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 .
Status of Claims
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to the communications filed on 11/26/2025.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 15, and 19 have been amended
Claims 2-5, 9-11, and 16-18 are original and currently pending.
Claims 1-20 have been rejected
Priority
This application claims the priority benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/310,700, filed 2/16/2022. Examiner acknowledges this priority date.
Examiner’s Note
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The record, including the PTO-890 listing of cited references and applicant’s own explanation, establishes that the correct patent number for Wang, Allen is 11/935,533. Thus, the citation provided in the Office Action, when read in context of the cited-reference list and applicant’s response, was sufficient to identify the reference and permit applicant to ascertain the basis of the rejection. In addition, applicant’s own statement confirms recognition of the correct patent number and demonstrates that applicant understood the cited reference. Accordingly, applicant has not shown any defect in the prior art citation that would overcome the rejection (See page 16 of applicant’s response). Therefore, applicant’s argument is moot.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Representative independent claims are method (claim 1), apparatus (claim 8), and non-transitory computer-readable medium (CRM) (claim 15). Claim 1 is treated as representative for the § 101 analysis because claims 8 and 15 recite the same functional steps implemented on generic processors/memory or stored on generic media.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories (See MPEP 2106.03(II)). In the instant application, claims 1-7 are directed to a process (i.e., a method), claims 8-14 are directed to a machine (i.e., an apparatus), and claims 15-20 are directed to a manufacture (i.e., one or more non-transitory computer-readable media). All the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (YES).
Under Step 2A of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test (see MPEP 2106.04), it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.04). (YES). Taking Claim 1 as representative, the claim recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial or marketing/sales interactions). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II); 2019 PEG, “commercial or legal interactions” and “advertising, marketing or sales activities.” grouping of abstract ideas, including:
A method comprising:
receiving, based on content received by a client device comprising first product information, a request, wherein the request comprises the first product information and platform information;
determining, based on the platform information and the first product information, a data object comprising second product information, wherein the data object is configured according to a common schema, and wherein the common schema comprises a query language schema configured to allow the client device to specify one or more data elements to be included in the data object;
sending, based on the request, to the client device, the data object, wherein the data object is associated with one or more user interface elements and wherein the one or more user interface elements are associated with the platform information; and
causing, based on the data object configured according to the common schema and the second product information, output of the one or more user interface elements at the client device.
The additional amendments (underlined text) to the claims have not changed the fundamental process of the determination step of the claims as currently presented. Just the “wherein the common schema comprises a query language schema configured to allow the client device to specify one or more data elements to be included in the data object” does not change the fundamental process of the determination step as claimed. It only adds further generalities to the schema and query language for the process with no real detail and specific discloser of possible technological improvement or change.
Independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations as claim 1.
Certain methods of organizing human activity include:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risk)
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and business relations)
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
The limitations, as emphasized above, recite the concept of purchasing products displayed within content. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, fall with the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP because these limitations recite commercial or legal interactions (such as marketing or sales activities). Specifically, the claims recite receiving a request that comprises first product information, determining a data object comprising second product information, sending the data object, and causing an output be presented to a user. Applicant’s specification recites that the user may execute a purchase by adding an item associated with a purchase selection to a shopping cart and input a payment field (see specification [0054-0055]) and further recites that the products may be purchased from one or more brand and product platforms (system) 104 that offer products for purchase (see specification [0036], [0043-0044]). In sum, the claims are directed towards product management using comparisons, which amounts to sales activity. Accordingly, independent claims 1, 8, and 15, as a whole, are directed towards commercial or legal interactions and recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C)). In sum, the claims fall within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas because the claims recite a commercial interaction.
Under Prong 2, it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (NO).
Under the 2019 PEG, the claim “recites” abstract ideas in at least two groupings:
Certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial or marketing/sales interactions). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II); 2019 PEG, “commercial or legal interactions” and “advertising, marketing or sales activities.”
Offending clauses:
“first product information … second product information … product availability information, pricing information, discount information, store location information, third party seller information, or shipping information” (claim 4).
“sending … the data object … associated with one or more user interface elements” (claim 1) to present product/sales information.
