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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 4, 2025 has been entered.
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, generating 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 indicated that the video of the product is generation 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
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 a 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))
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 December 4, 2025 have been fully considered.
The Examiner finds Applicant’s amendments and arguments, on pages 9-11 of the Remarks, regarding the 101 rejection unpersuasive.
Applicant argues under that the amended claims recite a combination of additional elements, including automatically generating a video of the product by processing at least the picture review using at least one of transitions, music, or filters, 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. According to Applicant, these steps cannot be performed manually or in the human mind and do not recite abstract ideas.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees viewing most of the aspects besides the client relate to activities a user would perform to create a product review. Further MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2) states:
the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping. (emphasis added)
In the present claims, concepts for organizing the creation of a product computer using a computer. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the additional elements provide a specific technical improvement over prior art by enabling users to efficiently generate a video using the picture review uploaded for the product and allowing users to quickly switch to the product details page of the product while viewing the video by triggering the type tag included in the video. According to Applicant therefore the claims are integrated into a practical application.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees viewing the amendment further define the abstract idea rather than constitute additional elements. The lone additional element of a client the Examiner views as mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The Examiner views Applicant’s proffered benefits are improvements to the abstract idea of organizing the creation of a review for a product such as efficiency in creating the video or navigating between the video or product details page to review the information prior to sending the content. The Examiner maintains that these proffered improvements do not constitute an improvement to technology or any of the other considerations enumerated under MPEP 2106.04(d). Therefore, the Examiner maintains the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant argues under step 2B that the claims provide an inventive concept through the functions of generate a video of the product by adding transitions, music, and/or filters to picture review of a product, wherein the video comprises a type tag which indicates that the video of the product is generated based at least on the picture review for a product, wherein the video comprises a type tag, when being triggered, is configured to cause the client to display a product details page of the product. According Applicant, these features amount to a technical improvement over prior art by enabling users to generate a video more efficiently by using the picture review uploaded for the product and allowing users to quickly switch to the product details page of the product while viewing the product by triggering the type tag included in the video.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees viewing that the limitations besides the client the Examiner views as part of the recited abstract idea rather than additional elements as previously discussed. The additional elements in the claims serve as mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components as reflected by the Specification that alone or in combination do not add significantly more to the abstract idea. the controls and the associated pages are selections and content a user can view and make, a user can generate a video based on a provided picture review, and the user can communicate the review content as part of creating a product review for a product. The Examiner reiterates they view Applicant’s proffered benefits are improvements to the abstract idea of organizing the creation of a review for a product such as efficiency in creating the video or navigating between the video or product details page to review the information prior to sending the content. The Examiner maintains that these proffered improvements do not constitute an improvement to technology or any of the other considerations enumerated under MPEP 2106.04(d). Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the additional elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea.
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.
Westphal et al. (US 20160300295) – directed to providing access to product information.
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