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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment and remarks filed June 26, 2026, are responsive to the office action mailed March 26, 2026. Claims 1-4, 7-12, 15-22, and 24, were previously pending. Claims 1, 9, and 17, have been amended and claim 23 is cancelled. Claims 1-4, 7-12, 15-22, and 24, are therefore currently pending and considered in this office action.
Pertaining to claim objection in a prior office action
Applicant has acknowledged that the claims are not properly arranged and will be renumbered in the event this application is eventually allowed.
Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC § 112 in the previous office action
Claims 1-4, 7-12, 15-22, and 24, were 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. The amendment has overcome this ground of rejection of those claims.
Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC § 103 in the previous office action
Claims 1-4, 7-12, 15-22, and 24, were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUANG et al. (Paper No. 20250320; CN 111368190 A) in view of WU (Paper No. 20250320; Pub. No. US 2015/0106735 A1) and further in view of Brain et al. (Paper No. 20250320; Patent No. US 12,038,995 B2). The amendment has necessitated a new ground of rejection.
Response to Arguments
Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC § 101 in the previous office action
Applicant's arguments filed June 26, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1-4, 7-12, 15-22, and 24, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applicant argues that the claimed subject matter does not fit into the abstract idea “mental process” grouping because “they contain features that cannot be practically performed in the human mind.” Remarks p.11. Examiner notes first that the abstract idea grouping determined in the previous office action was the “certain methods of organizing human activity” category, not the mental process category. Applicant offers no argument directed to the “certain methods of organizing human activity” category. Applicant argues that converting a file from one format to another “cannot be practically performed in the human mind.” Examiner disagrees and applicant offers no support for this position. Arguments directed to the proposition that claimed subject matter cannot be performed mentally because it requires or assumes computer implementation engages in circular logic. The rationale that a claim cannot be performed mentally only because it was drafted with the assumption that it would be applied in a generic computer environment has explicitly been rejected in multiple federal court decisions. See, e.g., OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9721, 115 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) (Fed. Cir. 2015); DATATRAK Int'l, Inc. v. Medidata Solutions, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151039 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 6, 2015). The claims are directed merely to the implementation of steps using computers to perform activities that could have otherwise been performed by people. The argument is therefore unpersuasive. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (limiting an abstract idea to a technological environment, such as a computer, does not confer patent eligibility); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 177 L. Ed. 2d 792 (2010) ("[L]imiting an abstract idea to one field of use...d[oes] not make the concept patentable.").
With regard to applicant’s argument directed to generation of a second GUI based on information, examiner refers applicant to the previous discussion regarding construction of the displayed second GUI. This limitation is identified in the rejection as part of the abstract idea because it merely recites the broad generic use of a processor performing the entire method and consequently also generates the displayed information. As recited the “second GUI” is only the information displayed. For further information, also see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.C. “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process.”
Comment Pertaining to Claim Interpretation
The presently claimed second interface merely provides information in response to information entered in applicant’s first interface. The prior art describes presenting for display said information in response to applicant’s first interface and thus discloses applicant’s second interface. It is examiner’s understanding that the presently claimed “second interface” is more specifically identified as a “display.” A user interface in this context might be assumed by a person of ordinary skill in the art to include actuatable elements or another type of interactive interface, as is intended by all of the cited prior art references. The presently claimed “second interface” would more accurately be referred to as a “display.” Examiner acknowledges that a display is a type of interface.
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 1-4, 7-12, 15-22, and 24, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (step 2A), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (step 2B). Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 189 L. Ed. 2d 296, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4303, 110 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1976, 82 U.S.L.W. 4508, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 870, 2014 WL 2765283 (U.S. 2014); MPEP 2106.
Step 1:
In the instant case claims 1-4, 7-8, 21-22, and 24, are directed to a machine, claims 9-12 and 15-16 are directed to a process, and claims 17-20 are directed to a manufacture. All claims are therefore within statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03, Eligibility Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
These claims also recite, inter alia,
“presenting, to a user, a first graphical user interface (GUI) comprising information associated with a service; receiving, via the first GUI, a user input for obtaining further information associated with the service; selecting a plurality of information resources, wherein selecting the plurality of information resources comprises: determining a plurality of available information resources by performing a verification operation with each of a plurality of predetermined information resources to verify availability; and selecting, from the plurality of available information resources, a plurality of optimal information resources, wherein selecting the plurality of optimal information resources comprises: determining one or more available information resources of the plurality of available information resources based on timestamp information, and selecting a first available information resource as an optimal information resource as a result of the first available information resource having a first timestamp information later than a second timestamp information of a second available information resource; obtaining one or more information from the plurality of optimal information resources; converting the one or more information from a first file format to a second file format; generating a second GUI based on the one or more information; and presenting, to the user, the second GUI comprising the further information associated with the service, to enable optimal decision making for the user.” Claim 9.
An analysis of the above limitations, each on its own and all together combined, results in the conclusion that each on its own recites an abstract idea and in combination they altogether simply recite a more detailed abstract idea. The recited abstract idea falls within the groupings of abstract ideas described as mental processes such as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment), and certain methods of organizing human activity, for example commercial interactions (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). See MPEP 2106.04(a); Eligibility Step 2A1. The claims must therefore be analyzed under the second prong of Eligibility Step 2 (Step 2A2; MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
In order to address prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step2A2) we must identify whether there are any additional elements beyond the abstract ideas and determine whether those additional elements (if there are any) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step 2A2. The additional elements in the present claims are a GUI and a processor. Claims 1-8 and 17-20 include “memory storage” and “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium,” respectively. The GUIs are recited as disembodied graphical user interfaces with no recitation that they operate on any device or indication how they would operate to interface with a user and therefore they are in fact abstract graphics, but for present purposes they will be considered to include the implication of embodiment within devices including at least a display presented by a processor. These additional elements have been considered individually, in combination, and altogether as a whole together with the functions they perform, e.g., the processor is all alone broadly and generally recited as performing all steps in terms of the intended results of functionally nonspecific activities, i.e., presentation of GUIs as indicated above, by executing instructions stored in memory (claim 9 has no memory). These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claims lack any indication that any additional element practically applies any of the abstract elements. The claims are almost entirely a recitation of abstract ideas with brief tangential reference to generic devices to “apply it,” without performing any particular activity. The substantive process is recited only by descriptions of abstract intended results of the steps with no indication how the results are achieved. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of any computer or other technology or technical field, they do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, they do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing, and they fail to apply or use the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05.
If the disclosure describes any improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field this improvement would need to be identifiable as the subject matter appearing in the claims. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. The disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim limitations can integrate a judicial exception into a practical application by implementing the judicial exception with or using it in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. A general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception by use of generic computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2014); MPEP 2106.05(b),(f). There are no particular machines or manufactures identified in the present claims. Elements that are not abstract are identified broadly and generally as applying the method, and the method itself is described only by way of the intended results of unidentified activities, with no reference to any particular acts or functions performed by any particularly identified machines, and without reference to its use in conjunction with any particular item of manufacture.
The claims do not affect the transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article. A new or different function or use can be evidence that an article has been transformed. Purely mental processes in which data, thoughts, impressions, or human based actions are "changed" are not considered a transformation. MPEP 2106.05(c).
The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in any other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. As a result the claim as a whole appears to be a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. MPEP 2106.05(e),(h).
The additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Although the additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application the claims could still be eligible if they recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more” than the judicial exception). MPEP 2106.05, Eligibility Step 2B.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the sparse additional elements of the claim are mere props supporting instructions to implement an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims invoke the processor merely as a tool to perform an abstract process. Simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2); see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9721, 115 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”). The claims fail to present a technical solution to a technical problem created by the use of the surrounding technology. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. See Ret. Capital Access Mgmt. Co. v. U.S. Bancorp, 611 Fed. Appx. 1007, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14351 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“It may be very clever; it may be very useful in a commercial context, but they are still abstract ideas,” said Circuit Judge Alan Lourie.). MPEP 2106.05(h).
Finally, dependent claims 2-4, 7-8, 10-12, 15-16, 21-22, and 24, do not add "significantly more" to establish eligibility because they merely recite additional abstract ideas describing various manipulations of data suggesting application to the GUIs. A more detailed abstract idea is still abstract. PricePlay.com, Inc. v. AOL Adver., Inc., 627 Fed. Appx. 925, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 611, 2016 WL 80002 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2016) (in addressing a bundle of abstract ideas stacked together during oral argument, U.S. Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore said, "All of these ideas are abstract…. It’s like you want a patent because you combined two abstract ideas and say two is better than one.").
All of the above leads to the conclusion that additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the claimed subject matter into significantly more than an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05; Eligibility Step 2B. As a result the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because they recite an abstract idea without being directed to a practical application, and they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05, supra..
The preceding analysis applies to all statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, claims 1-4, 7-12, 15-22, and 24, are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 USC 101 based upon the same analysis.
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 1-4, 7-12, 15-22, and 24, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUANG et al. (Paper No. 20250320; CN 111368190 A) in view of WU (Paper No. 20250320; Pub. No. US 2015/0106735 A1), further in view of KULKARNI (International Publication Number WO 2022/164925 A1), and further in view of Brain et al. (Paper No. 20250320; Patent No. US 12,038,995 B2).
Huang teaches an interface associated with a service and an interface for providing further information associated with the service, and Huang further discloses, regarding
Claim 1. An apparatus comprising: ● at least one memory storage storing computer-executable instructions (see at least p.4¶14 “memory stores instructions that are executable by the at least one processor”); and ● at least one processor communicatively coupled to the memory storage (see at least p.4¶13 “memory in communication connection with the at least one processor”), wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions (see at least p.4¶14 “the instructions are executable by the at least one processor to cause said method at least one processor capable of executing a first aspect or the first aspect of any possible implementation”) to: ● present, to a user, a first graphical user interface (GUI) comprising information associated with a service (see at least p.6¶4 “first terminal device is a terminal device of the first user, the first user using the first terminal device recommendation request information to the server,” ¶10 “request is generated according to the query condition of the first interface” p.7¶1 “first user displayed by the first terminal device of the first interface inputting inquiry condition,” p.14¶1 “display instruction of image information of the GUI,” p.15¶2 “computing system comprising a front-end component (e.g., a graphical user interface … the user can through the graphical user interface … to communicate with the systems and techniques described herein”); ● receive, via the first GUI, a user input for obtaining further information associated with the service (see at least p.6¶4 “first terminal device is a terminal device of the first user, the first user using the first terminal device recommendation request information to the server,” ¶10 “request is generated according to the query condition of the first interface” p.7¶1 “first user displayed by the first terminal device of the first interface inputting inquiry condition”).
● obtain one or more information from the plurality of optimal information resources (see at least HUANG abstract, p.2¶7, p.5¶16); and ● generate the second GUI based on the one or more information (see at least HUANG abstract “the se[r]ver pre-providing party to feature provides interfaces for the feature provider ... server pre-calculating the each information of the feature,” p.2¶7 “target feature calculated pre-call the target service by the server, the second terminal device is a terminal device of the user to the server for providing the target service, a plurality of services of the target service is provided by the server”).
HUANG teaches all of the above, and all of the below, as noted. It teaches, a) a first interface, b) a second interface, c) receiving user input for obtaining further information, and d) the second interface presenting the information, but does not explicitly disclose determine a plurality of available information resources and select, from the plurality of available information resources, a plurality of optimal information resources.
Wu also teaches a) a first interface, b) a second interface, c) receiving user input for obtaining further information, and d) the second interface presenting the information, and further discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to select a plurality of information resources, wherein selecting the plurality of information resources comprises to:
● determine a plurality of available information resources (see at least Wu figs. 1, 2-9, ¶0010 “user is browsing an electronic content store, the user may be presented with recommended items,” ¶0012 “accessing, within a mobile device, a data store corresponding to a plurality of pieces of content,” ¶0039 “a graphical user interface for searching a device (e.g., the device displaying the graphical user interface) and other contents sources (e.g., Internet coupled content sources)”); and
● select, from the plurality of available information resources, a plurality of optimal information resources (see at least Wu ¶0011 “Recommendations may then be updated or generated based on the user profile…. content may further be recategorized (e.g., from interest to disinterest) and the user profile updated accordingly,” ¶0035 “configure a user profile according to the user's tastes or preferences. Recommendations may then be updated or generated based on the user profile,” ¶0045 “display information corresponding to each electronic publication in a user's personal library. … statistics about the user's reading of the book (e.g. based on a user's reading patterns), and related or recommended books,” “Recommendation area 120 displays recommended items (e.g., pieces of content”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (for pre-AIA applications) or filing (for applications filed under the AIA ) to modify the method of HUANG to include determine a plurality of available information resources and resources and select, from the plurality of available information resources, a plurality of optimal information resources, as taught by Wu since 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would result in an improvement. This is because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features even from a variety of technical fields into methods and systems implemented using similar technological structures (i.e., generic computer and/or network hardware such as processors, servers, etc.). In this case the areas of technical endeavor are nonetheless similar and overlapping.
Applicant has not disclosed that the added feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose beyond the performance of the functions they performed separately and since each element and its function are shown in the prior art the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. It would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the feature from Wu in the method of HUANG. Furthermore the combination solved no long felt need. Incorporating cumulative known features is additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so increases commercial use of a method by attracting users that previously might have chosen between one of the previously known methods.
HUANG in view of WU teaches, a) a first interface, b) a second interface, c) receiving user input for obtaining further information, d) determining one or more available information resources, and e) the plurality of optimal information resources selected based on the determined plurality of available information resources, but does not explicitly disclose performing a verification operation with each of a plurality of predetermined information resources to verify availability, wherein selecting the plurality of optimal information resources comprises determining one or more available information resources of the plurality of available information resources based on timestamp information, and selecting a first available information resource as an optimal information resource as a result of the first available information resource having a first timestamp information later than a second timestamp information of a second available information resource, and convert the one or more information from a first file format to a second file format.
KULKARNI also teaches a) a first interface, b) a second interface, c) receiving user input for obtaining further information, d) determining one or more available information resources, and e) the plurality of optimal information resources selected based on the determined plurality of available information resources, and KULKARNI further discloses
● performing a verification operation with each of a plurality of predetermined information resources to verify availability (see at least KULKARNI ¶00277 “a user who provides a query can indicate that one or more other users are authorized to access particular requested datasets,” ¶00299 “data from a data source 202 is expected or guaranteed to be included in at least one message on an ingestion system until confirmation is received that the data is no longer required,” ¶¶00303-00304 “indicating specific devices or systems with authorization to publish or subscribe to a specific topic …. may ensure that only authorized parties are able to access sensitive data. … [00304] … intake ingestion buffer 306 may verify that any intake point or data source 202 publishing to that first topic be authorized by the first entity to do so. … The output ingestion buffer 310 may maintain authorization records for such entity-specific topics, thus restricting messages of those topics to parties authorized by the first entity”);
● wherein selecting the plurality of optimal information resources comprises: determining one or more available information resources of the plurality of available information resources based on timestamp information, and selecting a first available information resource as an optimal information resource as a result of the first available information resource having a first timestamp information later than a second timestamp information of a second available information resource (see at least KULKARNI ¶0061 “when the data source is an operating system log, an event can include one or more lines from the operating system log containing machine data that includes different types of performance and diagnostic information associated with a specific point in time (e.g., a timestamp),” ¶0097 “indexing system can identify timestamps associated with the data, organize the data into buckets or time series buckets, … generate indexes of the data, etc. In addition, the indexing system 212 can update the data store catalog 220 with information related to the buckets,” ¶00112 “appending one or more timestamp or time ranges to each data block,” ¶¶00166-0170, et seq., is the beginning of an extensive discussion of uses of time buckets generated using timestamps, for example, at ¶00166 “if the indexer 410 receives data that it determines to be "old," e.g., based on a timestamp of the data or other temporal determination regarding the data, then it can generate a bucket for the "old" data. In some embodiments, the indexer 410 can determine that data is "old," if the data is associated with a timestamp that is earlier in time by a threshold amount than timestamps of other data in the corresponding bucket”); and
● convert the one or more information from a first file format to a second file format (see at least KULKARNI ¶0096 “the intake system 210 can utilize one or more rules to process data and to make the data available to downstream systems (e.g., the indexing system 212, query system 214, etc.). … intake system 210 can perform additional processing on the incoming data, such as transforming structured data into unstructured data (or vice versa), … removing extraneous data, parsing data, indexing data, separating data, categorizing data, routing data based on criteria relating to the data being routed, and/or performing other data transformations, etc.,” ¶00111 “data retrieval subsystem 304 may be configured to convert or otherwise format data provided by the forwarder 302 into an appropriate format for inclusion at the intake ingestion buffer ….
the intake system 210 may repeatedly or iteratively process data according to any of a variety of rules, such that the data is formatted for use on the data intake and query system,” ¶00114 “intake ingestion buffer 306 may be configured to convert data from an input format into a protocol buffer format”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (for pre-AIA applications) or filing (for applications filed under the AIA ) to modify the method of HUANG in view of Wu to include performing a verification operation with each of a plurality of predetermined information resources to verify availability, wherein selecting the plurality of optimal information resources comprises determining one or more available information resources of the plurality of available information resources based on timestamp information, and selecting a first available information resource as an optimal information resource as a result of the first available information resource having a first timestamp information later than a second timestamp information of a second available information resource, and convert the one or more information from a first file format to a second file format, as taught by KULKARNI since 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would result in an improvement. This is because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features even from a variety of technical fields into methods and systems implemented using similar technological structures (i.e., generic computer and/or network hardware such as processors, servers, etc.). In this case the areas of technical endeavor are nonetheless similar and overlapping.
Applicant has not disclosed that the added feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose beyond the performance of the functions they performed separately and since each element and its function are shown in the prior art the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. It would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the feature from KULKARNI in the method of HUANG in view of Wu. Furthermore the combination solved no long felt need. Incorporating cumulative known features is additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so increases commercial use of a method by attracting users that previously might have chosen between one of the previously known methods.
HUANG in view of Wu and further in view of KULKARNI teaches all of the above as noted. It teaches, a) a first interface, b) a second interface, c) receiving user input for obtaining further information, and d) the second interface presenting further information associated with the service, but does not explicitly disclose the further information associated with the service to enable optimal decision making for the user.
Brain also teaches a) a first interface, b) a second interface, c) receiving user input for obtaining further information, and d) the second interface presenting further information, and further discloses the further information associated with the service to enable optimal decision making for the user, wherein the method further comprises:
● present, to the user, the second GUI comprising the further information associated with the service, to enable optimal decision making for the user (see at least abstract “display a second iframe in response to user input provided through the first iframe,” fig. 3, c3:1-7 “there may be more than one iframe initiated, some may be parallel iframes and some may be child iframes with a parent iframe associated with the child iframe,” c12:40-47 “service provider system may receive the indication that the actuatable element was actuated, … In response to receiving the indication, the server provider system may communicate to the user device a trigger or instructions for the user device to implement one or more additional (sometimes referred to as child) iframes for displaying embedded elements determined by the service provider system,” c13:47-53 “there is an improvement over older systems…. services can be embedded in the same webpage … without a popup window or one or more redirects,” c15:7-13 “buttons may be used for other services and customized based on the information associated with those services. Additionally, a customized message, such as 412, may be provided by the service provider system in the iframe with actuatable element 410, 430, and/or 440,” c15:20-31 “Child iframe 500 may include one or more actuatable elements 511. In some examples, these actuatable elements may be links to different webpage URLs. In some examples, these actuatable element may create additional child iframes with content hosted by the service provider system or other systems. The actuatable elements may allow the user to change settings, complete a service, cancel a service, edit a service, and/or the like”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (for pre-AIA applications) or filing (for applications filed under the AIA ) to modify the method of HUANG in view of Wu and further in view of KULKARNI to include the further information to enable optimal decision making for the user, as taught by Brain since 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would result in an improvement. This is because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features even from a variety of technical fields into methods and systems implemented using similar technological structures (i.e., generic computer and/or network hardware such as processors, servers, etc.). In this case the areas of technical endeavor are nonetheless similar and overlapping.
Applicant has not disclosed that the added feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose beyond the performance of the functions they performed separately and since each element and its function are shown in the prior art the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. It would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the feature from Brain in the method of HUANG in view of Wu and further in view of KULKARNI. Furthermore the combination solved no long felt need. Incorporating cumulative known features is additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so increases commercial use of a method by attracting users that previously might have chosen between one of the previously known methods.
HUANG in view of WU, further in view of KULKARNI, and further in view of Brain discloses regarding
Claim 2. The apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the further information associated with the service comprises information of a provider of the service (see at least abstract “the target characteristic corresponding to the target service,” p.2¶7 “a plurality of services of the target service is provided by the server in the service call by the server,” p.6¶4 “second user using the second terminal device characteristics are provided to the server service (also may be referred to as a service), a second user such as provider characteristic, which can provide various features service”).Claim 3. The apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first GUI comprises an interactive element, and wherein the user input comprises a user interaction with the interactive element (see at least fig.3, p.5¶8, p.6 ¶10 “request is generated according to the query condition of the first interface displayed on the first terminal device of the first user input of the first terminal device,” p.7¶1 “first user displayed by the first terminal device of the first interface inputting inquiry condition. For example, the first user by keyboard and such input a query (query) sentence, extracting the query condition from the query statement by the first terminal, and then according to the first user input by voice a query statement”).
Claim 4. The apparatus as claimed in claim 2, wherein the second GUI comprises a plurality of block elements, each of which is comprising a category of information associated with the provider (see at least Huang figs. 1-8, p.6¶4 again includes an extended list of feature types, characteristic indexes, classification attributes, etc., p.7¶6 includes similar description; in view of Wu figs. 1-7. Also see Brian c2:29-56 “Some of the API calls may specify to and/or instruct the service provider system how the elements handled by the service provider system should look (e.g. color, size, location, font, shape, etc.)”).
Claim 7. The apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to obtain the one or more information by: ● generating, based on the type of the plurality of information resources, one or more requests (see at least Huang p.2¶1 “directly requesting service from the background when calculating to calculate the characteristic,” p.3¶14 “registration request sent by the second terminal device, said registration request is used for requesting to the server providing the target service, the registration request attribute carries said target service,” p.6¶10 “request is generated according to the query condition of the first interface displayed on the first terminal device of the first user input of the first terminal device”); ● providing the one or more requests to the plurality of information resources (see at least Huang p.2¶6-7 “receiving the recommendation request sent by the first terminal device; the server in response to the recommendation request, recall meeting the inquiry condition of information from information set, to obtain the subset of information, target service wherein the information set in the target characteristic corresponding to each information pre-deployed on the server”); and
● obtaining, from the plurality of information resources, the one or more information (see at least Huang p.2¶7 “to obtain the subset of information”).Claim 8. The apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to generate the second GUI by: ● obtaining a configuration profile defining the configuration of the second GUI (see at least Huang p.3¶12 “obtain the subset of information, wherein the information set in the target characteristic corresponding to each information pre-deployed on the server by the second terminal device. the target feature calculated pre-call the target service by the server, the second terminal device is a terminal device of the user to the server for providing the target service, a plurality of services of the target service is provided by the server in the service call by the server,” ¶14 “recall meeting the inquiry condition of information from information set to obtain the subset of information, further used for receiving the registration request sent by the second terminal device, said registration request is used for requesting to the server providing the target service”);
● obtaining, based on the configuration profile, one or more information required for generating the second GUI (see at least Huang p.3¶¶12,14); and
● generating, based on the configuration profile and the one or more information required, the second GUI (see at least Huang abstract, p.2¶7, p.3¶¶12,14, all as indicated above).
Claim 21. The apparatus as claimed in claim 4, wherein the plurality of block elements
of the second GUI comprises a financial block element, a market block element and an
organization block element (Brain c2:29-56 “Some of the API calls may specify to and/or instruct the service provider system how the elements handled by the service provider system should look (e.g. color, size, location, font, shape, etc.),” c3:20-67 “One site can handle the market catalogue, viewing, shipping, etc. while the other handles the payment,” in view of Wu figs. 1-7, ¶0010 “user may be presented with recommended items in an effort to encourage a user to buy more items. The recommended items may be based on information known about the user, such as past purchases,” ¶0038 “applications 152-158 are organized on the left (e.g., top to bottom) and a plurality of widgets (e.g., library widget 170 and merchandising widget 172) related to reading are located to the right,” ¶0044 “Application icon 154 when selected launches a store or marketplace application,” ¶0046 “Merchandising widget 172 is operable to display book covers of a plurality of electronic publications for a particular category. In one embodiment, the book covers of the plurality of books are depicted on a shelf or book shelf The plurality of books may have been determined based on the category and current selling goals (e.g., of a merchandising department)”).
Claim 22. The apparatus as claimed in claim 21, wherein the plurality of block elements of the second GUI is seven number, and the market block element is arranged in a center of the second GUI, and a remaining six block elements are arranged around the market block element (see at least Wu figs. 1 and 3-7).
Claim 24. The apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein selecting the plurality of optimal
information resources is based on a level of trust (see at least Huang p.8¶7 “gateway feature service supporting multi-characteristic-unified entry, parallel computing, user authentication,” p.9¶14 “if the verification is passed, executing step 302 for resource application and traffic scheduling configuration; if the verification is not passed, then using the direction characteristic of the third terminal device return refusing message”).
Pertaining to method claims 9-11 and 15-16
Rejection of claims 9-12 and 15-16 is based on the same rationale noted above with regard to claims 1-4 and 7-8.
Pertaining to computer-readable recording medium claims 17-20
Rejection of claims 17-20 is based on the same rationale noted above with regard to claims 1-4. In addition Huang discloses pertaining to
Claim 17. A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon instructions executable by at least one processor (see at least Huang p.4¶14 “memory stores instructions that are executable by the at least one processor”).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM LEVINE whose telephone number is (571)272-8122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am-7:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571.272.6764. 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.
/ADAM L LEVINE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 September 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights