DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response received on 06 May 2026.
Claims 1, 13, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 2 and 14 are canceled.
Claims 1, 3-13, and 15-20 are pending and have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 21 May 2026 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-13, and 15-20 recite allowable subject matter and would be allowable if the claims were rewritten or amended to overcome the 101 rejection indicated in the Office Action below.
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, 3-13, and 15-20 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).
Under step 1, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention (see MPEP 2106.03(II)). In the instant case, claims 1 and 3-12 are directed to a method, claims 13 and 15-19 are directed to a system, and claim 20 is directed to a product of manufacture (non-transitory computer-readable medium).
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites an abstract idea of processing a purchase based on a detected object with a purchasable item. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
receiving, a first user-input defining a first user-request to pause presentation, and, responsive to the firs user-input, pausing the presentation;
detecting, at least one objected depicted;
responsive to the detecting, (i) correlating, by the detected at least one object with at least one purchasable item, wherein correlating the detected at least one object with at least one purchasable item comprises (a) generating a text-based description of the detected at least one object, wherein generating the text-based description of the detected at least one object comprises providing an image of the detected at least one object and responsively receiving, a corresponding text-based description of the image of the detected at least one object, (b) compare the generated text-based description with a reference text-based description of the at least one purchasable item, and (c) determining that the text-based descriptions have a threshold degree of similarity, thereby correlating the detected at least one object with the at least one purchasable item, and (ii) presenting, a prompt for purchase of the at least one purchasable item;
receiving, in response to presenting the prompt, a second user-input requesting to purchase a given one of the at least on purchasable item; and
processing, responsive to receiving the second user-input, a purchase of the given purchasable item for the user.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in 2106.04(a) of the MPEP. Even in consideration of the analysis, the claims recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of processing a purchase based on a detected object with a purchasable item, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claims 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity because it relates to sale activities since the claims specifically recite the steps of receiving a first user-input to pause the presentation, detecting an object depicted, correlating the detected object with at least one purchasable item, and comprising generating a text-based description of the detected object, compare the generated text-based description with a reference text-based description of the at least one purchasable item, wherein generating the text-based description of the detected at least one object comprises providing an image of the detected at least one object and responsively receiving, a corresponding text-based description of the image of the detected at least one object, determining that the text-based descriptions have a threshold degree of similarity, thereby correlating the detected at least one object with the at least one purchasable item, and presenting a prompt for purchase of the purchasable item, receiving in response to the prompt a second user-input to request to purchase the purchasable item, and processing a purchase of the purchasable item for the user, thereby making this a sales activity or behavior.
Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements: a video stream, a computing system, the computing system, the video stream, the video stream at a video frame, the computing system, based on computer-vision analysis of the video frame, the video frame, a trained machine-learning model, the machine-learning model, using a trained machine-learning model, and by the computing system.
Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., processing a purchase) being applied on a general-purpose computer using general purpose computer technology. MPEP 2106.05(f). While the claims recite using a trained machine-learning model, and a subsequent machine-learning model, the recitations are results based in nature and do not include details as to how the machine learning models are trained and is actually functioning beyond known functions. Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements a video stream, a computing system, the computing system, the video stream, the video stream at a video frame, the computing system, based on computer-vision analysis of the video frame, the video frame, a trained machine-learning model, the machine-learning model, using a trained machine-learning model, and by the computing system, recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘ad[d] nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’… [and] [v]iewed as a whole…[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Independent claims 13 and 20 are similar in nature to representative claim 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis is the same as above for representative claim 1. It is noted that in independent claim 13 includes the additional elements of a network communication interface, one or more processors, non-transitory data storage, and program instructions stored in the non-transitory data storage and executable by the one or more processors to carry out operations, and independent claim 20 includes the additional element of a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon program instructions executable by one or more processors to cause a media presentation system to carry out operations. The Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the additional elements in claims 13 and 20, as being anything other than generic elements. Thus, the claimed additional elements of claims 13 and 20 are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. As such, the additional elements of claims 13 and 20 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claims 13 and 20, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer.
As such, claims 13 and 20 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 3-12 and 15-19, depending from claims 1 and 13, respectively, do not aid in the eligibility of the representative independent claim 1 nor independent claim 13. The claims of 3-12 and 15-19 merely act to provide further limitations of the abstract idea and are ineligible subject matter.
It is noted that dependent claims include the additional elements of a user interface and closed-captioning (claims 3 & 15), at least one other video frame and at least one other video of the video stream (claims 5 & 17), a user device connected to a media-presentation device (claims 6 & 18), the user device is a mobile phone (claims 7 & 19), superimposing, in the video frame, a bounding box (claims 9 & 10), a threshold number of other frames of the video stream (claim 10), the superimposing (claim 11), and an augmented reality (AR)/virtual reality (VR)-based (claim 12). Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the recited additional elements, as being anything other than a generic element. The claimed additional elements, individually and in combination do not integrate into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept because they are merely being used to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claims 3, 5-7, 9-12, 15, and 17-19 are directed towards an abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claims 3, 5-7, 9-12, 15, and 17-19, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. It is further noted that the remaining dependent claims 4, 8, and 16 do not recite any further additional elements to consider in the analysis, and therefore would not provide additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and would not provide an inventive concept.
As such, dependent claims 3-12 and 15-19 are ineligible.
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
Prior Art Considerations:
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is concluded that the totality of evidence in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the Applicant’s invention.
Regarding the independent claims, the features are as follows:
wherein generating the text-based description of the detected at least one object comprises providing to a trained machine-learning model an image of the detected at least one object and responsively receiving from the trained machine-learning model, a corresponding text-based description of the image of the detected at least one object, (b) using a trained machine-learning model to compare the generated text-based description with a reference text-based description of the at least one purchasable item
The most apposite prior art of record includes Boskovich, A. (PGP No. US 2022/0030325 A1), in view of Abo Fool, T., et al. (PGP 2024/0394787 A1), and Craft, M. (PGP No. US 2024/0281474 A1), to teach a method for processing a purchase based on recognizing an image in a video stream.
Boskovich discloses the method that includes a user-initiated video function, where a video is displayed to a user, and has basic video functionality, such as pausing capabilities in the middle of a frame, and can detect a selection of the pausing to return information related to elements in the paused frame (Boskovich, see: paragraph [0325]). The method includes computer vision techniques to analyze objects in the video frame, and interpret the objects as specific media assets, for example, in this case, the frame is paused and the computer vision techniques recognize and extract data of the objects including kitchen cabinetry and a microwave oven (Boskovich, see: paragraph [0239], [0325], & FIG. 11). When the user of Boskovich decides to pause on a specific frame of the video, other links and icons become visible to the user, such as offering the user to “Buy Now” to purchase any of the detected objects in the frame (Boskovich, see: paragraph [0239] and [0328]). The display also includes the highlighted or contracted elements that include relevant secondary information of the objects, such price, model, where to buy, etc., where also allowing the user to hover or mouse over specific icons or links, and causes more information for each object (purchasable item) to become visible (Boskovich, see: paragraphs [0327]-[0328]). Although Boskovich discloses these features, Boskovich does not mention or disclose the allowable subject matter above, such as does not disclose when detecting an object, providing the object image to a first trained machine-learning model, and receiving from that model a corresponding text-based description of the image, and further does not disclose another trained machine learning model to compare text-based descriptions with a reference text-based description.
The reference of Abo Fool teaches the features of using a machine learning model to process a captured video in order to classify images and text that appear for each object or item in the video frame (Abo Fool, see: paragraphs [0030], [0033], [0041], and [0042]). A score is calculated based on the similarities of the context for each item and a degree of matching of the item and the candidate items are stored (Abo Fool, paragraphs [0041]-[0042]). Although Abo Fool describes these features, the reference does not specifically use two machine learning models, to one, provide a detected image to the first model detected to receive a text-based description, and then use another model to compare the generated text-based description with a reference text-based description of a purchasable item.
The reference of Craft is relied upon to teach the features of processing a response by another user-input, where a user includes input information of an address, etc., and can further input information to perform a transaction through the system of Craft (Craft, paragraph [0109]). The system of Craft further captures a time stamp, including a current time and location data of the user, and the system can extract details of an item, such as a garment worn on a person in a video or photograph, and provide a link to the user that allows the user to purchase the garment from a specific vendor (Craft, see: paragraphs [0153] and [0175]). Although Craft describes these features, Craft does not teach or describe the allowable subject matter as indicated above. Craft does not mention more than one machine-learning models to first provide an image to a first model to receive a corresponding text-based description of the image and then use another model to compare the generated text-based description of the image with a reference text-based description of the purchasable item.
The Examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. Moreover, the combination of features of independent claims, would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias and resulting in an inappropriate combination.
It is hereby asserted by the Examiner, that in light of the above and in further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims recite allowable subject matter, as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner’s Comment
The Examiner notes that the non-patent literature (NPL) document, titled Livestream Shopping: What is it and Why it’s the Future of eCommerce, published on mikmak.com (2022), documented on PTO-892 form as reference U, and hereinafter referred to as ‘Livestream’, describes and renders a website explaining why livestream shopping is becoming popular when purchasing items, the website also gives examples of where and how livestreaming is used to for shopping purposes, and also gives details of why the method for shopping can increase engagement for users and ultimately improve profits for companies selling their products. The reference ‘Livestream’ describes such features, however, the reference does not disclose or teach the allowable features that are stated above, and does not remedy the deficiencies of the noted prior art.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s arguments filed on 06 May 2026, have been considered and are persuasive. In light of the amendments to the claims, the claims now recite allowable subject matter as stated above, and therefore the 103 rejection is withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 06 May 2026, have been fully considered but are not considered persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on pages 12-13 of the remarks stating “Applicant submits that Claim 1 is in fact directed to patent-eligible subject matter,” and in regards to the amendments that now include language from claim 2, that “clarifies how the models work within the claims and provides meaningful limitations of the claim,” and further “contrary to the Examiner’s assertion in the office action that ‘[i]n this case, Applicant’s specification provides no explanation of an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology,’ Applicant’s specification does indeed provide such an explanation,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Even when considering the amendments to the claims that now include language from claim 2, the claims are not directed to eligible subject matter. Under Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, the additional elements, in an ordered combination and individually, are still recited in a generic manner. Although the claims now recite that there two machine-learning models working within the claims, the models are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the features and additional elements are generically recited with an insufficient amount of detail explaining exactly how they are functioning within the claims. The additional elements are still be used to apply the abstract as generally recited computing components. Further, the claimed additional elements in an ordered combination, do not provide or reflect an improvement to the actual technology itself, and is still reciting an improvement to the abstract idea. For instance, paragraph [0004] of the Applicant’s specification describes the issues as a user wanting to purchase an item depicted in the media content, however, the user may have to separately shop for the item which “may be inconvenient while the user is watching the video stream,” and “the user shopping for the related item may not benefit a provider of the media-presentation system,” which these issues are not describing a technological issue, but rather, a commerce issue. It is noted that the MPEP (2106.05(a)) provides further guidance on how to evaluate whether claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For example, as indicated in 2106.05(d)(1) of the MPEP “the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement,” and that “[t]he specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Looking to the specification is a standard that the courts have employed when analyzing claims as it relates to improvements in technology. For example, in Enfish, the specification provided teaching that the claimed invention achieves benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, in Core Wireless the specification noted deficiencies in prior art interfaces relating to efficient functioning of the computer. Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs. Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed Cir. 2018). With respect to McRO, the claimed improvement, as confirmed by the originally filed specification, was “…allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters…’” and it was “…the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks”. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In this case, Applicant’s specification provides no explanation of an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology. Rather, the claims focus “on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool”. Id citing Enfish at 1327, 1336. Although the claims include computer technology such as a video stream, a computing system, the computing system, the video stream, the video stream at a video frame, the computing system, based on computer-vision analysis of the video frame, the video frame, a trained machine-learning model, the machine-learning model, using a trained machine-learning model, and by the computing system, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the courts in cases such as Enfish, Core Wireless, and McRO. Unlike precedential cases, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement to computer capabilities. The instant claims are not directed to improving the existing technological process but are directed to improving the commercial task of . The claimed process, while arguably resulting in improvements in processing a purchase based on a detected object with a purchasable item, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving the processor and computer components that operate the system. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing different data while still employing the same processor and computer components used in conventional systems to improve processing a purchase based on a detected object with a purchasable item, e.g. commercial process. As such, the claims do not recite specific technological improvements, and do not recite additional elements nor features that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and thus, the Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4399. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/ASHLEY D PRESTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights