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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/15/2025 has been entered.
Claims Status
Claims 2-3 are cancelled.
Claims 1 and 4-12 remain pending and stand rejected.
Response to Arguments
I. Applicant arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Initially, the Examiner acknowledges the added additional elements (e.g., man-machine interface, machine learning model). With respect to the man-machine interface, the specification does not describe any specific interface or particular functionality of the man-machine interface. As is known in the art, a man-machine interface can include any hardware or software that is used to translate user (i.e., human) input into commands and present results to a user (https://www.britannica.com/technology/human-machine-interface).
Concerning the machine learning module, this is discussed only at a high level in e.g., paragraph 0035, and the claims merely utilize the machine learning module as generic hardware/software to facilitate the abstract process for gift recommendation and selection. The Examiner also draws Applicant’s attention to Recentive Analytics, Inc v. Fox Corp (Fed Cir, 2023-2437, 4/18/2025), which held claims to the use of machine learning for generation of network maps and schedules for television broadcasts and live events to be ineligible. The court affirmed the district court in upholding the determination the patents are directed to the abstract idea of using a generic machine learning technique in a particular environment. The current claims are at an even higher level of generality than Recentive, for which the court maintained their finding despite the recitation of an “iterative” training process.
Utilizing the man-machine interface, the machine learning module, and the other previously addressed additional elements does not move to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here again, the Examiner reiterates the additional elements of the claims are recited only 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 an abstract idea). Accordingly, the rejection has been maintained and updated below in view of the amended features.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 and 4-12 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 has been amended to recite receiving giver selection information through the man-machine interface of the giver terminal device and relocating the candidate gift items to generate, by the processing unit, a gifting list from the candidate gift items according to the giver selecting information from the giver terminal device. The term “relocating” renders the claim indefinite because the “re” prefix indicates the performance of something (i.e., locating) “again”. The claims do not specify an initial “locating”, however. Further, it is unclear whether “relocating” indicates a second “locating” of candidate gift items, or alternatively whether this refers to some form of re-positioning of the candidate gift items. The term is not used in the spec, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the metes and bounds of the term and what the claim limitation may require.
Regarding dependent claims 4-11, claims 4-11 are rejected with claim 1 because they inherit the deficiencies of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claim 12 is rejected under at least similar rationale.
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 and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1 and 4-12, under Step 2A claims 1 and 4-12 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites an e-gifting method comprises (underlining/emphasis added):
receiving, by the processing unit, gift filtering information and receiver information through a man-machine interface of a giver terminal device;
analyzing, by the processing unit, the receiver information to obtain detailed information items and giving calculation weights to the detailed information items;
using the processing unit to obtain scores of product items corresponding to the detailed information items, inventory, and popularity;
using the processing unit to obtain for each product item, a value by adding up products obtained by multiplying the scores by corresponding calculation weights to obtain a value;
using, by the processing unit, the value to generate a candidate gift list according to the gift filtering information and the receiver information, wherein the candidate gift list comprises a plurality of candidate gift items;
displaying the candidate gift list on a man-machine interface of the giver terminal device;
receiving giver selection information through the man-machine interface of the giver terminal device and relocating the candidate gift items to generate, by the processing unit, a gifting list from the candidate gift items according to giver selecting information from the giver terminal device, wherein the gifting list comprises a plurality of gifting gift items; and
displaying the gifting list on a man-machine interface of the receiver terminal device;
receiving receiver selecting information through the man-machine interface of the receiver terminal device and generating, by the processing unit, a selected gift item from the gifting gift items according to the receiver selecting information;
wherein the computer device is connected to a storage server, the storage server comprises inventory information, and the processing unit generates the candidate gift list according to the gift filtering information, the receiver information and the inventory information, and
wherein the step of generating, by the processing unit, the gifting list from the candidate gift items according to the giver selecting information from the giver terminal device comprises generating, by the processing unit, an instruction to the storage server to hide the gifting gift items in the inventory information;
wherein the e-gifting method further comprises:
determining, by the processing unit, whether the selected gift item is a physical gift or a digital gift:
when the selected gift item is a physical gift, by the processing unit, instructing a storage server to send the physical gift to the receiver, and
when the selected gift item is a digital gift, by the processing unit, instructing a gift server to send a download link to the receiver terminal device.
These limitations recite organizing human activity, such as by performing commercial interactions (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). This is because claim 1 sets forth or describes a procedure for recommending gifts and receiving gift selections, as evidenced by the emphasized limitations. This represents the performance of a marketing and/or sales activity, which is a commercial interaction and falls under organizing human activity.
Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 does recite additional elements, including (emphasis added in bold):
1. (Currently Amended) An e-gifting method, performed by a computer device, wherein the computer device comprises a processing unit, and the e-gifting method comprises:
receiving, by the processing unit, gift filtering information and receiver information through a man-machine interface of a giver terminal device;
analyzing, by the processing unit, the receiver information to obtain detailed information items and giving calculation weights to the detailed information items;
using the processing unit to obtain scores of product items corresponding to the detailed information items, inventory, and popularity;
using the processing unit to obtain for each product item, adding up products obtained by multiplying the scores by corresponding calculation weights to obtain a value;
using, by the processing unit, the value to generate a candidate gift list according to the gift filtering information and the receiver information, wherein the candidate gift list comprises a plurality of candidate gift items;
displaying the candidate gift list on a man-machine interface of the giver terminal device;
receiving giver selection information through the man-machine interface of the giver terminal device and relocating the candidate gift items to generate, by the processing unit, a gifting list from the candidate gift items according to giver selecting information from the giver terminal device, wherein the gifting list comprises a plurality of gifting gift items;
displaying the gifting list on a man-machine interface of the receiver terminal device;
receiving receiver selecting information through the man-machine interface of the receiver terminal device and generating, by the processing unit, a selected gift item from the gifting gift items according to the receiver selecting information;
wherein the computer device is connected to a storage server, the storage server comprises inventory information, and the processing unit generates the candidate gift list according to the gift filtering information, the receiver information and the inventory information, and
wherein the step of generating, by the processing unit, the gifting list from the candidate gift items according to the giver selecting information from the giver terminal device comprises generating, by the processing unit, an instruction to the storage server to hide the gifting gift items in the inventory information;
wherein the e-gifting method further comprises:
determining, by the processing unit, whether the selected gift item is a physical gift or a digital gift:
when the selected gift item is a physical gift, by the processing unit, instructing a storage server to send the physical gift to the receiver, and
when the selected gift item is a digital gift, by the processing unit, instructing a gift server to send a download link to the receiver terminal 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. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 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 an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does 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 claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 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. Neither does claim 1 reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding dependent claims 4-11, dependent claims 4-11 recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself, and at least inherit the abstract idea of claim 1. As such, claims 4-11 are understood to recite an abstract idea under step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 4-11 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, claims 4-11 rely upon at least similar additional elements as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Further additional elements such as a social networking site (claim 6) are also recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements in dependent claims 4-11 remain recited only 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 an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 4-11 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 4-11 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claim 12 is rejected under at least similar rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Though rejected on other grounds, claims 1 and 4-12 are allowable over the prior art for at least the reasons discussed in the Non-Final Action mailed 3/5/2025 (p. 9-11). Those reasons are incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
WILLIAM J. ALLEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/WILLIAM J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619