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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 20, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 8 and 18 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-7, 9-17, 19 and 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-7, 9-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 11-17 and 19-20 are drawn to methods while claim(s) 1-7, 9 and 10 are drawn to an apparatus. As such, claims 1-7, 9-17, 19 and 20 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
Claim 11 (representative of independent claim(s) 1) recites the following steps:
receiving a search request
displaying a list of at least one products in response to the search request;
storing the list of at least one products
receiving a selection of a first product from the list of at least one products
displaying the first product
determining at least one [information] of the first product and a weight for each of the at least one [information] of the first product, wherein the at least one [information] comprises product attribute category [information]and social interaction category [information];
determining at least one second products;
calculating a score for each of the at least one second products based on the first product; ranking the at least one second products by the score; and in response to receiving a request to redisplay the list of at least one products,
retrieving the list of at least one products
providing, for display together with the list of at least one products, the at least one second products, minus the first product, by:
splitting the list of at least one products into a first portion of the list of at least one products and a second portion of the list of the at least one products
inserting the at least one second products to the list of at least one products, between the first portion and the second portion.
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) presenting similar product recommendations for selection by a user (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "mental processes" subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Alternatively, these steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass mathematical relationships. See “calculating a score…” These limitations therefore fall within the “mathematical concepts” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 11 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 1 is determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of:
user interface
a user device
a cache;
signals
A computerized system for dynamically generating modified user interfaces, the system comprising: at least one storage device comprising instructions; at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform the steps of:
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on producing the abstract idea and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A -Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above in "Step 2A - Prong 2", the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words "apply it" on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding Dependent Claims:
Dependent claims 2-7, 9, 12-17 and 19 fail to include any additional elements and are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner.
Dependent claims 10 and 20 include additional limitations that are part of the abstract idea except for:
a user device
The additional elements of the dependent claims are equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/ (a)(2) as being anticipated by Dicker (2010/0191582).
Claims 1 and 11
Dicker discloses dynamically generating modified user interfaces for presenting similar product recommendations for easy selection by a user:
A computerized system for dynamically generating modified user interfaces, the system comprising: at least one storage device comprising instructions; at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform the steps of (Dicker [0170]):
receiving a search request from a user device (Dicker [0043]); See at least “The site is preferably arranged such that, in order to access the detail page of a product, a user ordinarily must either select a link associated with that product ( e.g., from a browse node page or search results page) or submit a search query uniquely identifying the product. Thus, access by a user to a product's detail page generally represents an affirmative request by the user for information about that product.”
displaying, on a user interface on the user device, a list of at least one products in response to the search request (Dicker [0043]); See at least “Detailed information about each product can be obtained by accessing that product's detail page. (As used herein, a "detail page" is a page that predominantly contains information about a particular product or other item.) In a preferred embodiment, each product detail page typically includes a description, picture, and price of the product, customer reviews of the product, lists of related products, and information about the product's availability.”
storing the list of at least one products in a cache (Dicker [0170]); See at least “the system includes an HTTP/XML application 37 that monitors clicks (page requests) of users, and records information about certain types of events within a click stream table 39. The click stream table is preferably stored in a cache memory…”
receiving a selection of a first product from the list of at least one products from the user device; displaying the first product to the user device for display on the user interface (Dicker [0052]); See at least “if the user currently has three items in his or her shopping cart [selection of first product], these three items can be treated as the items of known interest for purposes of generating recommendations, in which case the recommendations may be generated and displayed automatically when the user views the shopping cart contents…”
determining at least one signals of the first product and a weight for each of the at least one signals of the first product, wherein the at least one signals comprises product attribute category signals and social interaction category signals (Dicker [0051]); See at least “The similar items lists read from the table are appropriately weighted (prior to being combined) based on indicia of the user's affinity for or current interest in the corresponding items of known interest. For example, in one embodiment described below, if the item of known interest was previously rated by the user ( such as through use of the BookMatcher service), the rating is used to weight the corresponding similar items list.”
determining at least one second products; calculating a score for each of the at least one second products based on the at least one signals of the first product (Dicker [0083]); See at least “the items of known interest are selected from one or more of the following groups: (a) items in the user's purchase history (optionally limited to those items purchased from a particular shopping cart); (b) items in the user's shopping cart ( or a particular shopping cart designated by the user), (c) items rated by the user ( optionally with a score that exceeds a certain threshold
ranking the at least one second products by the score; and in response to receiving a request to redisplay the list of at least one products (Dicker [0087]); See at least “If multiple similar items lists 64 are retrieved in step 82, the lists are appropriately combined (step 86), preferably by merging the lists while summing or otherwise combining the scores of like items. The resulting list is then sorted (step 88) in order of highest-to-lowest score.”
retrieving the list of at least one products from the cache (Dicker [0173]); See at least “Recommendations component 52 accesses the user's cached session record to identify the products the user has viewed, and then uses some or all of these products as the "items of known interest" for generating the personal recommendations.”
providing, to the user device for display together with the list of at least one products, the at least one second products, minus the first product, by: splitting the list of at least one products into a first portion of the list of at least one products and a second portion of the list of the at least one products;
inserting the at least one second products to the list of at least one products, between the first portion and the second portion (Dickers [Figure 14][0197]). See [0197] “The shopping cart add page (FIG. 14) displays a condensed view or representation 600 of the shopping cart, with some of the information and controls provided on the regular shopping cart page (FIG. 15) omitted. The page also includes multiple recommendations sections 610-618, each of which preferably displays a different set of recommended items selected from the catalog according to a different respective selection process.”
Claims 2 and 12
Dicker discloses:
wherein the social interaction data are based on: number of instances when a second product is clicked on before the first product was viewed during a session (Dickers [0170]); See at least “the system includes an HTTP/XML application 37 that monitors clicks (page requests) of users, and records information about certain types of events within a click stream table 39.”
Examiner note: that claims 2 and 12 recites a list comprising the word "or". "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Therefore, Examiner is not required to demonstrate every alternative claimed.
Claims 3 and 13
Dicker discloses:
wherein determining the at least one second products comprises:
determining a second product having a high level of social interaction with the first product (Dicker [0015]). See at least “product viewing histories of users are recorded and analyzed to identify items that tend to be viewed in combination ( e.g., products A and B are similar because a significant number of those who viewed A also viewed B during the same browsing session.”
Claims 4 and 14
Dicker discloses:
wherein the product attributes comprise:
a listing price (Dicker [0043]); See at least “each product detail page typically includes a description, picture, and price of the product, customer reviews of the product, lists of related products, and information about the product's availability.
at least one category to which the first product belongs to (Dicker 0171]); See “when the user views a browse node page ( a page corresponding to a node of a browse tree in which the items are arranged by category)…”
at least one property of the first product (Dicker [0043]). See at least “each product detail page typically includes a description, picture, and price of the product, customer reviews of the product, lists of related products, and information about the product's availability [property].
Claims 5 and 15
Dicker discloses:
wherein the at least one properties of the first product is received from a seller of the first product Dickers [0038]). See “the term "product" will be used to refer generally to both (a) something that may be purchased, and (b) its record or description within a database (e.g., a Sony Walkman and its description within a products database.)”
Claims 6 and 16
Dicker discloses:
extracting the at least one properties of the first product from a name of the first product (Dicker [01803]). See at least “For purposes of illustration, product identification fields of sample records in FIG. 10 are represented by product names, although a more compact identification may be used.”
Claims 7 and 17
Dicker discloses:
wherein the high level of social interaction comprises:
prior searching history or prior browsing history of a user (Dickers [0176]); See “Each record in the click stream table corresponds to a particular user and browsing session, and includes the following information about the session: a session ID, a list of IDs of product detail pages viewed, a list of page IDs of browse nodes viewed (i.e., nodes of a browse tree in which products are arranged by category), and a list of search queries submitted ( and optionally the results of such search queries).”
the second product and the first product were viewed during a same session; or the second product and the first product were referenced in a same comment (Dickers [0191]). See at least “the detail page for an MP3 player may include a list of any other MP3 players, or of any other electronics products, the user has recently viewed.”
Examiner notes: Claim 7 recites a list comprising the word "or". "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Therefore, Examiner is not required to demonstrate every alternative claimed.
Claims 9 and 19
Dicker discloses:
in response to receiving a request to redisplay the list of at least one products, updating the list of at least one products to include the at least one second products (Dicker [0209]). See “in steps 656 and 658, the page is populated with the condensed shopping cart view 600 and the recommendations sections, and is returned to the user.”
Claims 10 and 20
Dicker discloses:
the user device is a mobile device (Dicker [0057]), See “ user computer.”
providing the at least one second products to the user device comprises providing instructions to cause the user device to:
display a first portion of the list of at least one products in a first position; display at least one of the at least one second products below the displayed first portion; and display a second portion of the list of at least one products in a second position below the displayed at least one second products (Dicker [Figure 14]).
Examiner Note: The “display at least one of the at least one second products below the displayed first portion” is not positively recited as actually being used to change or affect the manner of displaying the information. In Gulack, cited by Appellants, the printed matter (digits) would not achieve its educational purposes without the band, and the band without the printed matter would similarly be unable to produce the desired result. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Here, by contrast, the position of the second product does not depend on the location on the interface. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As the Gulack court pointed out, “[w]here the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.” Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1385.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 9-17, 19 and 20 regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection of claims I and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For at least the reasons provided below, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and, in any event, recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea identified by the Office.
The Examiner notes that this claim of significantly more is not representative of an "actual" improvement to the technology itself, but at best is an improvement to the business method or abstract idea itself. In fact. Applicant can provide no tangible findings that there was actually anything different and/or improved in the instant system compared to prior "conventional systems", other than a mere allegation and unsubstantiated, conclusory statement that the instant invention improves existing systems and is significantly more than presenting similar product recommendations for selection by a user. However, the Examiner respectfully notes that the features of the claimed invention do not represent an improvement, it is merely performing operations with a device. The Applicant cannot point to anything that was specifically done either in the claimed subject matter, the specification, or provided reasoning to show how this is significantly more or provides an improvement to the technology of the conventional system implementation. Moreover, the Examiner respectfully notes that the needed "improvement" in terms of patent eligibility is not one resulting from programming a generic processor to perform a different (or even improved) function, but rather a specific and actual improvement to the machine itself is needed. Based on these findings of fact, the Examiner contends the claims are indeed directed towards an abstract idea and Applicant's arguments to the contrary are considered to be non-persuasive.
Applicant Argues: …human beings cannot practically [perform the claims] as recited in amended claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In combination, the steps disclose a sequence of operations that include receiving information, storing information , receiving an input, retrieving stored data in response to the input and displaying the retrieved data. The only arguable inventive aspect of this set of steps is the particulars of the information processed. Apart from such particulars as is known of those of ordinary skill , the claimed combination of operations amounts to a generic, routine and conventional sequence of generic, routine and conventional operations of a computer system.
None of the claims (independent or dependent) effects an improvement to another technology or technical field; nor does any of the claims amount to an improvement to the function of the user interface. The interface operates as a display tool and there is not an actual improvement to the interface.
Accordingly, Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Applicant Argues: the amended claims are not directed to a judicial exception and instead integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application that improves the functioning of a computer-implemented search and display system.
Applicant’s alleged improvement is not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. A showing that a claim is directed to any improvement does not automatically mean a claim is patent eligible (e.g., an improved business function or an improved idea itself is not patent eligible). In this case, presenting similar product recommendations for selection by a user is an abstract idea, and an “improved” way of presenting similar product recommendations for selection by a user is, if anything, an improvement to the idea itself.
Applicant Argues: The Office conflates the fact that the claimed elements may be used in a marketing and sales context with the conclusion that the techniques themselves are "marketing and sales activity" under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Examiner agrees and has updated the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHIDA R SHORTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday from 9am- 530pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/RASHIDA R SHORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights