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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 28, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In light of Applicant's submission filed July 28, 2025, the Examiner has maintained and updated the 35 USC § 101 rejection. The Examiner has maintained and updated the 112 first paragraph rejection. However the Examiner has withdrawn the 112 second paragraph rejection. .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 22-24, 26-32 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically claim 22 that states, “an integrate add-on software linked with said user interface to allow advertisers to choose their preferred markets or customers and dynamically matching users’ preferences with advertisers’ choice using a predefined matching algorithm to present listings of said advertiser’s products and services only to users dynamically matched.” There does not appear to be any language in the applicant’s specification that teaches or suggest the aforementioned limitation. The only algorithms mentioned in the specification are algorithms used by search engines, Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc, however the applicant’s specification does not present search results personalised by dynamically matching users’ preferences with advertisers’ choice using a predefined matching algorithm to present their listings of said products and services. The applicant’s specification merely states that algorithms are used in other search engines. But does not disclose an algorithm that is being used by the applicant’s invention.
The applicant’s specification does not disclose, “the centralized interactive user interface integrated with the master website platform configured to receive user preference on lifestyle selected from psychographics or demographic profile and business parameters selected from business or market type and dynamically customize said users own customize their own search for said products and services with click button options wherein the customization is determined by lifestyle choices customers and based on business type of businesses, in the case of businesses” specifically the added term of a "centralized user interface”, is also not present in the applicant’s specification. The applicant’s specification at page 9 states, “The term “platform" or “software platform" is used - implied meaning is that the total software solution can controlled by one user entity (that is, doesn't rely on websites owned by others) - noting that both the customer search process and advertiser listing process is not from one centralised software platform.” Also at page 10 states, “The end-to-end search process is streamlined to the extent that the user would perceive that all functionality is from one central platform” Thus it appears the only time the term “centralized” is discussed in the specification is in relation to a software platform. The applicant’s drawings do not show a single integrated user interface. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not equate a centralized platform to a centralized interactive user interface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 22-24, 26-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following limitations that are considered to be abstract ideas:
Claim 22
a plurality of slave websites linked to the master website, wherein each of the plurality of slave websites includes a unique domain name the centralized interactive user interface integrated with the master website platform configured to receive user preference on lifestyle selected from psychographics or demographic profile and business parameters selected from business or market type and dynamically customize said users own customize their own search for said products and services with click button options wherein the customization is determined by lifestyle choices customers and based on business type of businesses, in the case of businesses
an integrate add-on software linked with said user interface to allow advertisers to choose their preferred markets or customers and dynamically matching said users’ preferences with advertisers’ choice using a predefined matching algorithm to present listings of advertiser’s products and services only to users dynamically matched, wherein said listings include hyperlinks to advertisers’ website, product purchase and social pages
a lead management system to allow users to communicate directly with advertisers through integrated messaging or tools on the platform;
wherein said plurality of slave websites are connected to the centralized interactive user interface as a structured network of websites to present search results with granular detail, including with text-based, or drop-down menu search functionality and location based filtering to refine searches by location, product or service category, and demographic or psychographic criteria
wherein said integrated add-on software allow advertisers to choose one or more slave websites from the structured network of slave website using tick boxes and clone their account information, digital content, and preferred markets or customers in real time from the master website to the chosen slave websites to ensure consistency across platforms for targeting their preferred customers. The limitations of independent claim 22, as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely “advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors” because the claims disclose offering website to present advertising. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the additional elements of using interface. The aforementioned additional generic computing elements perform the steps of the claims at a high level of generality (i.e. As a generic medium performing generic computer function of configure, integrate, communicate, design) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of an interface to configure, integrate, communicate, and design amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to
significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). (i.e. “PEG”
Step 2B=No) The dependent claims 23, 24, 26-32 appear to merely further limit the abstract and as such, the analysis of dependent claims 23, 24, 26-32 results in the claims “reciting” an abstract idea The claims the claims do not recited additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application the additional elements do not amount to an inventive concept (significantly more) other than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 22-24,26-32 are not patent eligible.Also Note: The instant claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not positively recite elements that necessarily constitute a system or apparatus, rather, the claims could be directed to software. Software per se is not patentable under § 101; therefore, the claimed invention does not fall within a statutory class of patentable subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 22-24, 26-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dooley (US 2002/0035611) in view of DIY Online Marketing System', via https://web.archive.org/web/20190307211124/https://www.suppliersonline.com.au/docs/ebook.pdf, hereinafter referred to as B2B Suppliers
Claim 22:Dooley discloses a personalized online search system to provide personalized and relevant search results for products and services using a centralized interactive user interface from a master website platform, said system comprising: a plurality of slave websites linked to the master website, wherein each of the plurality of slave websites includes a unique domain name;(see for example [0032], discloses he domain names (registered, owned, and/or leased) may be deployed as websites with links to other websites in the information network. This virtual "lexicon" of related terms (i.e., using the domain names and websites utilizing some or all of the domain names) may be deployed in hierarchical categories representative of the field, category, or subcategory. For example, in a healthcare information network with a category focusing on skincare and dermatology, domain names including specific terms for dermatological conditions, such as skin cancer (e.g., skin-cancers.net, melanoma.net), sunburns (e.g., sunburns.net), erythema (erythema.com), etc. may be used. The domain names may also include general medical terms like drug treatments, therapies, or product names (e.g., acne-drug.com, corticosteroid.com, e-minoxidil.com). The names may also include medical professionals and other experts (e.g., e-cosmetologists.com, beauty-consultants.net, estheticians.org, webdermatologists.com).) the centralized interactive user interface integrated with the master website platform configured to receive user preference on lifestyle selected from psychographics or demographic profile and business parameters selected from business or market type and dynamically customize said users own customize their own search for said products and services with click button options wherein the customization is determined by lifestyle choices customers and based on business type of businesses, in the case of businesses [0017, It is another technical advantage of the present invention to provide directories or site maps of hierarchical relationships among components. It is another technical advantage of the present invention to provide directories online as an alternative to and/or in addition to external search engine-based directories [0054] , a search engine may be deployed on the Internet "outside" of ,or external to, information network 200, and thus be available to all users of the Internet, regardless of whether the user intends to search for terms representative of websites or webpages controlled by information network 200. This search engine may provide high level or exclusive placement of all of information network 200's websites in any of the appropriate categories for which websites have been prepared, or for which URL redirect traffic is desirable. This search engine may be a direct competitor to other search engines or browsers on the Internet)(also see [0050], click option) wherein said plurality of slave websites are connected to the centralized interactive user interface as structured network of websites to present search results with granular detail, including with text-based, or drop-down menu search functionality and location based filtering to refine searches by location, product or service category, and demographic or psychographic criteria. ([0050], The search engine may identify relevant websites that have been registered with or located by the particular search engine, and may return this search results list to the user. Once the search results are returned, the user may make a choice and select (or "click") a particular search result and be hyperlinked to the selected website in accordance with the operation of the search engine. (also see [0056]) But does not explicitly disclose an integrate add-on software linked with said user interface to allow advertisers to choose their preferred markets or customers and dynamically matching said users’ preferences with advertisers’ choice using a predefined matching algorithm to present listings of advertiser’s products and services only to users dynamically matched, wherein said listings include hyperlinks to advertisers’ website, product purchase and social pages; wherein said integrated add-on software allows advertisers to choose one or more slave websites from the structured network of slave website using tick boxes to clone their account information and digital content and preferred markets or customers in real time from the master website to the chosen slave websites to ensure consistency across platforms for targeting their preferred customers.
a lead management system to allow users to communicate directly with advertisers through integrated messaging or tools on the platform; However B2B Suppliers discloses a lead management system to allow users to communicate directly with advertisers through integrated messaging or tools on the platform;(see page 30 and 35, discloses . communicating with an advertiser.)
an integrate add-on software linked with said user interface to allow advertisers to choose their preferred markets or customers and dynamically matching said users’ preferences with advertisers’ choice using a predefined matching algorithm to present listings of advertiser’s products and services only to users dynamically matched, wherein said listings include hyperlinks to advertisers’ website, product purchase and social pages;(see for example page 6-8, and 10 discloses which markets and advertise to) wherein said integrated add-on software allows advertisers to choose one or more slave websites from the structured network of slave website using tick boxes to clone their account information and digital content and preferred markets or customers in real time from the master website to the chosen slave websites to ensure consistency across platforms for targeting their preferred customers.( see for example page 6-8, discloses which markets and advertise to) Both Dooley and B2B Suppliers teach system of online marketing and searching. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the advertising system of B2B suppliers with the system of Dooley in order offer a fast, easy and cost effective way to market products and services. (see B2B Suppliers page 10)
Claim 23: Dooley and B2B Suppliers discloses the system of claim 22 wherein said interface is structured as a hierarchical tree structure with url links of website type groupings for example, Master Website, then Primary Level, Website Family (family website) then connected to the network of said directory websites — to create a multiple website network that is customized to different said user choices, wherein said website type grouping and Directory websites are each represented as an independent website with a separate domain name that reflects the purpose of each step of the customers’ search.([0017, 0036, 0044, 0054, 0067 to 0070])
Claim 24: Dooley and B2B Suppliers discloses the user interface of claim 22, wherein said platform is a self-contained platform that can be applied at any geographic level including city, country, multi-national and can be applied to business-to-business and consumer searches, including searches for any item that can be categorised under a product or service categorisation system [0017 and 0053, 0057] Dooley Claim 26: Dooley and B2B Suppliers discloses the system of claim 22 further comprises a central account dashboard to allow advertisers to customise said digital content in each slave website [0041] Dooley
Claim 27: Dooley and B2B Suppliers discloses the system of claim 22 further comprises a back-end administration panel with has add-on software widgets for each directory website in the network third party directory website.[0068] Dooley
Claim 28: Dooley and B2B Suppliers discloses the system of claim 27 wherein said widgets support multiple APIs to enable advertisers to choose which digital content to display in each said chosen slave website. [0041] Dooley
Claim 29: Dooley and B2B Suppliers discloses the system of claim 28 wherein said widget allows setting up member access to each selected slave website using same email address and password login details. [0041] Dooley
Claim 30: Dooley and B2B Suppliers discloses the system of claim 22 wherein said digital content include business profile information, product categories and sub-categories, website and social page links, in addition to posts with single images for example, articles, blogs, events, and posts with multiple images such as product posts and photo galleries.[0056 and 0063] Dooley
Claim 31: Dooley and B2B Suppliers discloses the system of claim 29 wherein the member access include member logins for each Directory website that are customised to the customer user type. [0056 and 0063] Dooley
Claim 32: Dooley discloses system of claim 22 wherein advertisers to customise their product and service to their preferred target markets or customers to provide granular end to end online advertising process. [0017 and 0054] Dooley
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 3, 2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues the 112 first paragraph rejection, in regards to the limitation that states,” present search results personalised by dynamically matching users’ preferences with advertisers’ choice using a predefined matching algorithm to present their listings of said products and services” the applicant refers to page 13which discusses fig. 13 and contents of page 13 and page 14 and fig. 13, the Examine respectfully disagrees the cited figures and pages does not show, teach or suggest matching uses preferences with advertisers’ choice using a predefined matching algorithm to present their listings. For example fig. 14 merely shows sub categories and keywords associated with said categories. However, this does not show what would be considered user preferences, nor does it show advertisers choices using a predefined matching algorithm to present their listings of products and services. The applicant also states, “This structured classification forms a searchable taxonomy that facilitates semantic and intent-based personalization of user search experiences. Advertisers assign their offerings into this framework using the same APIs, ensuring structured content flows into an intelligent search engine. Taken together, the detailed description of the system’s architecture, content APIs, and keyword-driven taxonomy clearly demonstrates that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed subject matter. The matching and personalization processes are not abstract ideas, but are grounded in practical, implemented systems” The Examiner respectfully disagrees a person of ordinary skill in the art, for example would not look at figure 14, which is merely categories associated with keywords and equate it with the limitation matching uses preferences with advertisers’ choice using a predefined matching algorithm to present their listings. Page 14 does not explain figure 14 and merely says shows an example of the Cleaning - Main Category- and associated Sub-Categories, and does not disclose user preferences, nor advertisers’ choice. Page 14 merely discusses the domain name portfolio and its benefits. The applicant then states that matching and personalization processes are not abstract ideas but grounded in practical implemented systems, thus satisfying the requirements of 35 USC 112, the Examiner respectfully disagrees whether if the claims are abstract is not relevant in a 112 first paragraph rejection. Thus the 112 first paragraph rejection is maintained.
The applicant argues the 101 rejection by stating that the invention is directed to a concrete system architecture implemented via computing system and web based platforms which materially improves the functioning of online directory networks. The Examiner respectfully disagrees the applicant’s specification does not disclose any computer hardware.
The applicant further argues, “Specifically, the invention addresses a longstanding technical problem in online marketing—namely, the manual and inefficient process of uploading and managing content across multiple independent directory websites. The Applicant's solution comprises a centralized master website interface, integrated with modular APIs and software widgets, that enables advertisers to clone digital content, manage preferences, and personalize output across a structured network of subsidiary websites in real-time. This configuration, which includes a single sign-on interface, back-end data propagation logic, and structured category-taxonomy mapping (as detailed in Figs. 13 and 14), is not only implementable exclusively by computer systems but also fundamentally enhances the operation of web-based directories by automating, distributing, and personalizing digital content at scale. The API implementation is presented on page 13 and is reproduced below for reference: “The digital content is comprised of three types: * Member Posts - for example, contact information, service locations * Single Posts -upload a single image, for example, articles, biogs, events, jobs * Multi Posts - upload more than one image, for example, photo gallery, properties Each have different API widgets -- Member Data” Also states, “Moreover, the system relies on computing infrastructure for dynamic data ingestion, real- time content rendering, server-side API execution, and profile-based targeting—all of which necessitate and assume the use of computer hardware, web servers, and browser interfaces. The suggestion that the invention could be implemented using “pen and paper” does not reflect the technological underpinnings disclosed in the specification or recited in the claims. For example, the claimed integration of a central account dashboard with the capacity to clone advertiser content across multiple remote domains, via structured API calls, cannot be realistically or meaningfully replicated without computing components.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees it is not enough for the applicant to merely assert that there is a longstanding technical problem. MPEP 2106.05(a), states “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. Thus, none of the cited pages of fig. 13, 14 and pages 13 and 14 identifies a technical problem and the details of an unconventional technical solution. In regards to the asserted system relying on computing infrastructure and by the applicant’s own admission “necessitate and assume the use of computer hardware, web servers and browser interfaces, the Examiner respectfully disagrees the specification must describe a computing device actually performing the claimed steps. The applicant’s specification is completely silent to any computer hardware being present. The specification should tie the software to particular machine or tangible medium (e.g. “stored in non-transitory computer readable medium”, executed by a client computing device via a web browser.” There should be more than a dynamic data ingestion, real- time content rendering, server-side API execution, and profile-based targeting merely existing in an environment. MPEP 2106.05(a) and 2106.05(f) clearly states, To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
The applicant’s claims do not appear to have any limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application. Also, software per se is not patentable under § 101, The applicant’s specification does not disclose any type of hardware components, there does not appear to be any language that suggest or teach that the claimed invention is performed by instructions executing on processors, memory, etc. Therefore, the claimed invention does not fall within a statutory class of patentable subject matter. Thus the 35 U.S.C 101 rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., in the applicant’s remarks the specification pages 13 and 14 are referred, while highlighting unclaimed features ) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARNELL A POUNCIL whose telephone number is (571)270-3509. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 - 6:00.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at (571) 270-7537. 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.
/D.A.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3622
/ILANA L SPAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622