DETAILED ACTION
In the response filed July 27, 2026, the Applicant amended claims 51 and 61. 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 includes technological limitations of providing product information shown in a scene viewed by a user without interrupting playback of the media asset. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claims describe or set-forth arranging and displaying information for products found in media content and providing supplemental information about the products based on customer 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 resemble patent eligible claims as they are similar to the claims in DDR Holdings. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the concept in DDR Holdings is entirely different from that of the instant application, and thus cannot be relied upon as a prima facie basis for patent eligibility simply because Applicant purports their invention is similarly entrenched in computer technology. Applicant argues that the claims provide for the search of a particular product in a scene without interrupting playback of the media asset. However, there is no discussion of a search or description of a user searching for a product during playback of media. Here, the claims merely describe arranging and displaying information for products found in media content and providing supplemental information about the products based on customer interaction. Such a concept is the epitome of targeted marketing. 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 arrangement and display of products to consumers.
Applicant argues by describing the claimed invention as providing a product marketplace and searching for products without the need to navigate to a product marketplace. Turning to the instant invention, it is clear that the claims as amended merely describe using a user’s viewing history and generating a display of product information to provide to a customer which is performed in a routine and conventional manner via generic computer technology. Such limitations are 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. Therefore, notwithstanding Applicant's insistence to the contrary, the claims of the instant invention are not triggered by the holding in DDR Holdings, but rather disclose a number of abstract ideas (as previously detailed) that are associated with generic computer technology. Applicant’s arguments remain unpersuasive. As such, the claims remain ineligible under section 101.
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 …;”
“generating for display at the user device, the content item;”
“determining a current timestamp of the presentation of the content item…;”
“generating…, based on the viewing history, the current timestamp, and the product data structure, a mosaic of the content item and a plurality of images,” and
“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 identified by the product data structure having corresponding timestamps corresponding to points in time at which the subset of the plurality of products were displayed during presentation of the content item 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 arranging and displaying information for products found in media content and providing supplemental information about the products based on customer 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).
Dependent claims 52 and 62 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “wherein generating for presentation…, the mosaic of the content item and the plurality of images comprises arranging the plurality of images based on timestamps corresponding to the subset of the plurality of products,” that further defines the processes of the abstract idea. Claims 52 and 62 recite the additional elements “the display of the user device,” which is addressed below.
Dependent claims 53 and 63 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “generating for presentation… the data identifying the plurality of products, wherein the data identifying the plurality of products is at least one of product information, a category, a price, or a vendor,” that further defines the processes of the abstract idea. Claims 53 and 63 recite the additional elements “the display of the user device,” which is addressed below.
Dependent claims 54 and 64 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “wherein the product data structure comprises first product information for the first product of the plurality of products,” and “substituting, based on a user profile, the first product information for the first product with second product information for a similar product to the first product; and generating for display the second product information for the similar product to the first product,” that further defines the processes of the abstract idea. Claims 54 and 64 are rejected due to being abstract and do not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claims 55 and 65 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “wherein retrieving the product data structure identifying the plurality of products appearing in the content item further comprises: identifying, based on the viewing history, a set of products appearing in an unviewed portion of the content item,” that further defines the processes of the abstract idea. Claims 55 and 65 are rejected due to being abstract and do not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claims 57 and 67 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “generating for display an option to purchase the first product,” that further defines the processes of the abstract idea. Claims 57 and 67 are rejected due to being abstract and do not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claims 58 and 68 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “adding the first product to a user wishlist,” that further defines the processes of the abstract idea. Claims 58 and 68 are rejected due to being abstract and do not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claims 59 and 69 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “generating for display a coupon for the first product, wherein the coupon is retrieved from a t-commerce account corresponding to a user profile,” that further defines the processes of the abstract idea. Claims 59 and 69 are rejected due to being abstract and do not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claims 60 and 70 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “wherein receiving the selection of the first image of the plurality of images comprises detecting a sliding motion of a finger on a touch screen displaying the content item,” that further defines the processes of the abstract idea. Claims 60 and 70 are rejected due to being abstract and do not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The claims recite the additional elements/limitations of: “a user device from a remote storage,” (claim 51); “a system comprising: remote storage memory; and a user device having a processor,” (claim 61); “a display of the user device,” (claims 51 and 61); and “the display of the user device,” (claims 52, 53, 62, and 63).
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a user device from a remote storage,” (claim 51); “a system comprising: remote storage memory; and a user device having a processor,” (claim 61); “a display of the user device,” (claims 51 and 61); and “the display of the user device,” (claims 52, 53, 62, and 63), 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 54, 55, 57-60, 64, 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 from a remote storage,” (claim 51); “a system comprising: remote storage memory; and a user device having a processor,” (claim 61); “a display of the user device,” (claims 51 and 61); and “the display of the user device,” (claims 52, 53, 62, and 63), 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 54, 55, 57-60, 64, 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).
Indication of Novel and Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 51-55, 57-65, and 67-70 recite novel and non-obvious subject matter. Each of the dependent claims recite novel and non-obvious subject matter by virtue of their dependency on independent claims 51 and 61.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Gowen et al. (US 2022/0044307 A1) discloses a system for creating image and or text-based projects includes a server, the server having access to a processor and a data repository, the server including a non-transitory physical medium, and software running from the non-transitory physical medium, the software providing a first function for establishing a connection between the server and at least one mobile computing device connected to the network, a second function for initiating and maintaining an active data session between one or more users involved in project creation and or in project editing through a graphics user interface (GUI), a third function for providing an image container to visually display images selected by a user to add to a project, a fourth function for enabling view of image properties and selection order of the contained images, and a fifth function for enabling digital manipulation of the images while in the image container.
As per claim 51 (representative of claims 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, by a user device from a remote storage, 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, by the user device from the remote storage, 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 the 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, the current timestamp, and the product data structure, 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 identified by the product data structure having corresponding timestamps corresponding to points in time at which the subset of the plurality of products were displayed during presentation of the content item 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 3629
Prosecution Insights