account;
receiving a representation of the item;
generating a combined representation of the item by combining the image data with the representation of the item;
initiating the transaction for the item in the environment;
transmitting the combined representation of the item to a second user account and causing display the combined representation of the item in the environment for a time period during the transaction;
determining that a criterion of the transaction is not satisfied based on the image data;
initiating a status action of the transaction in response to the determination that the criterion of the transaction is not satisfied, the status action causing a modification of the environment displayed;
generating aggregated requests for a plurality of locations on the item in the environment; and
transmitting a request for additional image data based on the aggregated requests.
Claim 22 recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
receiving a request to initiate a transaction for an item in an environment, the request transmitted;
receiving image data depicting the item, the image data comprising the item;
verifying in real time by transmitting a randomized instruction and determining that the image data complies with the randomized instruction;
transmitting the image data to a second user account and causing display the image data in the environment as part of the transaction;
determining that a criterion of the transaction is not satisfied, the criterion based on a threshold number of user accounts participating in the transaction;
initiating a status action of the transaction in response to the determination that the criterion of the transaction is not satisfied, the status action causing a modification of the environment displayed;
generating aggregated requests for a plurality of locations on the item in the environment; and
transmitting a request for additional image data based on the aggregated requests.
Claim 23 recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
receiving image data depicting an item for a transaction;
initiating the transaction for the item in an environment;
providing the image data to a second user account and causing display the image data in the environment as part of the transaction;
determining that a criterion of the transaction is not satisfied based on the image data;
initiating a status action of the transaction in response to the determination that the criterion of the transaction is not satisfied, the status action causing a modification of the environment displayed;
generating aggregated requests for a plurality of locations on the item in the environment;
determining a subset of locations from the plurality of locations based on the aggregated requests;
generating a path for capture of image data of the subset of location son the items; and
transmitting a request for additional image data depicting the subset of locations.
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 claims 1, 22, and 23 are certain methods of organizing human activity because receiving, transmitting, and displaying information relating to a transaction for an item is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Thus, claims 1, 22, and 23 recite an abstract idea.
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, claim 1 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
receiving, by an initiation module of an extended reality system communicably coupled to a network, a request to initiate a transaction for an item in an extended reality environment from a first user account of a service provider system, the request transmitted from a first client device over the network;
receiving, by the extended reality system, image data depicting the item generated from a camera of the first client device associated with the first user account;
receiving, by the initiation module of the extended reality system, a three-dimensional digital representation of the item from the first client device;
generating, by the extended reality system, a combined digital representation of the item by combining the image data with the three-dimensional digital representation of the item;
initiating, by the initiation module of the extended reality system, the transaction for the item in the extended reality environment;
transmitting, by the extended reality system over the network, the combined digital representation of the item to a second client device associated with a second user account and causing the second client device to display the combined digital representation of the item in the extended reality environment for a time period during the transaction;
determining, by a criteria determination module of the extended realty system, that a criterion of the transaction is not satisfied based on the image data;
initiating, by an auction initiation module of the extended realty system, a status action of the transaction in response to the determination that the criterion of the transaction is not satisfied, the status action causing a modification of the extended reality environment displayed at the second client device;
generating, by the extended reality system, aggregated requests for a plurality of locations on the item in the extended reality environment from one or more third client devices; and
transmitting, by the extended reality system, a request for additional image data based on the aggregated requests to the first client device.
Claim 22 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
receiving, by an initiation module of an extended reality system communicatively coupled to a network, a request to initiate a transaction for an item in an extended reality environment from a first client device, the request transmitted from the first client device over the network;
receiving, by the extended reality system, image data depicting the item from the first client device, the image data comprising a live stream of the item;
verifying, by a live stream verification module of the extended reality system, that the live stream is streamed in real time by transmitting a randomized instruction to the first client device and determining that the image data complies with the randomized instruction;
transmitting, by the extended reality system over the network, the image data to a second client device associated with a second user account and causing the second client device to display the image data in the extended reality environment as part of the transaction;
determining, by a criterion determination module of the extended reality system, that a criterion of the transaction is not satisfied, the criterion based on a threshold number of user accounts participating in the transaction;
initiating, by an action initiation module of the extended reality system, a status action of the transaction in response to the determination that the criterion of the transaction is not satisfied, the status action causing a modification of the extended reality environment displayed at the second client device;
generating, by the extended reality system, aggregated requests for a plurality of locations on the item in the extended reality environment from one or more third client devices; and
transmitting, by the extended reality system, a request for additional image data based on the aggregated requests to the first client device.
Claim 23 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
receiving, by an initiation module of an extended reality system communicably coupled to a network, image data depicting an item from a first client device for a transaction;
initiating, by the initiation module of the extended reality system, the transaction for the item in an extended reality environment;
providing, by the extended reality system over the network, the image data to a second client device associated with a second user account and causing the second client device to display the image data in the extended reality environment as part of the transaction;
determining, by a criteria determination module of the extended reality system, that a criterion of the transaction is not satisfied based on the image data;
initiating, by an action initiation module of the extended reality system, a status action of the transaction in response to the determination that the criterion of the transaction is not satisfied, the status action causing a modification of the extended reality environment displayed at the second client device;
generating, by the extended reality system, aggregated requests for a plurality of locations on the item in the extended reality environment from one or more third client devices;
determining, by the extended reality system, a subset of locations from the plurality of locations based on the aggregated requests;
generating, by the extended reality system, a path for capture of image data of the subset of location son the items; and
transmitting, by the extended reality system, a request for additional image data depicting the subset of locations to the first client device.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment (“in an extended reality environment”, “by modules of the extended reality system”, “generated from a camera of a first client device associated with the first user account”, “a three-dimensional digital representation of the item”, “a second client device associated with a second user account”, “one or more third client devices”, “a live stream”, “a digital” representation of an item, etc.) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (receiving information, displaying information, providing/transmitting information). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. This is because the additional elements of claims 1, 22, and 23 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) (Figs. 1, 8; paragraphs [0023]-[0027], [0033]-[0034], [0053]-[0066]). The specification indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. The 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).
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered pair, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional elements are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not transform or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technology environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
In addition to the above, the recited receiving, displaying, and providing/transmitting 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 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 1, 22, and 23 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 1, 22, and 23, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 1, 22, and 23 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 1, 22, and 23 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
Additionally, the Specification recites receiving a live stream captured with a camera of a computing device is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (see Fig. 1; [0002], [0016], [0023]-[0027], [0032], [0057]).
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claims 1, 22, and 23 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claims 1, 22, and 23 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 3-5, 12, 14-17, 21, 24-26
Dependent claim(s) 3-5, 12, 14-17, 21, 24-26, 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 claim(s) 3-5, 12, 14-17, 21, 24-26 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim(s) 1, 22, and/or 23 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claim claim(s) 1, 22, and/or 23.
Claims 3-5, 12, 14-17, 21, 24-26 set forth:
wherein the criterion is at least one of a threshold distance between the first client device and the item or a threshold amount of the item in the image data.
wherein the status action includes at least one of ending the transaction, pausing the transaction, or reducing available transaction time.
causing display on the second client device of a representation corresponding to an alternate view in the extended reality environment.
determining an excitement level associated with the second client device based on a biometric measurement; and modifying the extended reality environment for display on the second client device based on the excitement level.
identifying a privacy level of the second user account; receiving a bid for the item in the transaction from the second user account; and causing display of the extended reality environment to include the bid based on the privacy level.
wherein the combined digital representation of the item includes a highlighted location on the three-dimensional digital representation of the item indicating where the camera of the first client device is currently capturing on the item.
determining a degree of information to display based on the second user account; and modifying the extended reality environment for display on the second client device based on the degree of information.
receiving chat from one or more third client devices viewing the transaction of the item; and transmitting a current level of interest in the item to the first client device based on the chat.
identifying a depiction of at least part of the item in the image data and wherein the initiating the transaction for the item in the extended reality environment is performed responsive to the identifying.
wherein the generating the aggregated requests comprises processing at least one of eye-gaze data, chat inputs, or location inputs from the one or more third client devices.
modifying the extended reality environment for display on the second client device to include a current location of the additional image data.
Wherein the path is generated between the subset of locations based on proximities between respective locations, the method further comprising modifying the extended reality environment for display on the first client device to include the path.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of receiving, transmitting, and displaying information relating to a transaction for an item. The claims do not set forth any further additional limitations, and therefore such abstract embellishments are applied to the additional limitations recited in claim(s) 3-5, 12, 14-17, 21, 24-26, which do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim(s) 1, 22, and/or 23.
Thus, dependent claims 3-5, 12, 14-17, 21, 24-26 are ineligible.
Regarding claims 2, 10, 11, 13, and 18
Dependent claim(s) 2, 10, 11, 13, and 18 sets forth:
wherein the image data comprises a live stream of the item.
determining that the second user account has won the transaction; transmitting a first request to a blockchain system to generate a non-fungible token (NFT) including the image data from the transaction; and transmitting a second request to the blockchain system to transfer the NFT to a blockchain account associated with the second user account.
wherein the NFT further includes data describing at least one of a chat of the transaction, participating user accounts of the transaction, information relating to the item, or item fingerprinting generated from the image data.
wherein the modifying the extended reality environment for display includes at least one of displaying a user-defined threshold bid amount, displaying a notification of the excitement level, removing information from the display, or removing avatars from the display.
determining avatars for one or more third user accounts; and modifying the extended reality environment for display on the second client device to include a representation of the avatars.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of receiving, transmitting, and displaying information relating to a transaction for an item. While the claim(s) do set forth the additional elements of “a live stream”, “a blockchain system to generate a non-fungible token (NFT)”, and “avatars”, these recitations are similar to the additional limitations in claims 1, 22, and 23, as they do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is these additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment. The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Figs. 1 and 8 and paragraphs [0002], [0023]-[0027], [0033]-[0034], [0038], [0048]-[0049], [0053]-[0066] indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. Therefore, 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. Further, the “live stream”, “blockchain system”, “non-fungible token (NFT)”, and “avatar” are recited at a high level and amounts to merely applying 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 2, 10, 11, 13, and 18 are also ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on page 12 of the Remarks filed 8/20/2026, with respect to the previous claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the currently amended claims. Accordingly the previous claim objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, on page 12 of the Remarks filed 8/20/2026, with respect to the previous 35 USC §112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments to the claims. Accordingly the previous 35 USC §112 rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 13-36 of the Remarks filed 8/20/2026, with respect to the previous 35 USC §101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the amended claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, on pages 18-22 Applicant argues the claims are eligible over Step 2A, prong 1 as the recited features do not fall within an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded that 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. Despite Applicant’s assertion to the contrary, the Examiner maintains that the claims clearly set forth or describe abstract idea(s) for those reasons set forth previously. The claims recite steps for receiving, transmitting, and displaying information relating to a transaction for an item. Receiving, transmitting, and displaying information relating to a transaction for an item is an abstract idea known from the pre-Internet world and the claimed solution is not necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. Further, the instant specification recites the claimed invention is described for “conducting live auctions” (see paragraph [0002]). Moreover, Applicant’s own assertion that the claims are directed towards “conducting live auctions” (page 10 of the Remarks filed 11/26/2025 and page 12 of the Remarks filed 3/31/2026) is itself an abstract idea and underscores the Examiner’s findings under Prong One. Examiner notes the arguments directed to practical applications and computer improvements is analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two and not within Step 2A, Prong One.
Accordingly, Examiner maintains the claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant argues on pages 22-33 that the amended claim integrates any abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the Examiner agrees that the amended limitations as an “extended reality” environment, “a three-dimensional” rendering of an item, and “a livestream”, a first and second “client device”, a “network”, “modules” of an “extended reality” system, etc. do not fall within the abstract idea, the Examiner disagrees that these elements impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception. As claimed, the claimed additional elements represent the mere use of generic computing components to facility the abstract idea. Notably, the specification provides only a brief description of the claimed additional elements (see Figs. 1 and 8 and paragraphs [0002], [0023]-[0027], [0033]-[0034], [0038], [0048]-[0049], [0053]-[0066]).
While Applicant argues the Specification identifies two technical problems of live capture-and-streaming systems of media authentication and of capture control in paragraphs [0015], [0017], [0018], [0021], [0033], [0032], [0036], [0037], and [0043]-[0045] Examiner respectfully disagrees. Initially, Examiner emphasizes that 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). Neither the claims nor the specification provide sufficient detail of the underlying technical procedure for how the authentication and of capture control is accomplished. Moreover, the criteria as recites is arguably itself a mental process in addition to the commercial process. The terms “determining that a criterion of the transaction is not satisfied based on the image data” has been afforded its plain meaning and, when applied to criteria determination module, represents a process by which the criteria determination module mimics human learning by receiving data and learning to perform tasks (in this application, a criterion that is not satisfied). ‘Determining’ thereby sets forth or describe processes (thinking) that can be performed in the human mind. Similarly, the terms “verifying…by transmitting a randomized instruction and determining that the image data complies with the randomized instruction” has been afforded its plain meaning and, when applied to a live stream verification module represents a process by which the live stream verification module mimics human learning by receiving data and learning to perform tasks (in this application, image data complies with the randomized instruction). ‘Determining’ thereby sets forth or describe processes (thinking) that can be performed in the human mind and therefore the verification as recites is arguably itself a mental process in addition to the commercial process. While Applicant argues a specific “request-aggregation and capture-path-generation pipeline” on pages 26-27, Examiner notes the claims themselves recite abstract concepts (e.g., “generating…aggregated requests for a plurality of locations on the item”, “generating… a path for capture of image data of the subset of locations on the item”, and “transmitting… a request for additional image data depicting the subset of locations” merely applied in a technological environment (i.e., an “extended reality system”) and further, on pages 27-28, Applicant argues limitations which are not claimed regarding a three-dimensional rendering. MPEP 2106.04(d) uses the term additional elements to refer to claim features, limitations, and/or steps that are recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception. Abstract ideas are not patent eligible, therefore these argued limitations cannot provide integration.
The Examiner first notes that a distinction should be drawn between an improvement in a technical field (arguably technical problems of live capture-and-streaming systems of media authentication and of capture control) and the mere use of such techniques to improve abstract processes. When evaluating improvements (i.e., improvements to the functioning of the computer or to another technology or technical field), the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Paragraphs [0015], [0017], [0018], [0021], [0033], [0032], [0036], [0037], and [0043]-[0045], as cited by Applicant, reveal only high-level disclosure of problems of live capture-and-streaming systems of media authentication and of capture control concepts used to improve the process by which information relating to a transaction for an item is received, transmitted, and displayed. The specification, at best, sets forth nothing more than a bare assertion of an improvement (e.g., to live capture-and-streaming systems of media authentication and of capture control concepts) without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The character of the claims as a whole, and nature of the disclosure in relation to live capture-and-streaming systems of media authentication and of capture control concepts, reveals that the invention lies within the mere use of these concepts as a tool to perform abstract idea(s). Further, many of the argued concepts are not reflected within the claims.
Unlike argued claim 3 of Example 47, Applicant’s specification does not provide the requisite detail necessary such that one of ordinary skill in the art could recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Applicant’s specification does not provide sufficient technical detail with respect to an improvement to an extended reality environment, the specification does not provide sufficient detail with respect to an improvement to verification of a live stream, the specification does not provide sufficient detail with respect to an improvement to displaying a three-dimensional rendering of an item, and the specification does not provide sufficient detail with respect to generating a path using a subset of locations to determine popularity. The instant specification is specific only in the additional elements use in facilitating the abstract idea of initiation a transaction of an item. Additionally, as currently claimed, the claimed limitations does not recite the argued improvements to conventional live-streaming systems.
There is no indication from either the claims or the specification that the invention seeks to modify conventional operation of any such technology (as that in DDR Holdings). Here again, the Examiner emphasizes the failure of the disclosure to set forth or describe the amended features, or any improvements that are achieved from or made relative to another technology or technical field. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the improvements manifested by the claimed invention are improvements to the abstract idea itself, not the computer or another technology or technical field.
The character of the claims as a whole is not directed to improving computer performance and does not recite any such benefit. The claims of the instant application, however, merely represent the use of generic computing technology used as a tool to perform the abstract idea in an online environment. The claims lack any restriction on the manner in which the computing operations are to be performed. The manner in which the currently pending claims are written is much more akin to the myriad of ineligible court decisions that employed generic computer components at a high-level to achieve improvements in commercial processes (e.g., rather than DDR Holdings).
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.
As understood from the specification, the intention of Applicant’s invention is to provide “trust in the authenticity of the item” and “allowing a potential buyer the ability to inspect various aspects of the item via the image data, while providing the ease of access” (¶0004). 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.
Next on page 31 of the Remarks Applicant argues the amended claims are analogous to Example 48, claims 2 and 3. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The invention in Example 48 relates to artificial intelligence-based methods of analyzing speech signals and separating desired speech from extraneous or background speech. Claim 3 is held to recite an abstract idea but is indicated as eligible under Step 2A (Prong) because, taken as a whole, integrates the exception into a practical application by improving speech-to-text transcription. The disclosure identifies a technical problem encountered in the field of speech-separation and provides this invention as a solution to the identified speech-separation problem. Per p. 20 of the newly issued guidance: “The disclosure clearly describes how this invention offers an improvement over existing speech-separation methods by providing a particular speech-separation technique that solves the problem of separating speech from different speech sources belonging to the same class, while not requiring prior knowledge of the number of speakers or speaker-specific training’. In other words, the invention was directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. This is not the case with the instant application, and comparisons to Example 48 are inapposite. Neither Applicant’s claims nor the specific reflect an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
On pages 32-33 Applicant argues the claims as amended do not merely link the abstract idea to a technological environment and the recited actions are not insignificant extra-solution activity. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As currently claimed, the claims of the instant application merely represent the use of generic computing technology used as a tool to perform the abstract idea in an online environment as noted for the reasons discussed in the full rejection of the claims above. The claims lack any restriction on the manner in which the computing operations are to be performed. The manner in which the currently pending claims are written is much more akin to the myriad of ineligible court decisions that employed generic computer components at a high-level to achieve improvements in commercial processes.
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)).
Therefore, the Examiner maintains the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception and maintains the rejection Step 2A, Prong Two.
Applicant argues on pages 34-36 that the amended claims provides an inventive concept under Step 2B. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above in the full rejection of the claims, the claimed additional elements were evaluated 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. Taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of the claims 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. While Applicant contents that the Examiner has failed to provide factual evidence addressing Berkheimer, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner points specifically to the previous rejection, as well as that updated above that the argued limitations are directed to the abstract idea. For example, as referenced to both previously and above, with respect to verifying… by transmitting a randomized instruction… and determining… that the image data complies with the randomized instruction is directed to the abstract idea. The Examiner underscores that these limitations are being performed by a generic processor and merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., “a live stream is streamed in real time” by transmitting a instruction “to the first client device”) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The background also states that the generic processor performs these limitations at a high level of generality. This description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer.
Further, as referenced to both previously and above, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) outlines various computer functions that he courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. Most notably, the Examiner pointed out that the claimed invention utilized receiving or transmitting data over a network, storing and retrieving information in memory, and presenting offers. As these operations have been expressly noted by the courts, the Examiner has indeed provided factual evidence to the Examiner’s findings. Berkheimer is thereby satisfied.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually and do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Examiner again emphasizes the failure of the disclosure to set forth or describe the amended features, or any improvements that are achieved from or made relative to another technology or technical field. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the improvements manifested by the claimed invention, which include the dependent claims, are improvements to the abstract idea itself, not the computer or another technology or technical field.
Accordingly, the 35 USC §101 rejections are maintained. Due to the claim amendments, new 35 USC §101 rejections have been applied.
Examiner’s Comment
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Reference A of the Notice of References Cited Roe et al. (US 9,875,504 B1) discloses a live stream video of items for sale which can be an auction.
Conclusion
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764 and/or the examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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
/MARISSA THEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689
