DETAILED ACTION
The following is a final office action in response to the amendment filed January 5, 2026. Claims 1 and 4-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments
The rejection under 35 USC 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's prior art arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 is dependent on claim 3. However, claim 3 has been canceled. The Examiner believes it should be dependent on claim 1. For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets that claim 6 is dependent on claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton et al (US 9,047,635 B2) in view of Denison (US 2024/0193821 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hamilton discloses system for automatically generating merchandise listings from single user text input, the system comprising:
at least one device in operable connection with a network (Hamilton: Figure 1 - network);
and an application server in operable communication with the network, the application server configured to host an application system displaying at least one system generated image and a corresponding product listing, the application system having a display module for providing access to the application system via a GUI displayed on at least one user device (Hamilton: Figure 14 - display item listing 1401, Figure 11);
the GUI to permit the user to interact with a communication module to receive information related to the at least one system generated image and the corresponding product listing (Hamilton: Figure 14 - receive user command to upload item listing 1402, Figure 11).
Hamilton does not expressly disclose an Al image generating module configured to generate the at least one system generated image based on user text-only input; a database engine configured to facilitate generation of the at least one system generated image in cooperation with the Al image generating module. Denison discloses an Al image generating module configured to generate the at least one system generated image based on user text-only input; a database engine configured to facilitate generation of the at least one system generated image in cooperation with the Al image generating module (Denison: paragraph [0053] - The user could identify the image feature for tuning by annotating the image feature directly on the generated image or via text input (i.e., tuning comments) or using a node map. Use of the node map to identify the image feature selected for tuning will be described in more detail below. The image feature identification engine identifies the particular image feature selected for tuning and analyzes the attributes of the particular image feature, wherein the particular image feature can correspond to content of the user prompt or can be a feature that was included in the generated image by the AI model 320a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and apparatus of Hamilton to have included an Al image generating module configured to generate the at least one system generated image based on user text-only input; a database engine configured to facilitate generation of the at least one system generated image in cooperation with the Al image generating module, as taught by Denison because it would is necessary to further understand a users intent (Denison: paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 4, Hamilton and Denison teach or suggest all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Hamilton further discloses wherein the application system is configured to generate at least one of a product listing comprising the at least one system generated image (Hamilton: column 11 lines 35-45 - In 1309, the listing generation module 204 automatically generates a draft version of an item listing that lists the product item as being for sale by the seller on a marketplace website. The listing generation module 204 may include, in the draft version of the item listing, one or more of the following: the title of the product item (identified in 1301); the product classification of the product item (identified in 1302); the condition of the product item (identified in 1303); the quantity of the product item (identified in 1304); the sale price of the product item (determined in 1305); the shipping cost of the product item (determined in 1306); the description of the product item (accessed in 1307); and a picture of the product item (accessed in 1308)).
Regarding claim 5, Hamilton and Denison teach or suggest all the limitations of claim 4 as noted above. Hamilton further discloses a display module configured to display the at least one product listing on a user device (Hamilton: Figure 14 - display item listing 1401).
Regarding claim 6, Hamilton and Denison teach or suggest all the limitations of claim 3 as noted above. Hamilton further discloses wherein the application system is configured to generate at least one product web page comprising the at least one system generated image (Hamilton: column 11 lines 35-45 - In 1309, the listing generation module 204 automatically generates a draft version of an item listing that lists the product item as being for sale by the seller on a marketplace website).
Regarding claim 7, Hamilton and Denison teach or suggest all the limitations of claim 6 as noted above. Hamilton further discloses a display module configured to display the at least one product listing web page on a user device (Hamilton: column 11 lines 35-45 - In 1309, the listing generation module 204 automatically generates a draft version of an item listing that lists the product item as being for sale by the seller on a marketplace website).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton et al (US 9,047,635 B2), in view of Denison (US 2024/0193821 A1) in view of Dagan et al (US 11,699,101 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Hamilton and Denison teach or suggest all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. The combination of Hamilton and Denison does not disclose wherein the application system is configured to receive at least one bid and communicate the at least one bid to the at least one user device. However, Dagan teaches wherein the application system is configured to receive at least one bid and communicate the at least one bid to the at least one user device (Dagan: column 4 lines 38-50 - The online marketplace system 106 may further provide functionality that enables a user to purchase and/or bid on an item. For example, the online marketplace system 106 may provide user interface elements (e.g., button, text fields, etc.) that a user may use to select purchase an item, place a bid, etc., as well as provide financial (e.g., credit card number, bank account number) and personal information (e.g., shipping address, billing address, etc.) to complete the purchase).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the combination of Hamilton and Denison, in the apparatus and method wherein the application system is configured to receive at least one bid and communicate the at least one bid to the at least one user device, as taught by Dagan since the claimed invention is just a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed that same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would allow for purchasing of items (Dagan: column 4).
Regarding claim 9, Hamilton, Denison, and Dagan teach or suggest all the limitations of claim 8 as noted above. Dagan further discloses wherein the application system is configured to receive user input accepting the at least one bid via the at least one user device (Dagan: column 4 lines 38-50 - The online marketplace system 106 may further provide functionality that enables a user to purchase and/or bid on an item. For example, the online marketplace system 106 may provide user interface elements (e.g., button, text fields, etc.) that a user may use to select purchase an item, place a bid, etc., as well as provide financial (e.g., credit card number, bank account number) and personal information (e.g., shipping address, billing address, etc.) to complete the purchase).
Regarding claim 10, Hamilton and Denison teach or suggest all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. The combination of Hamilton and Denison does not disclose a payment processing module configured to facilitate payment from the at least one user device to a second at least one user device. However, Dagan teaches a payment processing module configured to facilitate payment from the at least one user device to a second at least one user device (Dagan: column 4 lines 38-50 - The online marketplace system 106 may further provide functionality that enables a user to purchase and/or bid on an item. For example, the online marketplace system 106 may provide user interface elements (e.g., button, text fields, etc.) that a user may use to select purchase an item, place a bid, etc., as well as provide financial (e.g., credit card number, bank account number) and personal information (e.g., shipping address, billing address, etc.) to complete the purchase).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the combination of Hamilton and Denison, in the apparatus and method for a payment processing module configured to facilitate payment from the at least one user device to a second at least one user device, as taught by Dagan since the claimed invention is just a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed that same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would allow for purchasing of items (Dagan: column 4).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN G PALAVECINO whose telephone number is (571)270-1355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Kelly Campen can be reached at 571-272-6740. 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.
KATHLEEN GAGE PALAVECINO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/KATHLEEN PALAVECINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688