DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response received on 29 October 2025.
Claims 1-2, 13, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 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 .
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 1-20 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 1-12 are directed to a method, claims 13-19 are directed to a system, and claim 20 is directed to a product of manufacture.
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, (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, 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, 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, the recitations are results based in nature and do not include details as to how the machine learning is 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, 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 2-12 and 14-19, depending from claims 1 and 13, respectively, do not aid in the eligibility of the representative independent claim 1. The claims of 2-12 and 14-19 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 pre-trained machine learning model and the pre-trained machine learning model (claims 2 & 14), 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 2-3, 5-7, 9-12, 14-15, and 17-19 are directed towards an abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-12, 14-15, 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 2-12 and 14-19 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or
nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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).
Claim 1-
Boskovich discloses a method for processing a purchase based on image recognition in a video stream being presented by a computing system, the method comprising:
receiving, by the computing system, a first user-input defining a first user-request to pause presentation of the video stream, and, responsive to the first user-input, pausing by the computing system the presentation of the video stream at a video frame (Boskovich, see: paragraph [0325] disclosing “a user-initiated video ‘explorer’ functionality” and “a video asset is displayed to a user” and “user initiates a ‘pause’ function of the player application, which pauses a prescribed frame” and “detects selection of the ‘pause’ operation, the video API 145 is accessed, to return data relating to the interactive elements of the paused frame”);
detecting, by the computing system, based on computer-vision analysis of the video frame, at least one object depicted by the video frame (Boskovich, see: paragraph [0239] disclosing “system 101 described…can analyze objects at a video frame level” and “identify and interpret the content of the video frame” and “to provide augmented or computer ‘vision’ for analysis of the selected data structure…of the target media asset”; and see: paragraph [0325] disclosing “shown in FIG. 11” and “interactive elements of the paused frame (in this example, various portions of a kitchen including cabinetry with a microwave over 1104, 1105, cookware 1108, and various countertop items 1106, 1110”);
responsive to the detecting, (i) correlating, by the computing system, the detected at least one object with at least one purchasable item (Boskovich, see: paragraph [0239] disclosing “system 101 described…can analyze objects at a video frame level” and “identify and interpret the content of the video frame”; and see: paragraph “[0328] disclosing the user pausing the video…activates the icon 1204 the selected (paused) frame relating to the cookware [i.e., correlating]” and “enabled hyperlink for purchase” and “User interaction with the link (‘buy now button)…user can purchase the cookware”), wherein correlating the detected at least one object with the at least one purchasable item comprises (a) generating a text-based description of the detected at least one object (Boskovich, see: paragraph [0327] disclosing “element is then highlighted/contrasted on the display, and relevant secondary content 1114…(e.g., type/model, price, where to buy) is generated and presented for the user”), and (b) generated text-based description of the at least one purchasable item, and (c) thereby correlating the detected at least one object with the at least one purchasable item, and (ii) presenting, by the computing system, a prompt for purchase of the at least one purchasable item (Boskovich, see: paragraph [0328] disclosing “User selection of this icon (whether mousing-over or affirmatively clicking it) per step 1206 causes the production of an in-scene window 1208 with relevant secondary content (i.e., more information on the cookware, and an enabled hyperlink [i.e., prompt for purchase] for purchase thereof). User interaction with the link (‘buy now’ button) causes production of a separate web page 1210 whereby the user can purchase the cookware from a vendor”; and see FIG. 12 that renders the interface with the detected object, along with the textual description of the object, and the option to ‘Buy Now’ icon.);
receiving, by the computing system, in response to presenting the prompt, a second user-input requesting to purchase a given one of the at least one purchasable item (Boskovich, see: paragraph [0328] disclosing “User interaction with the link (‘buy now’ button) causes [i.e., a second user-input] production of a separate web page 1210 whereby the user can purchase the cookware from a vendor”); and
Although Boskovich discloses detecting the at least one object with the at least one object being purchasable by a user (Boskovich, see: paragraph [0328] and FIG. 12), Boskovich does not disclose that a machine-learning model is used to compare text-based description of the item with a reference text-base, and nor does the reference describe determining a threshold degree of similarity. Boskovich does not disclose:
using a trained machine-learning model to compare text-based description with a reference text-based description of the at least one item, and
determining that the text-based descriptions have a threshold degree of similarity,
Abo Fool, however, does teach:
using a trained machine-learning model to compare text-based description with a reference text-based description of the at least one item (Abo Fool, see: paragraph [0030] teaching “using a Machine Learning (ML) model to process the captured video”; and see: paragraph [0033] teaching “classify images and text appearing on each object to a stored item”; and see: paragraph [0041] teach “context-based similarity of the candidate to a selected item” and pargraph [0042] teaching “score is calculated based on a degree of matching of the selected items and the candidate”) , and
determining that the text-based descriptions have a threshold degree of similarity (Abo Fool, see: pargraph [0041] teaching “score is calculated based on at least one of the following data… context-based similarity of the candidate to a selected item”; and see: pargraph [0042] teaching “calculated based on a degree of matching of the selected items and the candidate, to one of more stored recipes”).
This step of Abo Fool is applicable to the method of Boskovich, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to purchasing items through videos. 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 method of Boskovich to include the features of using a trained machine-learning model to compare text-based description with a reference text-based description of the at least one item, and determining that the text-based descriptions have a threshold degree of similarity, as taught by Abo Fool. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Boskovich, to improve and increase satisfaction of both sellers and consumers wanting to purchase product with complete and accurate information (Abo Fool, see: paragraph [0004]).
Further, although Boskovich describes that a user can pause on a video stream to interact with the elements that are identified, such as cookware in this instance, and can purchase the cookware from a vendor, Boskovich does not describe the steps of processing a purchase of the purchasable items. Boskovich does not disclose:
processing, by the computing system, responsive to receiving the second user-input, a purchase of the given purchasable item for the user.
Craft, however, does teach:
processing, by the computing system, responsive to receiving the second user-input, a purchase of the given purchasable item for the user (Craft, see: paragraph [0109] teaching “a user may establish a long, which may include a user name…provide a…address” and “user may input payment information for any commercial transactions performed using the system”; and paragraph [0153] teaching “captures (records) then current time 36, location data 34”; and paragraph [0175] teaching “an exact garment worn by a person depicted in a video or photograph may be identified, and a link for purchasing that garment from a vendor of that garment may be sent to a user who actuates a trigger”).
This step of Craft is applicable to the method of Boskovich, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to finding items that are displayed in videos. 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 method of Boskovich to include the features of processing, by the computing system, responsive to receiving the second user-input, a purchase of the given purchasable item for the user, as taught by Craft. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Boskovich, to improve content delivery to customers to allow more purchases of identified and matched items that are identified in captured media (Craft, see: paragraph [0152]).
Claim 2-
Boskovich in view of Abo Fool, and Craft teach the method of claim 1, as described above.
Boskovich discloses:
wherein generating the text-based description of the detected at least one object comprises providing to a pre-trained data of an image of the detected at least one object and responsively receiving from the pre-trained data, a corresponding text-based description of the image of the detected at least one object (Boskovich, see: paragraph [0174] disclosing “system data collection API, object/element detection API, and text detection API can be utilized to collect and log data relevant to the rendering of the asset and which provides enhanced opportunities for analysis (i.e., what can be derived from the data and learned therefrom)” and “synthesis of “knowledge” learned from the data set that can be both stored and applied to subsequent analyses”; and see: paragraph [0334] disclosing “obtain textual information (e.g., in one variant, relating to the title and description and categories), and/or obtain a product image and then analyze it in terms of shape, color, texture, etc. as described supra (e.g., in a comparable fashion that the video is analyzed to find an object)” and “in one variant pre-trained data is utilized to characterize the image”).
Although Boskovich discusses using pre-trained data regarding an image and text of a detected object, Boskovich does not disclose:
a machine learning model;
Craft, however, does teach:
a machine learning model (Craft, see: paragraph [0033] teaching “The marketing object is an image, file, stream or data that will be forwarded to each user with a consumer directive that matches a marketing directive. All directives may be associated with artificial intelligence and/or machine learning and/or deep learning”).
This step of Craft is applicable to the method of Boskovich, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to finding items that are displayed in videos. 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 method of Boskovich to include the feature of a machine learning model, as taught by Craft. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Boskovich, to improve content delivery to customers to allow more purchases of identified and matched items that are identified in captured media (Craft, see: paragraph [0152]).
Claim 3-
Boskovich in view of Abo Fool, and Craft teach the method of claim 1, as described above.
Boskovich discloses wherein the method further comprises:
receiving, via a user interface, an instruction to enable outputting closed-captioning text in a selected language (Boskovich, see: paragraph [0133] disclosing “stored output streams are utilized by a packager 172 to provide a manifest (or index/playlist) file 173 and video segments 174 to a requesting client device 106a” and “includes information about the video segments such …closed captioning, audio, etc. Different ABR models may use different manifest files. For example, with HTTP Smooth Streaming (HSS), each of the components (closed captioning, audio, etc.) are in separate files with addresses for each in the manifest file 17”); and
using the selected language as a basis to set a language of the presented prompt for purchase of the at least one purchasable item (Boskovich, see: paragraph [0133] disclosing “stored output streams are utilized by a packager 172 to provide a manifest (or index/playlist) file 173 and video segments 174 to a requesting client device 106a” and “includes information about the video segments such …closed captioning”; and see: [0328] disclosing “User selection of this icon (whether mousing-over or affirmatively clicking it) per step 1206 causes the production of an in-scene window 1208 with relevant secondary content (i.e., more information on the cookware, and an enabled hyperlink [i.e., prompt for purchase] for purchase thereof)”).
Claim 4-
Boskovich in view of Abo Fool, and Craft teach the method of claim 1, as described above.
Boskovich discloses wherein the method further comprises:
configuring the prompt for purchase of the at least one purchasable item such that the prompt presents the determined. (Boskovich, see: paragraph [0328] disclosing “User selection of this icon (whether mousing-over or affirmatively clicking it) per step 1206 causes the production of an in-scene window 1208 with relevant secondary content (i.e., more information on the cookware, and an enabled hyperlink [i.e., prompt for purchase] for purchase thereof)”);
and (ii) have the at least one purchasable item in stock (Boskovich, see: paragraph [0335] disclosing “items available for purchase”);
Boskovich does not disclose:
determining a geographic location of the user;
determining one or more physical stores that (i) are located within a threshold range of the determined geographic location of the user, and
one or more stores as purchase-and-pickup options;
Craft, however, does teach:
determining a geographic location of the user (Craft, see: paragraph [0109] teaching “a user may establish a long, which may include a user name…provide a…address” and “user may input payment information for any commercial transactions performed using the system”; and paragraph [0153] teaching “captures (records) then current time 36, location data 34”);
determining one or more physical stores that (i) are located within a threshold range of the determined geographic location of the user (Craft, see: paragraph [0121] teaching “A user may locate the item in a retail establishment, as in step 640. By locating the item in…brick and mortar retailer”; and paragraph [0243] teaching “a target of a first user may be wearing attire or an item of apparel…that interests the user” and “Location information…from the first user’s device may be used to determine the first ‘users location” and “The ‘vicinity’ may comprise an area within a determined range of the location”); and
one or more stores as purchase-and-pickup options (Craft, see: paragraph [0203] teaching “Physical items may be sent by some form of delivery (e.g. mailed or in-person) or picked up”).
This step of Craft is applicable to the method of Boskovich, as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to finding items that are displayed in videos. 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 method of Boskovich to include the features of determining a geographic location of the user; determining one or more physical stores that (i) are located within a threshold range of the determined geographic location of the user, and one or more stores as purchase-and-pickup options, as taught by Craft. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the reference of Boskovich, to improve content delivery to customers to allow more purchases of identified and matched items that are identified in captured media (Craft, see: paragraph [0152]).
Claim 5-
Boskovich in view of Abo Fool, and Craft teach the method of claim 1, as described above.
Boskovich discloses wherein the method further comprises:
identifying, from the video stream, at least one other video frame that includes the detected at least one object (Boskovich, see: paragraph [0049] disclosing “using a computerized process to process a plurality of media assets to identify instances of the individual or entity within the plurality of media assets” and paragraph [0337] disclosing “the presence of the good or service in a plurality of frames, which may be expressed as a percentage of the total frames of the asset”); and
configuring the prompt for purchase of the at least one purchasable item such that the prompt presents at least a portion of the at least one other video frame of the video stream that includes the detected at least one object (Boskovich, see: paragraph [0328] disclosing “User selection of this icon (whether mousing-over or affirmatively clicking it) per step 1206 causes the production of an in-scene window 1208 with relevant secondary content (i.e., more information on the cookware, and an enabled hyperlink [i.e., prompt for purchase] for purchase thereof)” and paragraph [0330] disclosing “secondary content window 1308 within the carousel 1306 is selected by the algorithm, and upon selection thereof by the user (e.g., via mouse-over or click), the relevant secondary content is presented in a larger window 1310” and “ provide content viewers (i.e., those accessing their website) with an explore-able video feature outside of the primary content rendering experience”).
Claim 6-
Boskovich in view of Abo Fool, and Craft teach the method of claim 1, as described above.
Boskovich discloses:
wherein the computing system includes a user device connected to a media-presentation device, and wherein presenting, by the computing system, the prompt for purchase of the at least one purchasable item comprises the user device presenting the prompt (Boskovich, see: paragraph [0146] disclosing “execute on different HW platforms” and “can be installed on user domain devices such as within a user's web browser on their PC or smart TV”; and paragraph [0328] disclosing “User interaction with the link (‘buy now’ button) causes [i.e., a second user-input] production of a separate web page 1210 whereby the user can purchase the cookware from a vendor”).
Claim 7-
Boskovich in view of Abo Fool, and Craft teach the method of claim 5, as described above.
Boskovich discloses wherein the user device is a mobile phone (Boskovich, see: paragraph [0117] disclosing “user client devices 106a, 106b include media-enabled client devices, e.g., tablets, phablets, smart phones”).
Claim 8-
Boskovich in view of Abo Fool, and Craft teach the method of claim 1, as described above.
Boskovich discloses wherein the detecting occurs responsive to the pausing (Boskovich, see: paragraph [0325] disclosing “a user-initiated video ‘explorer’ functionality” and “a video asset is displayed to a user” and “user initiates a ‘pause’ function of the player application, which pauses a prescribed frame” and “detects selection of the ‘pause’ operation, the video API 145 is accessed, to return data relating to the interactive elements of the paused frame”).
Claim 9-
Boskovich in view of Abo Fool, and Craft teach the method of claim 1 as described above.
Boskovich discloses:
wherein, the method further comprises: responsive to the detecting, superimposing, in the video frame, a bounding box at a set of coordinates of the object within the video frame (Boskovich, see: paragraph [0219] disclosing “to be located A+M/N+Q/R in frame 14, and A+M/N+Q/R+S/T in frame 15, and so forth (where M/N, Q/R, S/T indicate e.g., incremental X-Y rendering coordinates or other frame of reference for the frames)”; and see: paragraph [0238] disclosing “aforementioned frames of the video data may include representations of actual tangible objects (e.g., a human face, set of golf clubs, etc.), as well as computer generated objects such as superimposed text or banners, images constrained within prescribed borders” and “overlay 404 that the user can read while viewing”).
Claim 10-
Boskovich in view of Abo Fool, and Craft teach the method of claim 1, as described above.
Boskovich discloses wherein, the method further comprises: responsive to (i) the detecting and (ii) determining that a threshold number of other frames of the video stream include the detected at least one object, superimposing, in the video frame, a bounding box at a set of coordinates of the object within the video frame (Boskovich, see: paragraph [0238] disclosing “aforementioned frames of the video data may include representations of actual tangible objects (e.g., a human face, set of golf clubs, etc.), as well as computer generated objects such as superimposed text or banners, images constrained within prescribed borders” and “overlay 404 that the user can read while viewing”; and paragraph [0337] disclosing “the presence of the good or service in a plurality of frames, which may be expressed as a percentage of the total frames of the asset” and “a high percentage of frames of the total associated with the given good or service (2000/3000 or 66.6%) or may yield significantly higher potential of interaction by a user, since there are many more opportunities and ‘looks’ at the same good/service”; Also see FIG. 13 depicting the interface displaying the identified objects and a box that indicates a corresponding object of the cabinets.)
Claim 11-
Boskovich in view of Abo Fool, and Craft teach the method of claim 10, as described above.
Boskovich discloses wherein the superimposing occurs before receiving the first user-input defining the first user-request to pause presentation of the video stream paragraph [0238] disclosing “aforementioned frames of the video data may include representations of actual tangible objects (e.g., a human face, set of golf clubs, etc.), as well as computer generated objects such as superimposed text or banners, images constrained within prescribed borders” and “overlay 404 that the user can read while viewing”; and paragraph [0325] disclosing “the user initiates a ‘pause’ function of the player application, which pauses on a prescribed frame”).
Claim 12-
Boskovich in view of Abo Fool, and Craft teach the method of claim 1, as described above.
Boskovich discloses further comprising:
responsive to correlating the detected at least one object with the at least one purchasable item, performing one or more operations to facilitate causing an augmented reality (AR)/virtual reality (VR)-based presentation of the at least one purchasable item (Boskovich, see: paragraph [0091] disclosing “search of media assets such as on-line videos…associated augmented reality (AR) functions including dynamic provision of relevant secondary content”; and see: Claim 11 disclosing “transparently access augmented reality (AR) information having secondary content associated with one or more identifiable elements within data frames or containers of media assets accessed on the network site and renderable by the one or more computerized customer devices”).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is directed to a system. Claim 13 recites limitations that are similar in nature to those addressed above for claim 1, which is directed towards a method. It is noted that claim 13 also recites a computing system comprising: 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 (Boskovich, see: paragraph [0038] disclosing “a processor apparatus; and a storage apparatus in data communication with the processor apparatus and having a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”). Claim 13 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is directed to a system. Claim 14 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 2 which is directed towards a method. Claim 14 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 2.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is directed to a system. Claim 15 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 3 which is directed towards a method. Claim 15 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is directed to a system. Claim 16 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 4 which is directed towards a method. Claim 16 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 4.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is directed to a system. Claim 17 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 5 which is directed towards a method. Claim 17 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 5.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is directed to a system. Claim 18 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 6 which is directed towards a method. Claim 18 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 6.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is directed to a system. Claim 19 recites limitations that are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 7 which is directed towards a method. Claim 19 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 7.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Claim 20 recites limitations that are similar in nature to those addressed above for claim 1, which is directed towards a method. It is noted that claim 20 also recites 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 (Boskovich, see: paragraph [0038] disclosing “a processor apparatus; and a storage apparatus in data communication with the processor apparatus and having a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”). Claim 20 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 29 October 2025, have been fully considered but are not considered persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on pages 13-14 of the remarks stating that “Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 is directed to patent-eligible subject matter for at least the reasons that amended claim 1 improves a technology” and “Applicant’s claimed method provides a technical solution to the aforementioned technical problem. Similar to McRo, the solution covered by Applicant’s amended claim 1 takes an inferior process that was previously performable by humans” and “automates and improves it by using generated text-based descriptions and a trained machine-learned to compare the generated text-based description with a reference text-based description” and “solution improves the technology and technical field of media presentation by adding functionality to media-presentation systems” and “and making the systems more dynamic and user-friendly”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. When considering the amendments to the claims, under Step 2A, Prong one of the eligibility analysis, the claims are still directed to the abstract idea of processing a purchase based on a detected object with a purchasable item. This abstract idea falls into the enumerated grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity, where the activities and steps in the claims are related to sale activities or behaviors. Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis, the claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed additional elements in this case of 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, using a trained machine-learning model, and by the computing system are still recited in a generic manner and are merely being used to apply the abstract idea with generic computing components and a generically recited computer. Although the claims now recited using a trained machine-learning model, the machine learning model is still recited a high-level, and no specificity of how the model is trained or how it would be working within the claims is recited. Further, the claims do not recite or reflect an improvement to the technology nor to the technical field. 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. This is reflected in paragraphs [0004] of Applicant’s specification, which describe Applicant’s claimed invention is directed toward solving problems such as “that the user may need to remember to separately shop for the related item, which may be inconvenient while the user is watching the video stream. Further, another technical problem is that the user shopping for related item may not benefit a provider of the media-presentation system”. 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, 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.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on page 12 of the remarks stating “Applicant submits that even assuming, arguendo, amended claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (which Applicant disputes), the invention of amended claim 1 recites significantly more than such a judicial exception under Step 2B, Prong Two of the two-step patent eligibility analysis,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements in this case are recited at high-level and are merely being used to apply the abstract idea with generic computing components. As such, under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, since the claims recite additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and do not provide or recite an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are not eligible under Step 2B of the analysis, and thus, the Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
With respect to the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s arguments filed on 29 October 2025, have been considered and are persuasive. However, in view of the amendments, Applicant’s arguments are moot and new grounds of rejection have been applied. The Examiner is relying on the reference of Abo Fool to teach the amended limitations. The new grounds of rejection have been necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Datar, S., et al. (Patent No. US 12,536,683 B2), describes systems and methods for identifying a set of items that have at least one attribute in common with the first item. The device determines the identity of the first item based at least on attributes of the first item. The device determines that a confidence score associated with the identity of the first item is less than a threshold percentage.
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 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