DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
This action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed September 16, 2025. Claims 1, 9 and 17 have been amended. Claims 1, 3-9 and 11-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/16/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 3-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claims 1, 9 and 17 the limitation “parsing, by a server, the HTML code to determine that the least one input field presented on a user computer device corresponds to a purchase of a product” is not supported by the original disclosure. The specification states that the “browser application 116 can identify the field by identifying the HTML code of the particular webpage, using web scraping, or recognizing the URL of the webpage as one that presents such a field” [0035]. This does not describe that a server parses the HTML code to determine that at least one input field presented on a user computer device corresponds to a purchase of a product. Accordingly, the limitation is directed to impermissible new matter. Claims 3-8, 11-16 and 18-20 by being dependents of Claims 1, 9 and 17 respectively are also rejected.
In claims 1, 9 and 17 the limitation “the notification being a graphical component that overlays the webpage without modifying the underlying webpage code or content” is not supported by the original disclosure. The specification states that “a notification corresponding to one or more promotional inputs associated with the information present on the first webpage or the at least one user attribute is displayed on a GUI of the user device at step 214” [0057]. The specification does not describe how a graphical notification overlays the webpage without modifying the underlying webpage code or content. The claims do not satisfy the written description requirement if sufficient description of how the claimed function is to be performed are not disclosed by the specification, including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function. See MPEP 2161.01.
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 and 11-20 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.
Specifically, claims 1, 3-9 and 11-20 are directed toward at least one abstract idea without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP 2106, the rationale for this determination is explained below:
Independent claim 1 is directed towards a method, claim 9 is directed towards a system, claim 17 is directed towards a system, which are statutory categories of invention.
Although, claim 1 is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim is nonetheless, directed towards an abstract idea. The limitations that set forth this abstract idea recite: parsing, to determine that at least one input field presented corresponds to a purchase of a product; retrieving, a user profile of a user associated with the user; rendering, a notification corresponding to a plurality of promotional offers associated with the product, the notification being a graphical component that overlays the webpage without modifying the underlying webpage code or content, wherein the plurality of promotional offers corresponding to one or more memberships associated with the user as indicated in the user profile, and wherein ranks the plurality of promotional offers in the notification. These limitations entail commercial interactions including, marketing or sales activities; business relations, as well as managing personal behavior, including following rules or instruction, and are thus, directed towards the abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed as a whole under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements provided by the claim amount to insignificant extra-solution activity and the mere use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. In particular the claim recites the additional element, identifying, by a server, at least one input field of a webpage representing an area where data can be entered based on at least one of identifying HTML code of the webpage, executing web scraping, or recognizing a URL of the webpage as presenting the at least one input field; which amounts to pre-solution data gathering activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). While the additional elements, by the server, the HTML code on a user computer device; by the server, computer device; by the server via a software module executing on the user computer device, on the user computer device; the server; which are recited at a high level of generality are the mere use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Simply adding insignificant extra-solution activities and applying the abstract idea by a computer, is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims 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 technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim only recites additional limitations amounting to extra-solution activity and using a computer to apply the abstract idea. Viewing the limitations individually, the identifying, by a server, at least one input field of a webpage representing an area where data can be entered based on at least one of identifying HTML code of the webpage, executing web scraping, or recognizing a URL of the webpage as presenting the at least one input field, amount to insignificant extra-solution activity because it amounts to necessary data gathering in implementing the aforementioned abstract concept, see MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, it is well known, routine and conventional to identify an input field of a webpage based on HTML code of the webpage, executing web scraping, or recognizing a URL of the webpage. See at least Corrieri et al. (US 20210125262 A1); Li (US 20120095819 A1); Mezzacca. (US 20230041206 A1); Caldwell (US 20190356643 A1); Abdulhayoglu. (US 20200104885 A1); Shao et al. (US 20130166207 A1); Nordstrom (US 20070162260 A1); Joo (US 20060206380 A1).
Moreover, the limitations generically referring to a server, a webpage, URL, a user computer device, software module, webpage code, a processor (claim 9), also, do not constitute significantly more because they simply serve to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment1. Viewing these limitations as a combination, the additional elements amount to no more than merely applying the exception using generic computer components, executing basic functions of a computer. Merely applying an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the limitations of the claim as a whole, when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
An analysis of dependent claims 3-8, likewise, do not recite any limitations that would remedy the deficiencies outlined above as they do not add any elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more. While they may slightly narrow the abstract idea by further describing it, they do not make it less abstract and are rejected accordingly. Further still, claims 9, 11-20 suffer from substantially the same deficiencies as outlined with respect to claims 1, 3-8 and are also rejected accordingly.
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 of this title, 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 1, 4-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US Publication 2012/0095819) in view of Corrieri (US Publication 2021/0125262).
A. In regards to Claims 1, 9 and 17, Li teaches method and systems comprising:
a software module configured to be executed on a user computer device; Li [0086: invention can implement the illustrated logical blocks, devices, components, modules, routines, and steps in methods as hardware, firmware, software, or any combination thereof];
a server in communication with the software module; Li [0307: the invention can enable any Data Processing System, including Client Device or Device Object, to exchange data directly with one or more servers];
identifying, by a server, at least one input field of a webpage representing an area where data can be entered based on at least one of identifying HTML code of the webpage, executing web scraping, or recognizing a URL of the webpage as presenting the at least one input field; Li [0287: web server can be any data processing system, displaying one or more web pages, which can present one or more fields whose input can enable the purchase of an object;
0167: determine parameters of Display of Client Device; the parameters can include, but are not limited to: the position of objects within the display; 0566: a web page displayed by a Data Processing System, can include one or more Media Objects. Identifying the location of the Media Object displayed in the web page can enable the detection of an event selecting the Media Object; to identify the Media Object location can include, but is not limited to: (a) when a browser or other application loads a resource, parsing the source page of the web page to search for Media Objects, which can be identified through any means, e.g., identifying tags describing an object, its source address, and/or its location];
parsing, by a server, the HTML code to determine that the least one input field presented on a user computer device corresponds to a purchase of a product; Li [0566: scan the web page for one or more Media Objects through any means, e.g., by parsing the source page of the web page to search for Media Objects, which can be identified through any means; 0269: invention can enable the reception of data from and/or transmission of data to any type of device and/or object, including, but not limited to, a Data Processing System transmitting data to and/or receiving data from a Client Device where the data can include, but is not limited to, a User Request; 0282: retailer server can be any data processing system capable of executing a variety of functions and/or instructions, including, receiving from any device, any data related to the purchase of one or more objects in a transaction; 0663: e.g., field 39320 can be a field in any resource whose value and/or selection can be an input utilized by Web Server to execute the purchase of an object];
retrieving, by the server, a user profile of a user associated with the user computer device; Li [0006: retrieving from a data structure the data registered by the client device user; 0661: data structure can receive, store, and/or transmit data related to one or more payment accounts held by the user transmitting a user request];
rendering, by the server via a software module executing on the user computer device, a notification on the user computer device corresponding to a plurality of promotional offers associated with the product; Li [0005: user of a wireless device can text "Buy XYZ"; view on the wireless device display a window displaying retailer XYZ offering the XYZ object for a low price, a qualifying coupon, cash back on the payment account held by the user; 0139: display one or more offers from any party, e.g., the Retailer offering Product A, a shipper shipping Product A, and/or a third party, decreasing the expense of shipping Product A];
wherein the plurality of promotional offers corresponding to one or more memberships associated with the user as indicated in the user profile; Li [0129: receive, process, display, and/or transmit any Content in any form describing any data associated with one or more retailers offering Product A, including, but not limited to: the price at which it offers Product A to any set of customers, e.g., members of a Loyalty Program; 0136: content in any form describing one or more discounts directly or indirectly decreasing the unit price of Product A or related objects and/or increasing the number of units of Product A or related objects offered for a given price through any type of Affinity Program, which is defined as any type of program which can offer discounts to members of a group on one or more objects, e.g., one for travel or emergency auto repair; programs based on membership of a demographic group, e.g., senior citizens or students];
and wherein the server ranks the plurality of promotional offers in the notification. Li [0749: rank the qualifying Offers, Rewards, and/or Other Price Reduction Means in order of the probability that each one will be redeemed; execute any method or variation of a method described herein, to estimate the probability of redemption];
additionally and/or alternatively, Corrieri discloses, identifying, by a server, at least one input field of a webpage representing an area where data can be entered based on at least one of identifying HTML code of the webpage, executing web scraping, or recognizing a URL of the webpage as presenting the at least one input field; Corrieri [0102: ruleset may comprise the location of a webpage field within a webpage(s), such as a coupon code input field; 0200: website may be analyzed or scraped to extract all the input fields or form tags from the checkout webpages. The input fields or descriptors along with the input method types may also be extracted. Different HTML parsing tools, such as Beautiful Soup or similar tools, may be utilized to parse the webpages. The identified fields, their tags, and/or their locations used to generate the ruleset or script for automatically filling the form elements];
Li does not specifically disclose, the notification being a graphical component that overlays the webpage without modifying the underlying webpage code or content. This is disclosed by Corrieri, FIG.8, [0173: the user is no longer required to leave the product landing page to complete the checkout process because the checkout modal window may be displayed as an overlay or adjacent to the product landing page].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Li with the teachings from Corrieri with the motivation to facilitate the provision of a maximum benefit in electronic commerce by tracking a current website or application being viewed by a user and automatically populating at least one electronic coupon or coupon code, as well as providing the user with a lower priced option. Corrieri [0007].
B. In regards to Claim 4, 12 and 18, Li discloses, wherein the ranking is in order of benefit being offered to the user. Li [0190: identify a Retailer offering the Object of Interest, in combination with one or more qualifying Offers and payment utilizing a Payment Account, at a desired price level, e.g., the minimum price. For example, compute the sum of: (i) the price of the Object of Interest offered by a retailer; (ii) the value of one or more qualifying Offers associated with the Object of Interest; and/or (iii) the value of the Reward associated with utilizing a payment account; rank the sums; and select that sum which is the minimum].
C. In regards to Claim 5, 13 and 19, Li discloses, wherein the ranking is in order of offering lowest price to be paid being discounted from a retail list price of the product. Li [0116: enable a user to execute automatically one or more actions which can yield the lowest price for an object of interest].
D. In regards to Claims 6, 14 and 20, Li discloses, wherein at least one promotional offer comprises at least one of a referral URL, tracking codes, a duration of applicability, terms and conditions, name of a merchant, an applicable membership level, or descriptive text about at least one promotion. Li [0191: attribute values of the Transaction meet any predefined threshold set by the Offer, e.g., the timing of the Transaction, the number of units of the Object of Interest purchased, and/or the Retailer executing the Transaction, output to an object any data related to the Offer, which can include, but are not limited to: (a) the type of Offer, e.g., "Coupon", "Reward Points", "Cash Back", and/or a text string like "No Qualifying Offer", and/or the value of the Offer, e.g., "Couple Value A", "Affinity Value A", and/or "Reward Value A].
E. In regards to Claims 7 and 15, Li discloses, further comprising: utilizing, by the server via the software module executing on the user computer device, web crawlers to crawl at least one website associated with user membership clubs, banks, and merchants to identify the one or more memberships. Li [0477: a crawler can copy one or more pages including data from retailer data structure and/or index the data to enable retrieval of one or more data; 0309: receive data from one or more Data Processing Systems utilized by a user. The data can be related to and help identify one or more events executed by the user; events can include any event related to an object and/or class of objects, including, but not limited to: a prior purchase of a one-year membership at exercise club ABC].
F. In regards to Claims 8 and 16, Li discloses, further comprising: scanning, by the server via the software module executing on the user computer device, a webpage presented on the user computer device to identify at least one promotional offer. See at least Li [0566: scan the web page for one or more Media Objects through any means, e.g., by parsing the source page of the web page to search for Media Objects, which can be identified through any means].
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US Publication 2012/0095819) in view of Corrieri (US Publication 2021/0125262) in further view of Subbarao (US Publication 2012/0078755).
A. In regards to Claims 3 and 11, Li does not specifically disclose, further comprising: displaying, by the server, an authentication prompt on the user computer device comprising a login field configured to receive login data; this is disclosed by Subbarao [0007: user is authenticated with the server before initiating activities associated with online shopping];
receiving, by the server, the login data; Subbarao [0043: authentication module authenticates user with activity assistant server on the basis of one or more pre-defined credentials; the pre-defined credentials are entered by user in browser through browser application]
and authenticating, by the server, the user computer device based on the login data; Subbarao [0043: it will be apparent to any person skilled in the art that the pre-defined credentials may be a user ID, password, and the like; 0098: server authenticates the user based on the personal credentials provided by the use].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Li with the teachings from Subbarao with the motivation to facilitate a user authentication with a server before initiating activities associated with online shopping in order to tracked activities to the server and enable the server to identify at least one promotion on the basis of the tracked activities, personal details and shopping details. Subbarao [0007].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's filed arguments have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive.
A. Applicant argues regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that the claims are not directed toward an abstract idea because they recite a concrete sequence of browser- centric operations that improve the way webpages are processed and displayed. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims entail commercial interactions including, marketing or sales activities because they are directed to providing notification of promotional offers and discounts to customers. Merely displaying promotional offers on top of a webpage is not a technological improvement of the webpage itself. Moreover, Applicant’s specification provides no technical support/technical evidence that would be apparent to one skilled in the art that the instant claimed invention, when implemented, improves the functioning of the computing device itself, a browser/webpage, or causes an improvement to another technology/technical field.
Applicant submits that the amended claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they provide a technical improvement to browser systems by generating user specific notification. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not add an improvement that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. They merely provide extra-solution activity because they are used to gather necessary data used in implementing the abstract idea of providing customer promotional discounts and offers. Even assuming arguendo, that a user specific notification represents an improvement as it displays promotional offers that are relevant to the user, this still would not render the claims eligible as this would be an improvement to the abstract idea and not to any technology. Applicant further contends that asserting that the claimed computer components only limit the abstract idea to a technical environment, overlooks the claim reciting concrete, browser-specific operations that improve the way a browser functions. However, this is not compelling as simply applying abstract ideas by generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea, or an inventive concept that would amount to significantly more. See at least, TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea”).
Applicant argues that the claims satisfy the improvements consideration identified in the August 4, 2025 memorandum because they recite a particular technological solution by correlating detected purchase fields with user-specific memberships and dynamically ranking offers, to solve the problem of hidden or forgotten discount codes at the precise moment of purchase, which is a problem that conventional browsers did not address. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As distinguished by the August 4th Memo, invoking computers as tools to apply an abstract idea, as oppose to solving a technological problem, does not confer patent eligibility. Detected purchase fields with user-specific memberships and dynamically ranking promotions offered to users, solves an entrepreneurial problem rather than a technological one. Notwithstanding, even if this was a problem that conventional browsers did not address, it would not necessarily significantly more. As even newly discovered judicial exceptions are still exceptions, despite their novelty. For example, the mathematical formula in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 591-92, 198 USPQ 193, 198 (1978), the laws of nature in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 73-74, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968 (2012), and the isolated DNA in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116, 106 USPQ2d 1972, 1978 (2013) were all novel, but were considered by the Supreme Court to be judicial exceptions. See MPEP 2106.04.I.
Based on the foregoing, the claims, in view of Alice, do not connote an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is maintained.
B. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection, Examiner has found the amended limitations in the prior art as shown in the rejections above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Errol CARVALHO whose telephone number is (571) 272-9987. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30-7:00 Alt Fri.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E CARVALHO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
1 See, Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2360 (2014) (noting that none of the hardware recited “offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,’ that is, implementation via computers” (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010))).