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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/4/2025 has been entered.
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, 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because 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.
Claim 1 is directed towards a device, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 1 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction/fundamental economic practice, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: search for purchases commodities purchased on an electronic market by a user who received information sent from at least one of a plurality of senders who can be requested to advertise a target commodity / for each of the plurality of senders, select a representative commodity from the purchased commodities / present a candidate list, in which the selected representative commodity is correlated with each of the plurality of senders / each sender of the plurality of senders is a deliverer who delivers motion video / wherein the user is a viewer who viewed the motion video delivered from the deliverer. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm: “an objective of the disclosure is to provide a server device…method…computer readable media , which can support an advertiser in making a request for advertisement to an appropriate sender”, “According to the present disclosure, an advertiser can be supported in making a request for advertisement to a more appropriate sender”, “Thus, it becomes easier to determine a deliverer whose viewers match with the purchaser base for the target commodity of the advertiser, and the advertiser can select an appropriate deliverer. Specifically, since actual commodity examples purchased by viewers, together with the influence, are presented, the advertiser can select the deliverer who is to be requested, with agreement in an easy-to-understand manner. As a result, a support can be provided for the advertiser to make a request for advertisement to a more appropriate deliverer”. Claim 1 also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept – i.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: for each of the plurality of senders, select a representative commodity from the purchased commodities / search for purchases commodities purchased on an electronic market by a user who received information sent from at least one of a plurality of senders who can be requested to advertise a target commodity. These claimed limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements- see below, thus still being in the mental process category.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the additional elements of a memory / processor/ server device / advertiser terminal , which represent generic computing elements. The additional elements do not , alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 8, 9 are directed to a method and computer readable media for performing similar claimed limitations to those of claim 1, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. The claims recite the same abstract idea as Claim 1. Claims 8, 9 perform the claimed limitations using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claims 8, 9 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 1.
Remaining dependent claims 3-7 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of the independent claims themselves. The claims do not recite any additional elements. There are no other additional elements that, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1/8/9/ recite the limitations of: “search for purchased commodities…by a user who received information from at least one of a plurality of senders” (Emphasis added by the Examiner), “for each of the plurality of senders, select a representative commodity from the searched purchased commodities” (Emphasis added by the Examiner) , which are indefinite/unclear, thus rendering the metes and bounds of the claims above indefinite/unclear – i.e. if the search for a purchased commodity is with regards to a user who received information from only one sender of the plurality of senders, it is unclear how a representative commodity from the searched commodities can be selected “for each of the plurality of senders” (i.e. a plurality of senders requires, applying the common definition of a “plurality”, at least two senders). For Examination purposes, Examiner will consider the limitation of “for each of the plurality of senders, select a representative commodity from the searched purchased commodities” as “for the at least one respective sender of the plurality of senders, select a representative commodity from the searched purchased commodities”. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Khan (20210065236).
As per Claims 1, 8, 9, Khan discloses a device, method and CRM comprising:
memory storing a program; a processor at least one processor, wherein the program, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the server device to: (the memory and processor /server represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations. At least: para 55, 85)
search for purchased commodities purchased on an electronic market by a user who received information sent from at least one of a plurality of senders who can be requested to advertise a target commodity (at least: para 15, abstract)
for each of the plurality of senders, select a representative commodity from the searched purchased commodities and present a candidate list, in which the selected representative commodity is correlated with each of the plurality of senders, to an advertiser terminal (the terminal represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. At least: para 75, 45, 48)
,wherein each sender of the plurality of senders is a deliverer who delivers motion video, and wherein the user is a viewer who viewed the motion video delivered from the deliverer. (at least: abstract, para 15)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Khan (20210065236) in further view of Jain (10102559).
As per Claim 3, Jain teaches:
the selection of the representative commodity is executed based on at least any one of a time of purchase of … degree of correlation between the purchased commodities and the target commodity. (at least: col2: “Purchase-history-based related items typically represent complementary items commonly purchased together with an item under consideration, while view-history-based related items typically represent similar alternatives or substitutes explored by users. When a list of purchase-history-based related items is presented on an item detail page or elsewhere, the related items are typically listed in a ranked order in which the ranking is based on the degree of purchase-based similarity to the reference item.”)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Khan’s existing features, with Jain’s feature of the selection of the representative commodity is executed based on at least any one of a time of purchase of … degree of correlation between the purchased commodities and the target commodity, to rank items by using item similarity data – Jain, abstract. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 4, Jain teaches:
the selected representative commodities include a first representative commodity selected from the purchased commodities with a high degree of correlation with the target commodity, and a second representative commodity selected from the purchased commodities with a low degree of correlation with the target commodity. (at least: abstract, col 2: “Purchase-history-based related items typically represent complementary items commonly purchased together with an item under consideration, while view-history-based related items typically represent similar alternatives or substitutes explored by users. When a list of purchase-history-based related items is presented on an item detail page or elsewhere, the related items are typically listed in a ranked order in which the ranking is based on the degree of purchase-based similarity to the reference item.”)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Khan’s existing features, with Jain’s feature of the selected representative commodities include a first representative commodity selected from the purchased commodities with a high degree of correlation with the target commodity, and a second representative commodity selected from the purchased commodities with a low degree of correlation with the target commodity, to rank items by using item similarity data – Jain, abstract. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 5, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Khan (20210065236) in further view of Fischer (20170228777).
As per Claim 5, Fischer teaches:
the processer further executes narrowing down of the plurality of senders, the narrow-down being based on at least any one of a popularity of the sender, an advertisement fee for making a request to the sender, and a degree of correlation between a sending content of the sender and the target commodity. (at least: abstract, claim 1)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Khan’s existing features, with Fischer’s feature of the processer further executes narrow-down of the senders, the narrow-down being based on at least any one of a popularity of the sender, an advertisement fee for making a request to the sender, and a degree of correlation between a sending content of the sender and the target commodity, to rank merchants based on a popularity score – Fischer, abstract. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 6, Fischer teaches:
Evaluate an influence of each sender of the plurality of senders, and in the presented candidate list, the plurality of senders sorted in accordance with the evaluated influence are correlated with the representative commodities. (at least: abstract, claim 1)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Jain’s existing features, with Fischer’s feature of evaluating an influence of the sender, and in the presented candidate list, the senders sorted in accordance with the evaluated influence are correlated with the representative commodities, to rank merchants based on a popularity score – Fischer, abstract. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Khan (20210065236) in further view of Ho (20070078717).
As per Claim 7, Ho teaches:
accept a sender to whom a request is made, the sender being selected in the advertiser terminal to which the candidate list is presented; make a request for the advertisement of the target commodity to the accepted sender. (at least: para 11, fig7 and related/associated text)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Khan’s existing features, with Ho’s feature of the processor further executes: accept a sender to whom a request is made, the sender being selected in the advertiser terminal to which the candidate list is presented; make a request for the advertisement of the target commodity to the accepted sender, to prioritize ads for presentation – Ho, para 2.
Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. Applicant argues with substance:
At least the above-underlined features render the claims patent-eligible, because the claims embody a technical solution to a technical problem. In other words, even if one were to interpret claim 1 as reciting an abstract idea, the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. This technical problem is described in paragraphs [0005] and [0006], in that in existing systems, advertisers did not have a software system that could select which influencers deliver advertisements for a given commodity. This claim provides a technical solution to this technical problem, by providing a specialized computer system that performs: "for each of the plurality of senders, select a representative commodity from the searched purchased commodities; and present a candidate list, in which the selected representative commodity is correlated with each of the plurality of senders, to an advertiser terminal." In view of the foregoing, independent claim 1 meets the requirements for patent eligibility. Claims 8 and 9 are similarly amended and patent-eligible for at least the same reasons. Based on their patent-eligibility, the pending rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is improper and should be withdrawn.
The pending claims do recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself, as noted above. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm, and describes the claimed invention as seeking to, when implemented, at best optimize a business practice/goal: “an objective of the disclosure is to provide a server device…method…computer readable media , which can support an advertiser in making a request for advertisement to an appropriate sender”, “According to the present disclosure, an advertiser can be supported in making a request for advertisement to a more appropriate sender”, “Thus, it becomes easier to determine a deliverer whose viewers match with the purchaser base for the target commodity of the advertiser, and the advertiser can select an appropriate deliverer. Specifically, since actual commodity examples purchased by viewers, together with the influence, are presented, the advertiser can select the deliverer who is to be requested, with agreement in an easy-to-understand manner. As a result, a support can be provided for the advertiser to make a request for advertisement to a more appropriate deliverer”. Selecting which influencers deliver ads for a given commodity represents a business practice/goal, not other technology/technical field; thus, improving this practice pertains to a business practice optimization, not to an improvement to other technology/technical field. There is no technical support/technical evidence in the Applicant’s Spec., including the paras referenced above by the Applicant, that the claimed invention, when implemented, improves the functioning of the computing device itself or other technology/technical field. See Office Action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101 analysis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; Applicant argues with substance:
Claims 1 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being allegedly indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 1, 5-6, and 8-9 have been amended to resolve the alleged antecedent basis issues. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections under § 112(b).
The 35 USC 112 rejection of claims 1, 3-9 has been overcome and has been withdrawn.
Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 1, 8, and 9, when considered as a whole, integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that claim 1 provides a specific, technically implemented solution to a technological problem identified in conventional deliverer-driven “live commerce” systems.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, even if a claim recites a judicial exception, it may nevertheless be patent-eligible if it integrates that exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such integration is by showing that the claim provides a technological improvement — i.e., a particular solution to a technological problem. See MPEP 2106.05(a) (mentioning that this consideration has been referred to as “the search for a technological solution to a technological problem. See e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1105 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Amdocs (Israel), Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1300-01, 120 USPQ2d 1527, 1537 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”). In evaluating whether the claim reflects a technological improvement, the specification should be reviewed to determine whether it provides sufficient technical detail such that one of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as offering such an improvement. See MPEP 2106(d)(1). The specification is not required to explicitly identify the improvement; rather, it need only describe the invention in in sufficient detail such that the improvement would be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. /d. If the specification describes a technological improvement, the claim must be examined to ensure that it reflects that improvement. /d.; see also U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off, Memorandum from Charles Kim, Deputy Comm’r for Pat., to Technology Centers 2100, 2600, and 3600, Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, at 4 (Aug. 4, 2025), (reminding Examiners to consult the specification to “determine whether the disclosed invention improves technology or a technical field, and evaluate the claim to ensure it reflects the disclosed improvement”). As described in the Specification, in conventional systems, a deliverer (or “‘sender”) selects products to advertise, and — if approved by the advertiser — can promote them via live video. See Spec. at [0003]. Because such advertising is initiated by the deliverer, the advertiser cannot proactively select the most suitable deliverer for its products. See id. at [0005]. Advertisers are therefore limited to deliverers who happen to request to promote their products, even when those deliverers’ viewers do not align with the advertiser’s target audience. See id. Accordingly, the Specification identifies a technical need for mechanisms that identify and connect advertisers with deliverers whose audiences are best suited for the advertiser’s products. To address this need, the Specification discloses a support server that technically implements a curated candidate list of deliverers who are well-matched to the advertiser’s products. See id. at [0020]. Specifically, the support server searches commodities purchased by viewers on an electronic marketplace, associates those purchases with the deliverers whose content those viewers previously consumed (e.g., which live videos they watched), selects a representative commodity that the viewers of each deliverer tend to purchase, and generates a candidate list that correlates each deliverer with such representative commodity. See id. at [0097 ]-[0106]. This candidate list enables advertisers to efficiently identify deliverers whose audiences are more likely to purchase their products, thereby improving the functioning of live- commerce advertising systems. See id. at [0020]. Independent claims 1, 8, and 9 embody this technical solution. For example, claim 1 recites, in relevant part (emphasis added): A server device, comprising: memory storing a program; at least one processor, wherein the program, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the server device to: search for purchased commodities purchased on an electronic market by a user who received information sent from at least one of a plurality of senders who can be requested to advertise a target commodity; for each of the plurality of senders, select a representative commodity from the searched purchased commodities; and present a candidate list, in which the selected representative commodity is correlated with each of the plurality of senders, to an advertiser terminal . . . Thus, the Specification and the claims together disclose a technically implemented process in which a specially configured server device processes purchase-history data and sender-viewer relationships to automatically generate a candidate list that surfaces deliverers whose audiences align with the advertiser’s target commodity. By enabling advertisers to direct advertisement requests to technically identified and data-driven deliverers, the independent claims reflect an improvement in the operation of live-commerce systems and integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Despite this clear technical improvement, the Office has taken the position that independent claim 1 is nevertheless patent ineligible, for allegedly being directed to a mental process performed in conjunction with computer components recited at a high level of generality — clearly eschewing the teachings of Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. See Enfish, 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims directed to a technological improvement in the functioning of a computer, or other technology or technical fields, are patent-eligible). Specifically, the Office Action appears to base ineligibility solely on the conclusion that the claims recite a “mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper,” without analyzing whether the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. See Office Action at pp. 1-2. The Office Action then summarily concludes that the additional elements “do not improve the functioning of the computer or other technology” without explanation. See id. at pp. 3-4. While mental processes may be abstract ideas, the analysis does not end there. The Examiner must consider whether the claims, viewed as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The Office Action omits this required analysis, offering only a conclusory statement that no technical improvement is present — without addressing Applicant’s prior arguments establishing such improvement. As emphasized by Deputy Commissioner Charles Kim, Examiners from Technology Center 3600, among others, are cautioned “not to oversimplify claim limitations and expand the application of the ‘apply it’ consideration” in determining whether a claim is integrated into a practical application, and that improvements in technical fields must be considered in determining patent eligibility. See U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off., Memorandum from Charles Kim, Deputy Comm’r for Pat., to Technology Centers 2100, 2600, and 3600, Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, at 4 (Aug. 4, 2025). Likewise, in Ex parte Desjardins, the Appeals Review Panel (including Director Squires) reiterated the importance of adhering to the precedent under Enfish in determining patent eligibility in vacating the § 101 rejection — specifically, that claims directed to improvements in technical fields are patent-eligible. See Ex parte Desjardins at pp. 9-10 (admonishing the panel’s substitution of a cursory analysis for the well-settled precedent under Enfish and its progeny). Accordingly, when properly evaluated in view of the Specification and controlling precedent, independent claim | (and correspondingly claims 8 and 9) recites a specific, technologically meaningful improvement in live-commerce advertising systems. The claims, as a whole, integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and is therefore patent- eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two of the Alice/Mayo framework.
Applicant’s argument is not considered persuasive, and the Examiner maintains the 35 USC 101 rejection, as noted above. As noted above, the pending claims do recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application nor do they represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself. When performing the 35 USC 101 analysis, the Examiner has followed the current MPEP guidance, as well as considered the recent Memorandum. Claims 1, 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because 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. Claim 1 is directed towards a device, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 1 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction/fundamental economic practice, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: search for purchases commodities purchased on an electronic market by a user who received information sent from at least one of a plurality of senders who can be requested to advertise a target commodity / for each of the plurality of senders, select a representative commodity from the purchased commodities / present a candidate list, in which the selected representative commodity is correlated with each of the plurality of senders / each sender of the plurality of senders is a deliverer who delivers motion video / wherein the user is a viewer who viewed the motion video delivered from the deliverer. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm: “an objective of the disclosure is to provide a server device…method…computer readable media , which can support an advertiser in making a request for advertisement to an appropriate sender”, “According to the present disclosure, an advertiser can be supported in making a request for advertisement to a more appropriate sender”, “Thus, it becomes easier to determine a deliverer whose viewers match with the purchaser base for the target commodity of the advertiser, and the advertiser can select an appropriate deliverer. Specifically, since actual commodity examples purchased by viewers, together with the influence, are presented, the advertiser can select the deliverer who is to be requested, with agreement in an easy-to-understand manner. As a result, a support can be provided for the advertiser to make a request for advertisement to a more appropriate deliverer”. Claim 1 also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept – i.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: for each of the plurality of senders, select a representative commodity from the purchased commodities / search for purchases commodities purchased on an electronic market by a user who received information sent from at least one of a plurality of senders who can be requested to advertise a target commodity. These claimed limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements- see below, thus still being in the mental process category. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the additional elements of a memory / processor/ server device / advertiser terminal , which represent generic computing elements. The additional elements do not , alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible. Independent claims 8, 9 are directed to a method and computer readable media for performing similar claimed limitations to those of claim 1, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. The claims recite the same abstract idea as Claim 1. Claims 8, 9 perform the claimed limitations using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claims 8, 9 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 1. Remaining dependent claims 3-7 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of the independent claims themselves. The claims do not recite any additional elements. There are no other additional elements that, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm, and describes the claimed invention as seeking to, when implemented, at best optimize a business practice/goal: “an objective of the disclosure is to provide a server device…method…computer readable media , which can support an advertiser in making a request for advertisement to an appropriate sender”, “According to the present disclosure, an advertiser can be supported in making a request for advertisement to a more appropriate sender”, “Thus, it becomes easier to determine a deliverer whose viewers match with the purchaser base for the target commodity of the advertiser, and the advertiser can select an appropriate deliverer. Specifically, since actual commodity examples purchased by viewers, together with the influence, are presented, the advertiser can select the deliverer who is to be requested, with agreement in an easy-to-understand manner. As a result, a support can be provided for the advertiser to make a request for advertisement to a more appropriate deliverer”. Selecting which influencers deliver ads for a given commodity represents a business practice/goal, not other technology/technical field; thus, improving this practice pertains to a business practice optimization, not to an improvement to other technology/technical field. There is no technical support/technical evidence in the Applicant’s Spec., including the paras referenced above by the Applicant, that the claimed invention, when implemented, improves the functioning of the computing device itself or other technology/technical field. See Office Action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101 analysis.
Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 1 is patentable over the cited references. In particular, Khan fails to teach or suggest selecting a representative commodity for each of the plurality of senders. The Office Action relies on paragraphs [0045], [0048], and [0075] of Khan as allegedly disclosing this feature. See Office Action at p. 6. However, these cited portions of Khan do not teach or even suggest such functionality. Paragraph [0045] describes the use of "predefined influencer rules" to withhold opportunities from influencers who have previously promoted products of the same type. Paragraph [0048] sets forth a verification process in which a brand may confirm an influencer who has selected its opportunity. Paragraph [0075] explains how the system tracks engagement data for advertisements using brand and influencer pointers, allowing brands to monitor engagement metrics such as views, clicks, scrolls, and purchases over time. While Khan records which products are purchased through an influencer's advertisement and associates those transactions with the influencer, this merely represents tracking advertisement performance - it does not involve selecting a representative commodity from the searched purchased commodities for each sender, as required by claim 1. At most, Khan discloses recording products purchased during an influencer's advertisement (See e.g., Khan at [0075]) and influencer profiles that may include conversion rates for certain brand categories (See e.g., Khan at [0013], [0075]). Accordingly, Khan fails to anticipate independent claim 1. As such, independent claim 1 is patentable over Khan, and the other cited references.
Claims 1/8/9 are disclosed by Khan, as noted above: Claims 1, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Khan (20210065236). As per Claims 1, 8, 9, Khan discloses a device, method and CRM comprising:
memory storing a program; a processor at least one processor, wherein the program, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the server device to: (the memory and processor /server represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations. At least: para 55, 85)
search for purchased commodities purchased on an electronic market by a user who received information sent from at least one of a plurality of senders who can be requested to advertise a target commodity (at least: para 15, abstract)
for each of the plurality of senders, select a representative commodity from the searched purchased commodities and present a candidate list, in which the selected representative commodity is correlated with each of the plurality of senders, to an advertiser terminal (the terminal represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. At least: para 75, 45, 48)
,wherein each sender of the plurality of senders is a deliverer who delivers motion video, and wherein the user is a viewer who viewed the motion video delivered from the deliverer. (at least: abstract, para 15)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandru Cirnu whose telephone number is (571) 272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. 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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
11/7/2025