Mental processes/data manipulation and presentation (collection, analysis, and display of information; activities that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper). See 2019 PEG, “mental processes”; Electric Power Group v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Offending clauses:
“receiving … a request … comprising the first product information and platform information.”
“determining … a data object comprising second product information … configured according to a common schema … [with] a query language schema configured to allow the client device to specify one or more data elements….”
“sending … to the client device, the data object….”
“causing … output of the one or more user interface elements at the client device.”
No mathematical concept (e.g., a specific formula) or law of nature/natural phenomenon is recited. The recited “query language schema” and “typed defined schema” are presented functionally and do not claim specific mathematical operations.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea, including:
a client device
one or more user interface elements
an apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing processor executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to perform operations
one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing processor executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations
The additional elements of claims 1, 8, and 15 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) in Applicant’s specification without meaningful detail regarding their structure, configuration, or function. As such, the additional elements amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Specifically, the additional elements of the one or more user interface elements, are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic icons/buttons displayed on a user interface) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks). For example, stating that the requests are received by a client device only generally links the commercial interactions into a computer environment. Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment or based on detecting the platform information, does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Additionally, 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 another technology or technical field, ii) apply 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.
Furthermore, the additional claim elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application:
No improvement to computer functionality or other technology is recited. The “common schema,” “query language schema,” and “typed defined schema” (claim 6) are described at a results-oriented, interoperability level (standardizing disparate APIs, allowing clients to specify data elements), without specific technical mechanisms (e.g., defined data structures with constraints; protocol-level operations; cache invalidation logic; transport optimizations; compositor pipelines; frame/timestamp synchronization) that would satisfy Enfish/McRO-type improvements to computer functionality.
No particular machine is claimed. The “client device,” “one or more processors,” “memory,” and “non-transitory media” are generic components used as tools to perform data reception, organization, transmission, and display. See MPEP 2106.05(b).
No transformation of an article to a different state or thing. The “data object” and “user interface elements” are informational content; causing UI output is presentation of results. See MPEP 2106.05(e).
The steps of “receiving” product/platform data, “determining” a data object, “sending” the data object, and “causing output” of UI elements constitute mere data gathering and presentation—insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.04(d)(2).
The association of UI elements with “platform information” is a field-of-use or customization limitation (tailoring UI to platform) that does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
While the specification discusses potentially technical aspects (PMTs, manifest parsing, OCR, caching, GraphQL, WebSockets/TCP, OAuth), those are not claimed with the specificity needed to demonstrate an improvement to computer technology. Therefore, the claim fails Prong 2.
Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, it is determined whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims of the present application do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (NO).
As discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although additional computer related elements are recited, the claim merely invokes such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Moreover, the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 are manual processes (e.g., receiving a request, determining product information, sending a data object based on the platform information, and executing a purchase). The courts have indicated that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)). Furthermore, as discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, claims 1, 8, and 15 merely recite the additional elements in order to further define the field of use of the abstract idea, therein attempting to generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such as the Internet or computing networks (see Ultrametrical, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC. (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bilski v. Kappos (2010); MPEP 2106.05(h)). Similar to Fair Warning v. Iatric Sys., claims 1, 8, and 15 specifying that the abstract idea of displaying products within a media content and providing ways for purchasing products displayed within content is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claim to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. In Alice Corp., the Court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘[a]dd nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’ and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Id. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, viewed as a whole, claims 1, 8, and 15 simply convey the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 8, and 15 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually. Therefore, independent claims 1, 8 and 15do not provide an inventive concept and do not qualify as claiming eligible subject matter.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are dependencies of claims 1, 8, and 15. When analyzed, as a whole, the dependent claims are held to be patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to the judicial exception, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they add “significantly more” to the judicial exception. More specifically, claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they further recite commercial or legal interactions, such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Dependent claims 4, 6, 11, 13, and 18-19 do not recite further additional elements but rather recite limitations that further define the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 4, 6, 11, 13, and 18-19 are not indicative of integration into a practical application and are not significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5, 7, 9-10, 12, 14, 16-17, and 20 further identify additional elements, such as:
one or more of: a smartphone, a laptop, a set-top-box, a gateway device, a computer, a smart speaker, a television, combinations thereof, and the like
one or more of: streaming content, video-on-demand (VOD) content, one or more advertisements, or metadata
a requesting client device
causing the one or more interface elements to output the second product information
Similar to discussion above the with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although additional computer-related elements are recited, the claims merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such, under Step 2A, dependent claims 2-3, 5, 7, 9-10, 12, 14, 16-17, and 20 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Similar to the discussion above with respect to independent claims 1, 8, and 15, dependent claims 2-3, 5, 7, 9-10, 12, 14, 16-17, and 20, analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and merely indicate a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Accordingly, under the Alice/Mayo test, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1-20 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geekee et al. (US 2021/0326967 A1) in view of Stark (US 2019/0325495 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Geekee et al. (hereinafter Geekee) discloses:
A method comprising (See systems and methods provided for commerce while users are being entertained via a computing device [0026-0027]):
receiving, based on content received by a client device comprising first product information, a request, wherein the request comprises the first product information (See a user system 20 allowing or enabling a respective user to interact with other entities in the environment, where the user can be a prospective purchaser of goods and services from various merchants and where each user system 20 includes a display screen on which the user may view or watch entertainment, such as video segments, television shows, movies, concerts, etc. [0028-0030], Fig. 1. See further input data 140 including data for objects or items displayed or presented in the video segments or programs and of potential interests to one or more users [0047], Fig. 1A-B. Examiner interprets the initial click/request by the user as the request and interprets the “object” within the video as the first product information);
determining, based on the platform information (See [30] and [139], e.g. HTTP is used to identify the client information and further policies to define the workflow and vendor/client interaction that would need the platform information to do so) and the first product information, a data object comprising second product information (See that an identified item or object (i.e., the first product information) is matched to the exact product, service, or item offered or provided by a particular vendor suppling the item. In some examples, the system and methods (e.g., as implemented in Entertainment Commercial platform130) enable or allow a vendor program to negotiate or enter into an exclusive arrangement with the provider or distributor of the video content so that only the exact product or service matching the displayed item is presented to the user when viewing and “clicking” on the object of interest. [0102]. See that the data or information received from one or more vendors or sellers of the various items may include vendor identification (e.g., brand name or label), item identification or stock numbers, size options, color, options, information about fit (e.g., “full,” “relaxed,” “straight,” “tapered,”…), pricing information, menu items, complementary items, availability, etc. [0046-0048], Fig. 1A-B. Examiner interprets the exact match of the object to the product as the second product information), wherein the data object is configured according to a common schema, and wherein the common schema comprises a query language schema configured to allow the client device to specify one or more data elements to be included in the data object (See that data and information input, processed, stored, and/or output from the network, platform, or architecture (e.g., input data 140, output data 150) is aggregated and managed, e.g., using one or more data abstraction, aggregation, and management layers, which normalize all data within the platform. For example, all third party data is mapped and normalized to internal consumable structures within the micro-services. Further, the data layers may also facilitate or support secure storage, e.g., supporting attribute level encryption and hashing to enable secure storage, leverage distributed key management to grant access to view or modify the data [0081], Fig. 14. Examiner interprets the data normalization and reading on configuring data objects according to a common schema);
sending, based on the request, to the client device, the data object, wherein the data object is associated with one or more user interface elements (See output data 150 that includes data relating to open or more items that the system has identified within the one or more video segments or programs, and connections or relationships of the identified items to products or services being offered by one or more vendors or sellers. That is, in some embodiments, output data 150 includes data for matching over live/recorded video to the inventory of various providers. Output data 150 can also include data or information for links or triggers to embed or include into the one or more video programs proximate in time and/or location to certain objects or items, such as links or triggers “clickable” by a user or viewer so that information regarding to the object may be presented or displayed to the user, e.g., for potential purchase. The output data 150 may include one or more portions of the video programs themselves into which the links or triggers relating to certain items are inserted [0048], Fig. 1A-B. Examiner interprets the links/clickable triggers as the interactive elements and interprets the display of the output data 150 as sending the data object); and
causing, based on the data object configured according to the common schema and the second product information, output of the one or more user interface elements at the client device (See [30], [51], [60-64] Fig. 4 and 5, See a payment system 70 allowing a payment processing entity to interact in the environment 10, for example, to process payments made by users ordering products or services through the Entertainment Commerce system [0033], Fig. 1. See that the platform 130 enables the user to obtain additional information (e.g., seller or vendor, size, color, price, availability, etc.) and ultimately make a purchase using the payment processing 140 of the platform [0103], Fig. 2. Further, the user interface device can be used to access data and applications hosted by system 40, and to perform searches on stored data, and otherwise allow a user to interact with various Graphical User Interface (GUI) pages that may be presented to the user [30]).
Geekee does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the request comprises the first product information and platform information; and
wherein the one or more user interface elements are associated with the platform information
However, Geekee does disclose that the system comprises one or more merchant systems 60 that allow or enable merchants to interact with other entities in the environment, where the merchants may be retailers, venues, vendors, or sellers offering merchandise or services which may appear, be included, or features in content viewed by a user. Through merchant systems 60, merchants can provide or supply information or data for images, prices, availability, store locations, SKU numbers, sizing, etc. for one or more items of merchandise or services offered by the merchant. Merchant systems 60 can also receive orders or queries from users or other entities in the environment 10, for example, for order fulfillment. Payment system 70 allows a payment processing entity to interact in the environment 10, for example, to process payments made by users ordering products or services in Entertainment Commerce (see Geekee [0033], Fig. 1). This could be interpreted to encompass “platform information.” Nevertheless, additional art has been cited.
Stark, on the other hand, teaches:
wherein the request comprises the first product information and platform information (See receiving an e-commerce direct ordering request through an interactive platform URL associated with an interactive platform. The direct ordering request may comprise the interactive platform URL and wherein the determining the e-commerce system associated with the direct ordering request comprises determining the e-commerce system that transmitted the e-commerce direct ordering request [0010]. Examiner interprets the request comprising the platform URL as comprising platform information); and
wherein the one or more user interface elements are associated with the platform information (See that the interactive platforms 103 may comprise identifiers (e.g., URLs) of each interactive platform 103 that the e-commerce system desires to enable direct ordering from [0034], Fig. 1)
Geekee and Stark both disclose systems and methods directed to purchasing products within media content. These two references are in the same field of endeavor and are therefore analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Geekee with the teachings of Stark. The claimed invention is merely a combination of existing elements, and in combination, each element would have functioned the same as it would have separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results were repeatable and would have allowed a consumer to view and purchase products and services on a social media website and purchase it directly without the need to visit a third party website (see Stark [0003-0004]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Geekee and Stark teaches the method of claim 1. Geekee further discloses: wherein the client device comprises one or more of: a smartphone, a laptop, a set-top box, a gateway device, a computer, a smart speaker, a television, combinations thereof, and the like (See that the user system 200 may enable users to interact with entities in the environment, where each user system 20 may be implemented as any computer device(s) or other data processing apparatus, e.g., a handheld computing device, a mobile phone, a laptop computer, a work station, a tablet, a personal device assistant, wireless access protocol-enabled device or any other computer device [0028-0029], Fig. 1. Examiner notes that the claim is recited in the alternative and therefore only one item in the list must be taught by the references).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Geekee and Stark teaches the method of claim 1. Geekee further discloses: wherein the content comprises one or more of: streaming content, video-on-demand (VOD) content, one or more advertisements, or metadata (See that users may view or stream movies, television shows, etc. [0032]. See further that the user may watch video and other multi-media programs (e.g., TV show, movie, augmented and/or virtual reality based interactions), where the user may shop, buy, and/or ship a desired product mid-stream. For example, the user may be watching a streamed concert [0034], Fig. 1-2. Examiner notes that the claim is recited in the alternative and therefore only one item in the list must be taught by the references).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Geekee and Stark teaches the method of claim 1. Geekee further discloses: wherein the first product information is configured to indicate a product featured in the content (See using a multi-layer neural network (R-CNN) to identify various objects in a video frame or image and a second neural network to match the object to a sellable item in the inventory of one or more vendors or merchants [0043]. See further input data 140 including data for objects or items displayed or presented in the video segments or programs and of potential interests to one or more users [0047], Fig. 1A-B. Examiner interprets the initial click/request by the user as the request and interprets the “object” within the video as the first product information) and wherein the second product information comprises one or more of: product availability information, pricing information, discount information, store location information, third party seller information, or shipping information See that an identified item or object (i.e., the first product information) is matched to the exact product, service, or item offered or provided by a particular vendor suppling the item. [0102]. See that the data or information received from one or more vendors or sellers of the various items may include vendor identification (e.g., brand name or label), item identification or stock numbers, size options, color, options, information about fit (e.g., “full,” “relaxed,” “straight,” “tapered,”…), pricing information, menu items, complementary items, availability, etc. [0046-0048], Fig. 1A-B. Examiner notes that the claim is recited in the alternative and therefore only one item in the list must be taught by the references and further interprets the exact match of the object to the product as the second product information).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Geekee and Stark teaches the method of claim 1. Geekee further discloses: wherein sending the data object comprises sending the data object to a requesting client device (See output data 150 that includes data relating to open or more items that the system has identified within the one or more video segments or programs, and connections or relationships of the identified items to products or services being offered by one or more vendors or sellers. That is, in some embodiments, output data 150 includes data for matching over live/recorded video to the inventory of various providers. Output data 150 can also include data or information for links or triggers to embed or include into the one or more video programs proximate in time and/or location to certain objects or items, such as links or triggers “clickable” by a user or viewer so that information regarding to the object may be presented or displayed to the user, e.g., for potential purchase. The output data 150 may include one or more portions of the video programs themselves into which the links or triggers relating to certain items are inserted [0048], Fig. 1A-B. Examiner interprets the links/clickable triggers as the interactive elements and interprets the display of the output data 150 as sending the data object).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Geekee and Stark teaches the method of claim 1. Geekee further discloses: causing the one or more user interface elements to output the second product information (See output data 150 that includes data relating to open or more items that the system has identified within the one or more video segments or programs, and connections or relationships of the identified items to products or services being offered by one or more vendors or sellers. That is, in some embodiments, output data 150 includes data for matching over live/recorded video to the inventory of various providers. Output data 150 can also include data or information for links or triggers to embed or include into the one or more video programs proximate in time and/or location to certain objects or items, such as links or triggers “clickable” by a user or viewer so that information regarding to the object may be presented or displayed to the user, e.g., for potential purchase. The output data 150 may include one or more portions of the video programs themselves into which the links or triggers relating to certain items are inserted [0048], Fig. 1A-B. Examiner notes that the display of the output data 150 as encompasses outputting the second product information).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is directed to an apparatus. Claim 8 recites limitations that are closely parallel in nature to those analyzed above in claim 1, which is directed to a method. The combined method of Geekee and Stark teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Geekee further discloses:
An apparatus comprising (See computing device 100 [0040], Fig. 1B):
one or more processors (See that the computing device includes a processor 110 coupled to memory 120 [0040], Fig. 1B); and
a memory storing processor executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to perform the method of claim 1 (See that the computing device 100 comprises a processor 110 coupled to memory 120, where the memory may be used to store software executed by the computing device 100. The memory may be implemented in any medium from which a process is adapted to read [0040-0042], Fig. 1B)
Claim 8 is therefore rejected for the reasons set forth in claim 1 and the in the above paragraph.
Regarding claims 9-12 and 14, the limitations of apparatus claims 9-12 and 14 are closely parallel to method claims 2-5 and 7, respectively, and are therefore rejected under the same bases.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is directed to an apparatus. Claim 15 recites limitations that are closely parallel in nature to those analyzed above in claim 1, which is directed to a method. The combined method of Geekee and Stark teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Geekee further discloses: One or more non-transitory computer readable media storing processor executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform the method of claim 1 (See that memory 120 may include non-transitory, tangible, machine readable media which includes executable code that when run by one or more processors (e.g., processor 110) may cause the one or more processors to perform the methods described herein [0044], Fig. 1B).
Claim 15 is therefore rejected for the reasons set forth in claim 1 and the in the above paragraph.
Regarding claims 16-18 and 20, the limitations of media claims 16-18 and 20 are closely parallel to method claims 2-4 and 7, respectively, and are therefore rejected under the same bases.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geekee in view of Stark in view of Wang et al. (US 11,935,533 B1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Geekee and Stark teaches the method of claim 1. The combination of Geekee and Stark does not explicitly teach: wherein the common schema comprises a typed defined schema and wherein the common schema is configured to enable sending of the data obiect to a plurality of different platform types.
Wang et al. (hereinafter Wang), on the other hand, teaches: wherein the common schema comprises a typed defined schema (See using a GraphQL query to return the value of a field of a database stored by host 1442A or by a database to which host 1442A has access Col. 43, lines 35-58, Fig. 14. Examiner notes that GraphQL is described as a strongly-typed schema in [0034] of Applicant’s specification).
Geekee, Stark, and Wang all disclose systems and methods directed to internet-based commerce. These three references are in the same field of endeavor and are therefore analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Geekee with the teachings of Wang. The claimed invention is merely a combination of existing elements, and in combination, each element would have functioned the same as it would have separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results were repeatable and would have allowed for removing redundancy within pending query requests, thus reducing computational load Col. 41, line 38-Col. 42, line 2).
Regarding claim 13, the limitations of apparatus claim 13 are closely parallel in nature to those analyzed above with respect to method claim 6 and are rejected under the same bases.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations of media claim 19 are closely parallel in nature to those analyzed above with respect to method claim 6 and are rejected under the same bases.
Response to Arguments
Response to arguments under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, however based on the analysis provided above under the patent eligibility 101 rejections they are not persuasive.
Further to clarify the office position, it is clear that the claims discuss receiving a request, based on the content received by the client device. Based on the request and the device and information related to the first content (Fig. 5) system sends a second product information, which would be tailored to be displayed in the specific device for purchase execution.
Providing additional information about a product displayed in a streaming content and the act of purchasing, is an organized human activity. What product has been displayed in the VOD and subsequently further information has been provided about the product displayed in the VOD to the end user in their device and facilitating such transaction of purchasing is indeed an organized human activity. (Fig. 6)
In claim 3, applicant clearly indicates that the trust of the inventive concept is towards organized human activity, which would be video on demand streaming content that does include items (advertisements) that may be purchased via interaction with the VOD and presentation of additional once the user clicks or points or pushes button to receive further purchase information.
To further clarify the position of the office the following is provided. Applicant argues that claims 1-20 are not directed to a judicial exception because, in Applicant’s view, the claims recite a specific technological implementation involving a common schema, a query language schema, and client-specified data elements. Applicant further argues that the claims allegedly integrate any judicial exception into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the exception itself. These arguments are not persuasive.
Claims 1-20 are directed, at least in part, to the concept of receiving product-related information in connection with content, determining additional product information based on platform information and the received product information, transmitting the product information in a standardized format, and causing presentation of user interface elements to facilitate purchase. This is a commercial interaction and falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
With respect to independent claim 1, the limitations reciting “receiving … a request,” “determining … a data object comprising second product information,” “sending … the data object,” and “causing … output of the one or more user interface elements” recite, at a high level of generality, the collection, organization, transmission, and presentation of information in connection with a purchase workflow. These limitations do not recite a specific technological improvement to the functioning of a computer, network, display technology, or other technology. Rather, they recite the desired result of the information processing. The additional recitations of a “common schema” and a “query language schema” are likewise functional and do not impose a meaningful technological limitation on how the information is processed.
With respect to independent claim 8, the recitation of one or more processors and memory merely places the same abstract idea in the context of generic computing components. Claim 8 does not require any nonconventional hardware, specialized processing architecture, or technical solution that improves computer functionality. The claim recites the same substantive steps as claim 1, merely implemented on generic computer components.
With respect to independent claim 15, the recitation of one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions likewise does not alter the analysis. Claim 15 merely claims the same abstract idea as instructions embodied on generic computer-readable media. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Applicant’s reliance on the specification is not persuasive. Although the specification discusses standardized schema-based aggregation, APIs, and client-side presentation, the claims do not recite the specific technical details necessary to establish a technological improvement. The claims do not require a particular schema syntax, a defined data structure with technical constraints, a specific caching mechanism, a specific transport protocol, a particular rendering pipeline, or any other concrete implementation that improves the operation of a computer or another technology. The claims therefore recite no more than using generic computer components to carry out a commercial purchasing workflow.
Applicant’s citations to recent USPTO guidance and case law do not change the outcome. The present claims are materially different from claims found eligible in cases involving specific improvements to computer functionality or another technology. Here, the claims are directed to presenting product information in content and facilitating purchase based on standardized information exchange. That is not a technological improvement; it is an abstract commercial process implemented on generic computing components.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are directed to a judicial exception, do not integrate the exception into a practical application, and do not recite significantly more than the exception itself.
None of the activities that has been discussed above as it has been explained in detail under the rejection section will point to any additional elements that would improve a technological aspect of the systems or hardware. Therefore, the arguments presented by the applicant do not overcome the rejections based on the patent eligibility under 35 USC 101.
Examiner would like to suggest that applicant may provide further focus on the following to address the patent eligibility issues:
Tie the abstract steps to a specific, non-generic technological implementation that improves computer functionality or another technology (e.g., “reduces network latency by X,” “improves memory utilization via Y,” “improves image fidelity through Z”), with technical mechanisms claimed.
Add claim elements showing a particular machine or a transformation of an article, beyond mere data manipulation or display.
Replace results-oriented language with concrete steps and parameters (e.g., algorithms with specific operations, data structures with defined constraints, hardware configurations).
Limit scope to a specific technological field and architecture, avoiding broad “apply it on a computer” formulations.
Provide specification support demonstrating that alleged improvements are not WURC (technical comparisons, performance metrics, implementation details), enabling Step 2A integration or Step 2B “significantly more.”
If economics or user behavior is central, embed it within a technical solution to a technological problem (e.g., secure hardware-backed attestations, novel protocol flows, improved cryptographic operations, sensor fusion pipelines).
Response to arguments under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Geekee in view of Stark
Applicant argues that the combination of Geekee and Stark does not teach or suggest the limitations of claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, and 20, particularly the limitations reciting a data object configured according to a common schema, a query language schema configured to allow the client device to specify data elements, and output of user interface elements associated with platform information. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, Geekee discloses a content-based commerce system in which objects or items displayed in media content are identified and associated with product information for presentation to the user, including links or triggers for interactive purchase-related activity. Geekee further discloses aggregating and normalizing third-party data into internal consumable structures within a microservices architecture. Stark discloses direct ordering requests through an interactive platform and the use of platform identifiers or URLs in the ordering workflow. In view of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a standardized schema-based data object responsive to content-based product information and platform information in order to present product-related information in a user interface and facilitate purchase.
Applicant’s argument that Geekee’s disclosure of normalized data structures does not teach a “common schema” or “query language schema” is not persuasive. The claims are drafted broadly and functionally. The claims do not require a particular schema language, syntax, or implementation detail. Geekee’s data normalization and internal consumable structures, in combination with Stark’s platform-linked direct ordering workflow, reasonably correspond to the claimed standardized data object and schema-based retrieval of product information. The claim language does not require more than this broad functional arrangement.
With respect to the limitation in claim 1 reciting “sending … the data object, wherein the data object is associated with one or more user interface elements and wherein the one or more user interface elements are associated with the platform information,” Geekee discloses output data and interactive links or triggers associated with items detected in content, and Stark discloses platform-specific direct ordering functionality. The combination of these references teaches or suggests outputting user interface elements that present product-related information and enable purchase in association with platform information.
With respect to the limitation in claim 1 reciting “causing … output of the one or more user interface elements,” the combination of Geekee and Stark teaches outputting interactive elements and product information through a user-facing interface in response to content-based product identification and platform-linked ordering. The limitation is broad and functional and does not require any particular rendering architecture or user interface implementation. The Examiner’s finding is therefore supported by the cited references.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, the cited combination of Geekee and Stark teaches or suggests the recited client device types and content types. Geekee discloses user systems implemented as various computer devices and media content such as streaming content and video content. Accordingly, the dependent limitations of claims 2 and 3 do not patentably distinguish over the prior art.
With respect to claim 4, Geekee discloses identifying objects in content and matching them to sellable items in vendor inventory, including item identification, pricing, availability, and other product-related information. Thus, the recitation of product availability information, pricing information, discount information, store location information, third party seller information, or shipping information is taught or suggested by the cited art.
With respect to claim 5, Geekee discloses output data associated with a requesting user system and interactive elements for purchase-related activity. Therefore, sending the data object to a requesting client device is taught or suggested by the prior art.
With respect to claim 7, Geekee discloses clickable triggers or links embedded in or associated with media content to present information regarding identified objects to the user, including purchase-related information. Accordingly, causing the one or more user interface elements to output the second product information is taught or suggested.
With respect to claims 8 and 15, the apparatus and non-transitory computer-readable medium claims recite limitations corresponding to the method limitations of claim 1. Because the method limitations are taught or suggested by Geekee in view of Stark, the apparatus and CRM claims are likewise unpatentable for the same reasons. The recitation of processors, memory, and computer-readable media does not confer patentability where the underlying functional limitations are obvious.
With respect to claims 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, and 20, these dependent claims recite limitations parallel to the dependent method limitations already discussed above. The cited prior art teaches or suggests the recited alternative device types, content types, request/response relationships, and output features. Accordingly, these claims likewise do not patentably distinguish over the cited references.
Applicant’s argument that the Examiner has not articulated an adequate motivation to combine Geekee and Stark is not persuasive. The references are in the same field of endeavor and address related problems of in-content commerce and streamlined purchasing. It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of the references to provide a seamless content-based purchasing experience with platform-aware direct ordering. Such a rationale is consistent with the teachings of the references and the ordinary creativity of a person of ordinary skill in the art. The proposed combination merely applies known techniques to achieve the predictable result of enabling a user to view and purchase products directly from content.
Applicant’s contention that the Office Action improperly “creates a problem” in the primary reference is also not persuasive. The rejection does not depend on any fabricated problem. Rather, it relies on the combined teachings of the references, which together suggest the claimed arrangement of content-based product identification, standardized data exchange, and user-interface-driven purchase functionality.
Accordingly, claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, and 20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Geekee in view of Stark.
Response to arguments under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Geekee in view of Stark in view of Wang
Applicant argues that the additional reference to Wang does not cure the deficiencies of Geekee and Stark with respect to claims 6, 13, and 19. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 6, Wang discloses the use of a typed schema in a query-based data retrieval environment. The claim limitation reciting that the common schema comprises a typed defined schema is therefore taught or suggested by Wang. When combined with the teachings of Geekee and Stark, the cited references collectively teach or suggest the recited schema-based product-information retrieval workflow.
Applicant’s argument that Geekee and Stark do not expressly disclose a query language schema configured to allow the client device to specify one or more data elements is not persuasive. The claim language is broad and functional, and the cited references reasonably support a standardized, platform-aware data retrieval workflow. Wang further supplies the typed schema teaching. The combination of the references would have rendered the claim obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claims 13 and 19, these claims recite limitations corresponding to claim 6. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above, claims 13 and 19 are also unpatentable over Geekee in view of Stark in view of Wang.
Applicant’s argument regarding the identification of the Wang reference does not alter the substantive merits of the rejection as applied in the Office Action. The cited teachings, as relied upon in the rejection, remain applicable to the claim limitations at issue.
Accordingly, claims 6, 13, and 19 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Geekee in view of Stark in view of Wang.
Response to arguments regarding the dependent claims
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are allowable because the independent claims are allegedly allowable. Because the independent claims remain properly rejected, this argument is not persuasive.
The dependent claims recite additional limitations that are either generic, conventional, or otherwise insufficient to overcome the cited prior art and the subject matter eligibility rejection. The dependent limitations do not add a patentable distinction for purposes of either 35 U.S.C. § 101 or 35 U.S.C. § 103.
For the reasons set forth above, Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are not persuasive. The rejections are therefore maintained.
Claims 1-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, and 20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Geekee in view of Stark.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Geekee in view of Stark in view of Wang.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
McIntire (US 2007/0250901 A1) discloses a system and method directed to creating annotated media streams and using the annotated media streams to facilitate within-video/within-media purchases of items displayed within the media streams.
Dryann (US 11,049,176 B1) clearly discloses product placements appearing in audiovisual or digital content presented to users, and provide users with accessible information to facilitate direct purchase. Figure 1 clearly discloses this fact as is essentially disclosed by the applicants discloser.
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 Kambiz Abdi whose telephone number is (571)272-6702. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Th 8:30 AM - 7:30 PM. 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.
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.
/KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights