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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-13 recite a process and Claims 14-16, 18, and 20 recite a machine and therefore fall into a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?):
Referring to claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-16, 18, and 20 the claims recite a manner of creating product reviews associated with a product, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities grouping of abstract ideas.
The abstract idea portion of the claims is as follows:
(Claim 1) A product review method [performed by a client], comprising:
(Claim 14) [A client terminal, comprising: one or more processors; a memory; and one or more computer programs; wherein the one or more computer programs are stored in the memory; characterized in that, when the one or more processors execute the one or more computer programs, cause the client to implement] a product review method comprising:
Claim 15) [A non-transitory computer readable storage medium including computer instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by a processor, implement] a product review method comprising:
displaying a review post pane of a product, which includes a first control and a second control;
in response to a trigger instruction for the first control, obtaining review material of the product wherein the review material includes at least a picture review;
in response to a trigger instruction for the second control, [without uploading the picture review to a server], generating, [by the client] a video of the product by processing at least the picture review using at least one of transitions, music, or filters,
displaying a preview page of the product, and playing the video on the preview page of the product,
wherein the video of the product comprises a type tag, the type tag is configured to indicate that the video of the product is generated based at least on the picture review of the product, and the type tag, when being triggered, is configured to cause [the client] to display a product details page of the product on the preview page [without closing the preview page];
and in response to a single trigger instruction for a third control displayed on the preview page of the product, sending both of the video and the review material of the product [to the server], so that the video is posted under an account of a user and the review material is posted on a review details page of the product.
Where the portions not bracketed recite the abstract idea
Here the claims are directed to Certain Methods of Organizing Activity, in particular managing personal behavior or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computer components. In the present application concepts reciting a manner of creating product reviews associated with a product. (See paragraphs 2-3 and 45).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts capable of being performed in managing personal behavior or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions) it falls under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?):
The examiner views the following as the additional elements:
A server. (See paragraphs 48 and 216 and Figure 1)
A client terminal/client. (See paragraphs 48-49 and Figure 1)
One or more processors. (See paragraph 32)
A memory. (See paragraphs 32 and 245)
One or more computer programs. (See paragraph 216)
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium. (See paragraph 216)
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they act to merely “apply” the abstract idea using generic computing components and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05 (f))
Referring to “without uploading the picture review to a server” and “without closing the preview page” the examiner views these steps as results-oriented solution lacking details and therefore equivalent to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components. (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and paragraphs 120, 122, 140, 142, and 172 of the Specification and Figure 2E-G, 2O and 2P).
The combination of these additional elements and/or results oriented steps are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. (See Id.) Accordingly, even in combination 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. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?):
As noted above, the claims as a whole merely describes a method and system that generally “apply” the concepts discussed in prong 1 above. (See MPEP 2106.05 f (II)) In particular applicant has recited the computing components at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As the court stated in TLI Communications v. LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) merely invoking generic computing components or machinery that perform their functions in their ordinary capacity to facilitate the abstract idea are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea within a computing environment and does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional computer components do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea and as a result the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 6-11, 16, and 18-20 further define the abstract idea as identified. Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of the generic server (See paragraphs and 216) at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more. Therefore claims 2, 6-11, 16, and 18-20 are considered to be patent ineligible.
Dependent claims 3-4 and 12-13 further define the abstract idea as identified. Therefore claims 3-4 and 12-13 are considered to be patent ineligible.
In conclusion the claims do not provide an inventive concept, because the claims do not recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of the claims. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and the collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an order combination, the claims are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 29, 2026 have been fully considered.
The Examiner finds Applicant’s amendments and arguments, on pages 9-13 of the Remarks, regarding the 101 rejection unpersuasive.
Applicant argues the features in the claims of:
in response to a trigger instruction for the second control, without uploading the picture review to a server, the client generates a video by processing at least the picture review using at least one of transitions, music, or filters, the client displays a preview page, plays the video, and the video includes a type tag that indicates the video is generated from the picture review, when the type tag is triggered, the client displays a product details page on the preview page without closing the preview page, and in response to a single trigger instruction for a third control, the client sends both the video and the picture review to a server for posting.
According to Applicant, these features are not mere abstract idea or routine computer activities but rather provide concrete technical improvements to the client-server interaction, user interface efficiency, and resource utilization. Applicant the claims are directed to a client-side video generation and interface management technique that solves specific technical problem of how to enable a user to create a video from static pictures without consuming network resources for uploading raw pictures first and how to preserve the playback context while allowing the user to view the product. Applicant contends the claimed configuration solves the problem of inefficient review posting that require separate uploads of pictures and video, forcing users to navigate away from the preview page to see product details.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees viewing that concepts performing to the client performing the processing i.e. (in response to a trigger instruction for the second control, without uploading the picture review to a server, the client generates a video) the Examiner views as applying the abstract idea using generic computing components. MPEP 2106.05 (f) states:
Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356.
Indeed, the client that is generating the video based on a picture is a generic client device and there are no details recited in the claims to suggest an improvement to a client device’s capability in generating a video based on picture as presently claimed to reflect a solution to enabling users to create videos from static pictures without uploading a picture to a server but rather attempts. to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result.
Further, the Examiner views the information included in the video i.e. type tag, further defines the information included in the abstract idea to indicate information (the video is generated from a picture) rather than an additional element. Additionally, the selection and display of information as claimed by Applicant i.e. (type tag is triggered display the product details page on the preview page) the Examiner viewed as part of the abstract idea. The concept of “without closing the preview page” the Examiner views as a results solution oriented language equivalent to apply it as the Examiner views the claim attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. Therefore, the Examiner views that the claims do not reflect a solution to preserving the playback context while allowing the user to view the product. There is no restriction or discussion of the steps or mechanisms for enabling the preview pane to not be closed but rather the results desired. The Examiner views the concept of sending both the video and picture review for posting as claimed is part of the identified abstract idea and does not reflect a technical improvement as contested by Applicant.
Applicant argues that “without uploading the picture review to a server” fundamentally changes how the client and server interacts by generating the video locally thus providing technical benefits to the computer network and client device. Applicant contends that the type tag trigger that displays a product details page on the preview page without closing the preview page is a specific user interface management technical that maintains the video playback state, eliminating the need to regenerate or reload the video when the user returns. According to Applicant this improvement the client’s memory and process management by preserving active resources. Applicant argues that the single trigger instruction for a third control that sends both the video and picture review simplifies the user’s interaction and reduces the number of network requests. According to Applicant the features taken together integrate the concept of product review into a practical application i.e. client-side video generation and contextual display system that improves efficiency and user interface continuity.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees reiterating they view there are no details recited in the claims to suggest an improvement to a client device’s capability in generating a video based on picture as presently claimed to reflect a solution to enabling users to create videos from static pictures without uploading a picture to a server. MPEP 2106.05 (f). The Examiner reiterates their findings that the selection of the type tag and display of the preview page and product details page are a part of the abstract idea and that there is no restriction or manner detailed for how this is performed “without closing the preview page” as contested by Applicant and the sending both the video and picture review for posting as claimed is part of the identified abstract idea, where neither reflect a technical improvement as contested by Applicant. The Examiner views the combination of additional elements taken together amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05 (f).
Applicant argues the requirement that the client generates the video without uploading the picture review to a server imposes a concrete architectural choice, as it prohibits pre-upload, which is not inherent in a generic client. Applicant contends the requirement that the type tag trigger displays a product details page on the preview page without closing the preview page is a specific user interface behavior that is not part of routine computer operation. According to Applicant these limitations constitute meaningful constraints that channel the alleged abstract idea into a particular technical implementation.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees reiterating that client device that is generating the video based on a picture is a generic client device and there are no details recited in the claims to suggest an improvement to a client device’s capability in generating a video based on picture without sending the picture review to the server as presently claimed to reflect a solution to generic a client device’s capabilities. The Examiner reiterates their findings that the selection of the type tag and display of the preview page and product details page are a part of the abstract idea and that there is no restriction or manner detailed for how this is performed “without closing the preview page” as contested by Applicant in the instant claims that reflect a technical improvement or meaningful constraint.
Applicant argues under Step 2B the claims provide significantly more by performing local video generation without uploading raw media to a server as opposed to conventional systems and thus a technical improvement to the client-server architecture. Applicant contends the claimed configuration provides a context-preserving display of product details as the claimed configuration displays the product details page on the preview page without closing the preview page, thereby improving the client's state management and user interface responsiveness as opposed to conventional systems. Applicant argues further that the claimed configuration employs a single-trigger batching operation, in which both the video and the picture review are sent in response to a single instruction that improves transmission efficiency. Applicant argues that the human mind cannot perform video encoding, apply transitions/music/filters, or manage client-server transmissions because the claim requires real-time processing of digital images using algorithms (transitions, music synchronization, filtering) and network interactions.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, reiterating the client that is generating the video based on a picture is a generic client device and there are no details recited in the claims to suggest an improvement to a client device’s capability in generating a video based on picture as presently claimed to reflect a solution to enabling users to create videos from static pictures without uploading a picture to a server. The Examiner reiterates they do not view the display of the product details pages and preview page as additional elements but part of the abstract idea and that there is no meaningful restriction on how this is displayed “without closing the preview page” to constitute integration into an application or adding significantly more to the abstract idea. The Examiner views the selection of a control to send the reviews is a part of the abstract idea and does not provide for integration into a practical application or adds significantly more. The Examiner views that concepts such as video encoding or real-time processing of digital images is not reflected in the claims. The Examiner views that as part of creating a video review a user may select which transitions, music, or filters constitutes part of the abstract idea. Specifically, the Examiner views as part of commercial interactions or managing personal behavior or interactions between people would involve such concepts in addition to the management of communications.
Applicant argues the claims are directed to a technical improvement by improving network efficiency by eliminating pre-upload of raw media and improves interface continuity by preserving the preview page during interaction with product details. According to Applicant these are concrete technical benefits to the client-server system rather than improvements to an abstract business or human activity and provide for a specific technical method performed by a client, integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application by adding meaningful technical limitations such as local generation without upload and context-preserving display, and provides an inventive concept through improvements to client-server interaction and user interface management.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees views that the claims are directed to creating product reviews associated with a product. The Examiner views that Applicant’s proffered improvements are not reflected in the claims but rather the results desired with no restriction on detail of the mechanism for accomplishing such technical benefits as proffered by Applicant. Instead, the claims provide for additional elements that alone and in combination amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons the Examiner has maintained the 101 rejection
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lyons et al. (US 20180192108) – directed to efficiently generating digital video files to include personalized content.
Jardan (US 20160132216) -directed to picture, animation, and video based customer experience rating.
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 MICHAEL J MONAGHAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-5523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached on (571) 270-1833. 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.
/Michael J. Monaghan/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights