DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 submitted on 12/01/2025 are pending and have been examined. Claims 1, 2, and 5 have been amended. Claim 3 has been cancelled.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority to US provisional application No. 63/403,746, filed on 09/03/2022.
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, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are directed to a process (see MPEP 2106.03).
Step 2A, Prong 1
Claim 1 recites at least the following limitations that recite an abstract idea:
a method of creating an shopping mall consisting of having a single generic top level domain name comprising:
creating a with Hypertext Markup language comprising pages, and subdomains with the single generic top level domain name;
creating a page on the shopping mall with the domain name without the single generic top level domain name;
indexing the for a search;
redirecting the indexed domain name with the single generic top level domain name to the page on the shopping mall;
adding the domain name with the single generic top level domain name extension.
The above limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that it recites a commercial interaction.
Thus, under Prong 1 of Step 2A, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Claim 1 includes the following additional elements that are bolded:
a method of creating an online shopping mall consisting of websites having a single generic top level domain name extension comprising:
creating a website with Hypertext Markup language comprising web pages, and subdomains with the single generic top level domain name extension;
creating a web page on the online shopping mall website with the domain name without the single generic top level domain name extension;
indexing the web site for a search engine;
redirecting the indexed domain name with the single generic top level domain name extension to the web page on the online shopping mall website;
adding the domain name with the single generic top level domain name extension to the online website.
The additional elements recited in claims 1 merely invoke such elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment of online web pages (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h). These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration (see ¶0011, ¶¶0027-0028, and ¶¶0036-0040).
As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, when considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and, thus, claims 1 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As noted above, while the recitation of the additional elements in independent claims 1 are acknowledged, claims 1 merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05).
As such, independent claims 1 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 4 and 5 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claims 4 and 5 merely further define the abstract limitations of claims 1 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claims 1. Claims 4 and 5 do not introduce any further additional elements. Thus, dependent claims 4 and 5 are ineligible.
Furthermore, it is noted that certain dependent claims recite additional elements supplemental to those recited in independent claims 1: “*.us” extension (claim 2). However, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and thus do not act to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thus, dependent claims 2 are ineligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephenson et al.
(US 2008/0162506 A1 [previously cited]) in view of Parsons et al. (US 8,195,652 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Stephenson et al., hereinafter, Stephenson, discloses a method of creating an online shopping mall consisting of websites having a single domain name extension comprising (Figs. 4 and 6; ¶0046[For example, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, a multitude of sites are registered and created with the prefix "find…" It should be noted that the present invention is not limited to any specific top-level domain, such as .com, .net, .tv, and the like, and can operate with one, several, or any number of TLDs.] in view of ¶0066[In the upper center of FIG. 6 is a parent address, which allows a searcher to enter a parent page 602 residing at an IP address corresponding to a domain name simply including the prefix and a top level domain, in this example “.com”.]; Examiner notes that “find” is comparable to a single domain name extension);
creating a website with Hypertext Markup language comprising web pages, and subdomains with the single domain name extension (Figs. 4 and 6; ¶0046[For example, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, a multitude of sites are registered and created with the prefix "find."]; Examiner notes that “find” is comparable to the single domain name extension]);
creating a web page on the online shopping mall website with the domain name without the single domain name extension (Fig. 4; ¶0049[a searcher would type into the browser's navigation bar, the consistent prefix along with the search topic "refrigerator." For example, "findrefrigerator.com."… The page will present to the user a list of subcategories, with one subcategory being "New refrigerators for Sale."… the subcategory "New Refrigerators for Sale" is a selectable hyperlink to another page that is associated with located third-party content, i.e., pages, that have new refrigerators for sale.]; Examiner notes that third part websites are comparable to pages without the “find” domain name extension);
indexing the web site for a search engine (Fig. 6; ¶¶0037-0038[Embodiments of the present invention analyze Web pages to discern the content associated with the page… Once the pages are analyzed and at least a portion of the content is determined, the page is placed into one or more categories, or topics, based on one or more of the pieces of content.] in view of ¶0005["Search engines" are well known document retrieval systems used to locate information stored on the Web.]; Examiner notes that placing pages into categories is comparable to indexing);
redirecting the indexed domain name with the single domain name extension to the web page on the online shopping mall website (Figs. 4; ¶0062[The navigation field 302 has the URL "findplaystation3.com" as an entry, where "find" is the prefix used for this example and "playstation3" is the item being searched for. After hitting the "enter" key, the browser navigates to the page residing at the IP address www.findplaystation3.com, an example of which is shown in FIG. 4.]);
adding the domain name with the single domain name extension to the online website (Figs. 4-6; ¶0038[Once the pages are analyzed and at least a portion of the content is determined, the page is placed into one or more categories, or topics, based on one or more of the pieces of content. Embodiments of the present invention are then able to create further subcategories within each general category and organize Web pages and their content into these further subcategories ], ¶0046[For example, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, a multitude of sites are registered and created with the prefix "find."]).
Although Stephenson discloses creating an online store consisting of websites, Stephenson does not explicitly disclose websites having a single generic top level domain name.
Although Stephenson discloses creating a website comprising web pages and subdomains, Stephenson does not explicitly disclose web pages and subdomains with the single generic top level domain name extension,
Although Stephenson discloses creating a web page with the domain name without the single domain name extension, Stephenson does not explicitly disclose the single generic top level domain name.
Although Stephenson discloses redirecting the indexed domain name with the single domain name, Stephenson does not explicitly disclose the single generic top level domain name extension
Although Stephenson discloses adding a domain name extension to an online website, Stephenson does not explicitly disclose adding a generic top level domain name extension.
However, Parsons et al., hereinafter, Parsons, teaches websites having a generic top level domain name and creating websites having a generic top level domain name (Col. 3, lines 25-30[Websites may be created using HyperText Markup Language (HTML) to generate a standard set of tags that define how the webpages for the website are to be displayed] in view of Col. 7, lines 20-40[As non-limiting examples, the domain may comprise a top-level domain (TLD), a generic top-level domain (gTLD), a country code top-level domain (ccTLD), a second-level domain, a premium domain, and/or a suggested domain. A TLD is a domain at the highest level of the DNS. Such TLDs are installed in the root zone of the name space. For lower level domains, the TLD may comprise the last part of the domain (i.e., the phrase following the last dot of the full domain). For example, in www.example.com, the term ".com." is the TLD. A gTLD is a specific category of TLDs maintained by ICANN for use in the DNS that may, as a non-limiting example, include the following TLDs: .aero, .asia, .biz, .cat, .com, .coop, .info, .jobs, .mobi, .museum, .name, .net, .org, .pro, .tel, and/or .travel. ccTLDs may comprise TLDs reserved for use by countries, sovereign states, or a dependent territory (e.g., .us, .de, .tv, .me). A second-level domain may comprise a root name concatenated to a top-level domain administered by a registry.]).
The method of Parsons is applicable to the method of Stephenson as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both targeted to using domain names to organize pages. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the single domain name extension as disclosed by Stephenson to include a generic top level domain and a .us extension as taught by Parsons. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the method of Stephenson in order to connect multiple websites to the Internet (Col. 3, lines 41-42).
Regarding Claim 2, Stephenson in view of Parsons teaches the method of claim 1, Stephenson further discloses wherein the single domain name extension is the "find" extension (Fig. 4; ¶0046[For example, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, a multitude of sites are registered and created with the prefix "find."]).
Although Stephenson discloses a single domain name extension being “find”, Stephenson does not explicitly disclose a single generic top level domain name extension being the “.us” extension.
However, Parsons teaches websites having a generic top level domain name and creating websites having a generic top level domain name (Col. 3, lines 25-30[Websites may be created using HyperText Markup Language (HTML) to generate a standard set of tags that define how the webpages for the website are to be displayed] in view of Col. 7, lines 20-40[As non-limiting examples, the domain may comprise a top-level domain (TLD), a generic top-level domain (gTLD), a country code top-level domain (ccTLD), a second-level domain, a premium domain, and/or a suggested domain. A TLD is a domain at the highest level of the DNS. Such TLDs are installed in the root zone of the name space. For lower level domains, the TLD may comprise the last part of the domain (i.e., the phrase following the last dot of the full domain). For example, in www.example.com, the term ".com." is the TLD. A gTLD is a specific category of TLDs maintained by ICANN for use in the DNS that may, as a non-limiting example, include the following TLDs: .aero, .asia, .biz, .cat, .com, .coop, .info, .jobs, .mobi, .museum, .name, .net, .org, .pro, .tel, and/or .travel. ccTLDs may comprise TLDs reserved for use by countries, sovereign states, or a dependent territory (e.g., .us, .de, .tv, .me). A second-level domain may comprise a root name concatenated to a top-level domain administered by a registry.]).
The method of Parsons is applicable to the method of Stephenson as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are both targeted to using domain names to organize pages. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the single domain name extension as disclosed by Stephenson to include a generic top level domain and a .us extension as taught by Parsons. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the method of Stephenson in order to connect multiple websites to the Internet (Col. 3, lines 41-42).
Regarding Claim 4, Stephenson in view of Parsons teaches the method of claim 1, Stephenson further discloses wherein the online shopping mall comprises a subcategory of business entities (¶0049[at least one of the subcategories appearing on the displayed results page is defined by a location of entities associated with the search results associated with the respective subcategory. The term "entities" as used herein refers to persons, businesses, groups, locations, such as states or cities, and the like.]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephenson in view of Parsons in view of Little et al. (US 2015/0006303 A1 [previously cited]).
Regarding Claim 5, Stephenson in view of Parsons teaches the method of claim 4, Stephenson further discloses wherein the subcategory comprises a business (¶0049[at least one of the subcategories appearing on the displayed results page is defined by a location of entities associated with the search results associated with the respective subcategory. The term "entities" as used herein refers to persons, businesses, groups, locations, such as states or cities, and the like.]).
Although Stephenson discloses a subcategory of business, Stephenson in view of Parsons does not explicitly teach a subcategory comprising a food court.
However, Little et al., hereinafter, Little, teaches a subcategory of food courts (¶0011[a system for simultaneously linking restaurant diners and restaurant owners through a website to provide useful information to both comprising: an intelligent menu app for use by diners on a mobile smartphone device; a website for use by restaurant owners on a computer interface within the plurality of restaurants and in communication via the website with the mobile smartphone devices of diners who visit their restaurant]).
The method of Little is applicable to the method of Stephenson in view of Parsons as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are all targeted to providing online shopping services to users. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the subcategories as taught by Stephenson in view of Parsons to include food courts as taught by Little. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to expand the method of Stephenson in view of Parsons for taking diner feedback and providing that data in an easy applicable way for business and diners to use (¶0005).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on page 3 of the remarks filed 12/01/2025, with respect to the previous 35 USC § 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the currently amended claims.
Accordingly, the previous 35 USC § 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 3-5 of the remarks filed 12/01/2025, with respect to the previous 35 USC § 102/103 rejections have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new 103 rejection of the amended claims.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHOORA LADONI whose email is Ahoora.Ladoni@uspto.gov and telephone number is (703) 756-5617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0900–1700 ET.
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.
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/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.
/AHOORA LADONI/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 2/10/2026