DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 and 21-26 are pending in this application. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-13 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-13 and 21-26, under Step 1, the claims recite a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Under Step 2A claims 1-13 and 21-26 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: A method, comprising: receiving, by one or more processors of one or more computing devices, first data indicative of a user selection of a clickable link displayed on a user computing device as part of a first webpage, wherein the first webpage comprises a video comprising instructions for a user to complete a project or task, and further wherein the project or task requires a plurality of tangible items in order for the user to complete the project or task; and sending, by the one or more processors in response to the receiving of the first data, second data indicative of a second webpage for display by the user computing device, wherein: the second data indicative of the second webpage comprises third data indicative of a virtual shopping cart in which all of the plurality of tangible items are pre-added to the virtual shopping cart automatically, the first webpage is part of a first website provided by a first entity, the second webpage is part of a second website provided by a second entity, and the first entity is different from the second entity.
The above limitations set forth a procedure for organizing human activity, such as by performing commercial interactions including marketing activity and business relations. This is because the claim recites the steps performed in order to add items to a shopping cart (Specification ¶0003). Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) the claim recites an abstract idea because the claim recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites additional elements, including one or more processors of one or more computing devices, first and second webpages, and a video.
These additional 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 computers 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) apply or use 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.
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. MPEP 2106.05.
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.
Dependent claims 2-13 recite limitations which are similarly directed to and elaborate on the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 1. Thus, each of claims 2-13 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, claims 2-13 do not set forth further additional elements. Considered both individually and as a whole, claims 2-13 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Lastly, under step 2B, dependent claims 2-13 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and specified at a high level of generality.
Claims 21-26 are parallel, i.e. recite similar concepts and elements, to claims 1-13, analyzed above, and the same rationale is applied.
In view of the above, claims 1-13 and 21-26 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-13 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hampson et al., US PG Pub 2016/0267569 A1 (hereafter “Hampson”), previously cited, in view of Astrakhantsev et al., US PG Pub 2022/0277056 A1 (hereafter “Astrakhantsev”), previously cited.
Regarding claim 1, Hampson teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors of one or more computing devices, first data indicative of a user selection of a clickable link displayed on a user computing device as part of a first webpage, wherein the first webpage comprises a video (¶¶0013-0019, 0028, 0048, 0053, and 0066); and
sending, by the one or more processors in response to the receiving of the first data, second data indicative of a second webpage for display by the user computing device (¶¶0015-0017, 0027, and 0032), wherein:
the second data indicative of the second webpage comprises third data indicative of a virtual shopping cart in which all of the plurality of tangible items are pre-added to the virtual shopping cart automatically, the first webpage is part of a first website provided by a first entity, the second webpage is part of a second website provided by a second entity, and the first entity is different from the second entity (¶¶0020, 0053, 0066, and 0074).
Hampson does not teach wherein the first webpage comprises a video comprising instructions for a user to complete a project or task, and further wherein the project or task requires a plurality of tangible items in order for the user to complete the project or task. Astrakhantsev teaches the known technique a video comprising instructions for a user to complete a project or task, and further wherein the project or task requires a plurality of tangible items in order for the user to complete the project or task (¶¶0033, 0037, and 0095-0099). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hampson, to include an instructional video as taught by Astrakhantsev, in order to provide “better context for comparing ideas (recipes, travel destinations, DIY projects, etc.) by showing not only images, gifs, and/or videos for search results for a task, but also relevant page information using structured data extracted from the webpage associated with the images,” as suggested by Astrakhantsev (¶0021).
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Astrakhantsev, the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Hampson in view of Astrakhantsev teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the video comprises step-by-step instructions for the user to complete the project or task (Astrakhantsev ¶0033). The combination would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons stated above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Hampson in view of Astrakhantsev teaches the method of claim 1, wherein plurality of tangible items comprises at least one tool, piece of lumber, building material, home decoration, lawn decoration, window treatment, bathroom fixture, kitchen fixture, lighting fixture, automotive part, paint, stain, or hardware (Astrakhantsev ¶0099). The combination would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons stated above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Hampson in view of Astrakhantsev teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first website is a video hosting website (Hampson ¶¶0018-0019 and 0048).
Regarding claim 5, Hampson in view of Astrakhantsev teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, by the one or more processors prior to the receiving of the first data indicative of indicative of the user selection of the clickable link, a request to generate a universal resource locator for use in the clickable link, the request comprising an identification of the plurality of tangible items (Hampson ¶¶0013-0015, 0038, and 0057-0061).
Regarding claim 6, Hampson in view of Astrakhantsev teaches the method of claim 5, further comprising generating, by the one or more processors, the universal resource locator in response to the request (Hampson ¶¶0038-0039).
Regarding claim 7, Hampson in view of Astrakhantsev teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising sending, by the one or more processors, the universal resource locator to a creator computing device configured to upload the video to the first website (Hampson ¶0031).
Regarding claim 8, Hampson in view of Astrakhantsev teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising determining, by the one or more processors based at least in part on the receiving of the first data indicative of the user selection of the clickable link, an approximate geographic location of the user computing device (Hampson ¶¶0063-0064 and 0093).
Regarding claim 9, Hampson in view of Astrakhantsev teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising determining, by the one or more processors based at least in part on the approximate geographic location of the user computing device, a recommendation for one of same-day delivery service, same-day in- store pickup, multi-day delivery service, or multi-day in-store pickup for the user to acquire the plurality of tangible items (Hampson ¶¶0063 and 0082).
Regarding claim 10, Hampson in view of Astrakhantsev teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the determining of the recommendation is further determined based at least in part on an availability of the plurality of tangible items at a physical store within a predetermined threshold of the approximate geographic location (Astrakhantsev ¶0035). The combination would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons stated above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Hampson in view of Astrakhantsev teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the recommendation is displayed automatically as part of the second webpage by including the recommendation in the second data sent to the user computing device (Hampson ¶¶0020 and 0076).
Regarding claim 12, Hampson in view of Astrakhantsev teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising determining, by the one or more processors, a recommendation for payment method for the user to acquire the plurality of tangible items, wherein the recommendation is displayed automatically as part of the second webpage by including the recommendation in the second data sent to the user computing device (Hampson ¶¶0072-0079).
Regarding claim 13, Hampson in view of Astrakhantsev teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the clickable link is displayed in a description of the video on the first webpage, overlaid on the video, embedded in the video, or as part of the video (Hampson ¶¶0019 and 0066-0067).
Regarding claims 21-26, all of the limitations in claims 21-26 are closely parallel to the limitations of method claims 1-13, analyzed above, and are rejected on the same bases.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments regarding the §101 rejection (Remarks pp. 7-9), the examiner disagrees. Applicant argues that the claims do not fall into an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. As stated in the rejection, the claims are directed to adding items to a shopping cart which is commercial activity and a certain method of organizing human activity. All of the method steps are in furtherance of a shopper adding an item to a shopping cart, therefore the claims are directed to the identified abstract idea which is a certain method of organizing human activity as set forth by the Supreme Court and described in the MPEP.
Applicant argues that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application that improves the functioning of a computer because they reduce the number of clicks a user needs to navigate between webpages. Reducing clicks does not improve the functioning of a computer. The computer has the same technical capabilities and functions the same regardless of how much a user decides to click or not. Furthermore, it is not clear which limitations if any result in a reduced number of clicks. The purported improvements listed by applicant such as improved battery life, reduced processing power consumption on mobile devices, faster webpage loading due to fewer concurrent browser sessions, and decreased server loads due to reduced HTTP requests from client devices, are the results of an abstract decision to use the device less and are not a technical improvement to the function of the computer itself. Furthermore, the claims do not interact with servers, mobile devices, batteries, or browser sessions, and therefore cannot be said to be improvements thereof.
Applicant argues that the claims are not well-understood, routine, and conventional. This argument is moot because the rejection makes no such statement and does not rely on this factor for the finding that the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more which is not integrated into a practical application. Furthermore, as has been well established by the CAFC and the MPEP, prior art considerations are separate and distinct from the §101 analysis.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art (Remarks pp. 9-11), the examiner disagrees. Applicant states that the is no mechanism in Hampson for pre-populating a shopping cart with multiple items based on a single user click, however this limitation is not claimed. The claims recite user selection of a clickable link but do not preclude multiple selections or clicks. Furthermore, Hampson teaches a single link to a merchant website for purchasing the product in ¶¶0066 by describing “a purchase link associated with the selected offer corresponding to the corresponding search result. An example purchase link comprises a link to a merchant system website 129 from which the selected offer originated. In an example embodiment, the purchase link comprises a link that, when selected by the user 101 operating the user computing device 110, redirects the web browser 119 of the user computing device 110 to a merchant system website 129 that presents the offer to the user 101 and allows the user 101 to enter payment and/or shipping information to purchase the product. In another example embodiment, the purchase link comprises a link to a shopping system (not depicted) website offering the product for sale.”
Applicant further argues that Hampson does not receive a request to generate a universal resource locator as recited by claim 5. Hampson teaches “in block 310, the user 101 accesses a search system website 139. In an example embodiment, the user 101 enters, via the user interface 111, the website address associated with the search system website 139 into the user computing device web browser 119 and accesses the website 139 via the network 140. In another example embodiment, the user 101 is viewing a website other than the search system website 139 in the web browser 119 and clicks a link on the other website, which redirects the web browser 119 to the search system website 139. In yet another example embodiment, the user 101 accesses the search system website 139 and downloads a search application 113 onto the user computing device 110 over the network 140. In this example embodiment, the search application 113 resident on the user computing device 110 communicates with the search system website 139 over the network 140 to enable the user 101 to access the search system website 139 via the search application 113. For example, the user 101 selects the search application 113 on the user computing device 110 to access the search system website 139. An example search system website 139 comprises an image search website 139 that can retrieve images, a video search website 139 that can retrieve videos, a text search website 139 that can retrieve text, or an audio search website 139 that can retrieve audio files. In an example embodiment, the search website 139 can retrieve more than one type of media. For example, the search website 139 can retrieve images, video files, text, and/or audio files,” which reads on the limitation. A user clicking links in a web browser to be transferred to a different web page is a request to generate a universal resource locator. Furthermore, Astrakhantsev explicitly teaches generating URLs, as well as hundreds of thousands of other references, and applicant is fully aware that they did not invent URLs.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Johnson et al., US PG Pub 2014/0122203 A1. teaches a system, method, and computer program for providing a multi-merchant electronic shopping cart for a shopping service.
Taylor et al., US PG Pub 2016/0104231 A1, teaches a system and method for purchasing by embedded, purchase-capable video player.
Non-patent literature Huarng, Kun-Huang, Tiffany Hui-Kuang Yu, and Jian Jhang Huang teaches the impacts of instructional video advertising on customer purchasing intentions on the Internet.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-5549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights