DETAILED ACTION
In the response filed March 10, 2026, the Applicant amended claims 51-53 and 61-63. Claims 51-55, 57-65, and 67-70 are pending in the current application.
Notice of 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments for claims 51-55, 57-65, and 67-70 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been considered but are unpersuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception as the amended claims are directed to improving presentation of information at a user device. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claims describe or set-forth generating and providing product information for a consumer and generating supplemental information for a product based on consumer interaction, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Applicant argues the amended claims provide an improvement to “presentation of information at a user device.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here, the alleged improvements are non-technical subjective/abstract improvements, not technical improvements to computers or technological processes, but addresses a business challenge regarding the displaying of products to consumers. As Applicant states, “reducing the amount of information needed for display at the user device” and displaying to consumers “more relevant information” that has “higher relevance to a viewer of the user device” is directed to, if anything, a business “improvement” (e.g., efficient methods and ways to display or advertise goods to a consumer). The idea of providing items that are more desirable to customers is not a patent eligible “improvement.” That a computer is used to execute this abstract idea serves merely to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a user device,” “generating for display at the user device, the content item;” and “presentation on a display of the user device,” (claims 51 and 61); and “a system comprising: memory; and a processor,” (claim 61), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See § MPEP 2106.05(f).
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Applicant’s arguments remain unpersuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is hereby maintained.
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 51-55, 57-65, and 67-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 51-55 and 57-60 are drawn to a process and 61-65 and 67-70 are drawn to a machine, each of which is within the four statutory categories (e.g., a process, a machine). (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception.
Claim 51 (representative of claim 61) recites/describes the following steps:
“retrieving a product data structure associated with a content item, the product data structure comprising data identifying a plurality of products appearing in the content item and a plurality of timestamps corresponding to points in time at which the plurality of products were displayed during presentation of the content item;”
“retrieving a viewing history of the content item, the viewing history indicating one or more portions of the content item that have been previously viewed…;”
“determining a current timestamp of the presentation of the content item…;”
“generating…, based on the viewing history and the current timestamp, a mosaic of the content item and a plurality of images, wherein each of the plurality of images is overlaid on the content item,” and
“wherein the plurality of images corresponds to a subset of the plurality of products having corresponding timestamps that are (a) before the current timestamp of the presentation of the content item, and (b) within the one or more portions of the content item that have been previously viewed…;”
“arranging the plurality of images …based on the timestamps corresponding to the subset of the plurality of products;” and
“receiving a selection of a first image of the plurality of images, and in response, generating… supplemental information about a first product corresponding to the first image.”
These steps, under broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth generating and providing product information for a consumer and generating supplemental information for a product based on consumer interaction, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Each of the depending claims 52-55, 57-60, 62-65, and 67-70, likewise recite/describe these steps (by incorporation - and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and these claims are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Any elements recited in a dependent claim that are not specifically identified/addressed by the Examiner under step 2A (prong two) or step 2B of this analysis shall be understood to be an additional part of the abstract idea recited by that particular claim.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The claims recite the additional elements/limitations of: “a user device,” “generating for display at the user device, the content item;” and “presentation on a display of the user device,” (claims 51 and 61); and “a system comprising: memory; and a processor,” (claim 61).
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a user device,” “generating for display at the user device, the content item;” and “presentation on a display of the user device,” (claims 51 and 61); and “a system comprising: memory; and a processor,” (claim 61), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See § MPEP 2106.05(f).
Remaining dependent claims 52-55, 57-60, 62-65, and 67-70, either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2,” the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a user device,” “generating for display at the user device, the content item;” and “presentation on a display of the user device,” (claims 51 and 61); and “a system comprising: memory; and a processor,” (claim 61), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately.
Remaining dependent claims 52-55, 57-60, 62-65, and 67-70, either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 51-55, 57-65, and 67-70 would be allowable subject matter if revised and amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in this Office action.
As per claim 51 (representative of claim 61), the closest prior art of record taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach or suggest “retrieving a product data structure associated with a content item, the product data structure comprising data identifying a plurality of products appearing in the content item and a plurality of timestamps corresponding to points in time at which the plurality of products were displayed during presentation of the content item; retrieving a viewing history of the content item, the viewing history indicating one or more portions of the content item that have been previously viewed at a user device; generating for display at the user device, the content item; determining a current timestamp of the presentation of the content item at the user device; generating for presentation on a display of the user device, based on the viewing history and the current timestamp, a mosaic of the content item and a plurality of images, wherein each of the plurality of images is overlaid on the content item, and wherein the plurality of images corresponds to a subset of the plurality of products having corresponding timestamps that are (a) before the current timestamp of the presentation of the content item, and (b) within the one or more portions of the content item that have been previously viewed at the user device; arranging the plurality of images on the display of the user device based on the timestamps corresponding to the subset of the plurality of products; and receiving a selection of a first image of the plurality of images, and in response, generating for presentation on the display of the user device supplemental information about a first product corresponding to the first image” This combination of functions/features would not have been obvious to a PHOSITA in view of the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patrick Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-8619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at (571)272-6782. 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.
/Patrick Kim/Examiner, Art Unit 3628