DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on August 19, 2025 cancelled claims 7, 9, 17, and 20. Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 13, 15-16, 18 and 21 were amended and new claims 22-25 were added. Thus, the currently pending claims addressed below are claims 1-6, 8, 11-16, 18-19 and 21-25.
Claim Interpretation
The following term has required examiner interpretation as there is no definition of the term in the applicant’s specification:
Offline database: an offline database is a datastore that is resident on the local device such that it operates independently of the internet or external server. (Based on the normal meaning of the term in computer science and engineering as well as the fact that paragraph 29 of the applicant’s specification indicates that the application server (e.g., the claimed system) is couple to the offline database.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendment filed on August 19, 2025 has overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections of claims 1-9 and 11-21. Thus, the rejection is hereby withdrawn.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11-16, 18-19 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1, 13, and 18 have been amended to recite: “wherein the user interface enables adjustment of a position of the item listing to reflect the ranking of item listing being demoted in the modified search ranking”. The examiner can find no support for this limitation in the applicant’s disclosure. None of the paragraphs identified by the applicant in the applicant’s arguments/remarks dated August 19, 2025 provide support for this limitation. The applicant’s disclosure supports an application interface module 210 of the spam detecting system 150 transmitting a user interface (such as a web page) to a client device for display in at least paragraph 41. Based on at least paragraphs 17, a ranked product listing associated with a search request as search results can be transmitted to the client device for display. Based on at least paragraphs 65-67, 74 and 81, spam detection system can modify a ranked product listing, before it is provided to a client device, by demoting or removing items from the ranked product listing. This results a search result comprising a modified ranked product listing based on the search request being transmitted to the client device for display. Based on paragraphs 65-67, a modified ranked product listing based on a search request can be stored in an offline database so that the next time the search request is received, the modified ranked product listing can be provided to the client device more expeditiously than it would if the modified ranked product listing was generated at runtime. In every instance of modifying a ranking of product listing to return as search results, the modification is performed by the spam detection system and occurs prior to the modified ranked product listing being transmitted and displayed on the client device. Thus, there is no disclosure of “the user interface” “enabling adjustment of a position of the item listing to reflect the ranking of the item listing being demoted in the modified search ranking”. Based on the applicant’s specification the modified search ranking is performed by the spam detection system. The spam detection system then transmits web page comprising the modified search ranking to the client device. The client then displays the web page comprising the modified search results. There is no disclosure of the graphical user interface enabling or even being capable of allowing an adjustment of a position of the item listing to reflect the ranking of the item listing being demoted in the modified search ranking. As such, it is clear that the applicant’s disclosure does not support “wherein the user interface enables adjustment of a position of the item listing to reflect the ranking of item listing being demoted in the modified search ranking” as currently recited in claims 1, 13, and 18 as currently amended. As such, claims 1, 13, and 18, as currently amended, fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8, 11-12, 14-16, 19 and 21-25 fail to correct the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend and, as such, are rejected by virtue of dependency.
For the purpose of prosecuting the claims, the examiner is going to interpret the generating step in a manner supported by the applicant’s disclosure which is “generating a user interface, responsive to obtaining the modified search ranking of item listings from the offline database, wherein the user interface comprises the modified search ranking of the item listings; and transmitting the user interface in response to the additional search request”.
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 1-6, 8, 11-16, 18-19 and 21-25 are directed to a system, a method, and a computer program product which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
However, claims 1-6, 8, 11-16, 18-19 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim(s) 1, 13, and 18 recite(s) the following abstract idea: (Examiner note: the user device, is outside the scope of the claimed invention. As such, the examiner has included the user device as part of the abstract idea because they cannot be considered “additional elements” of the claimed invention.)
receiving an image of an item for an item listing;
receiving an item attribute for the item listing, the item attribute including a description of the item;
extracting an image attribute from the image;
obtaining as output from a model using a similarity measure or learned classifier, a confidence score representing an overlap between the item attribute including the description of the item and the image attribute;
classifying the item attribute as incorrect based on comparing the confidence score to one or more threshold values;
receiving a search request comprising a content associated with the item listing;
generating a search ranking of item listings based on the search request;
demoting, based on the classifying of the item attribute as incorrect, a ranking of the item listing in the search ranking of item listings to obtain a modified search ranking;
storing the modified search ranking of the item listings offline;
receiving an additional search request comprising the content associated with the item listing;
obtaining the modified search ranking of the item listings stored offline; and
generating tailored content, responsive to the obtaining the modified search ranking of the item listings, wherein the tailored content comprises the modified search ranking of the item listings; and
transmitting the modified search ranking of the item listings in response to the additional search request.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely advertising, marketing, or sales related activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e., “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of:
a computer with at least one processor, as memory encoding computer-executable instructions,
use of generic machine learning,
an offline database; and
a graphical user interface that displays data.
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying:
receiving an image of an item for an item listing (receiving data);
receiving an item attribute for the item listing, the item attribute including a description of the item (receiving data);
obtaining as output from a model using a similarity measure or machine-learned learned classifier, a confidence score representing an overlap between the item attribute including the description of the item and the image attribute (receiving data);
receiving a search request comprising a content associated with the item listing (receiving data);
storing the modified search ranking of the item listings offline database (storing data);
receiving an additional search request comprising the content associated with the item listing (receiving data);
obtaining the modified search ranking of the item listings stored offline (receiving data); and
transmitting the modified search ranking of the item listings in response to the additional search request (transmitting data).
The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor with generic computer components performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e., “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer with at least one processor, a memory encoding computer-executable instructions; use of generic machine learning, an offline database, and a graphical user interface to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general-purpose computer and general-purpose computer components (as evidenced from Figure 9 and paragraph 96-97 of the applicant’s specification which discloses that the computer with a processor and memory executing computer instructions is just a general-purpose computer ; Abstract Idea Examples 47-49, the Recentive Analytics decision, and at least page 7, lines 23-29 of Langley et al. (“Approaches to Machine Learning”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, February 16, 1984, pgs. 1-28) which discloses that machine learning processes are old and well known; the Affinity v. Direct TV decision which discloses that databases are well-known generic computer components; and the Intellectual Venture I v. Capital One decision that say a generic interactive interface that provides information to and accepts user input is a generic computer element); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, storing and/or transmitting data:
receiving an image of an item for an item listing (receiving data);
receiving an item attribute for the item listing, the item attribute including a description of the item (receiving data);
obtaining as output from a model using a similarity measure or machine-learned learned classifier, a confidence score representing an overlap between the item attribute including the description of the item and the image attribute (receiving data);
receiving a search request comprising a content associated with the item listing (receiving data);
storing the modified search ranking of the item listings offline database (storing data);
receiving an additional search request comprising the content associated with the item listing (receiving data);
obtaining the modified search ranking of the item listings stored offline (receiving data); and
transmitting the modified search ranking of the item listings in response to the additional search request (transmitting data).
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e., “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The dependent claims 2-6, 8, 11-12, 14-16, 19 and 21-25 appear to merely further limit the abstract idea by adding an additional step of determining item attribute is incorrect which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 2, 14, and 19); adding the additional steps of classifying the item listing as spam and canceling publication of the item listing which are both considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 3 and 15); adding the additional steps of classifying the item listing as spam, further limiting the demoting step, and adding a step of publishing the item listing which are all considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 4); adding the additional steps of determining that the confidence score fails to satisfy a second threshold value, indicating a spam status of the item listing, and adding an additional step of publishing the item listing which are all considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 5 and 16); adding the additional steps of sending a notification, receiving a corrected item attribute, promoting the ranking of the item listing in the search ranking based on the corrected item attribute, and publishing the item listing which are all considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 6); adding the additional steps of generating tailored content to display the search ranking of the item listings which is considered part of the abstract idea, and indicating the additional element of the user interface can also display other data which has already been addressed in the rejection above (Claims 8 and 21-22); further limiting the search ranking which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 11); further limiting the item list which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 12), further limiting the additional element of the graphical user interface to accept user input which has already been addressed in the rejection above (Claims 23-25) , and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements, which have not already been addressed above, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-6, 8, 11-16, 18-19 and 21-25 are not patent eligible.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11-16, 18-19 and 21-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,244,349. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obvious variants of claims 1-19 in U.S. Patent No.11,244,349.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11-16, 18-19 and 21-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,830,031. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obvious variants of claims 1-20 in U.S. Patent No.11,830,031.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 8, 11-16, 18-19 and 21-25 contain subject matter that would be allowable over the prior art, if the applicant were to be able to overcome the Double Patenting rejections, the 35 USC 112(a) rejections, and the 35 USC 101 rejections above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The examiner has found prior art (see Grandhi: WO2009111047A2; Bandini: US Patent 7,117,358; and Majumder et al: PGUPB 2009/0171943) that discloses: A system, a method, and a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, comprising:
at least one processor; and memory encoding computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform operations through comprising:
receiving an image of an item for an item listing;
receiving an item attribute for the item, the item attribute including a description of the item;
extracting an image attribute from the image;
obtaining, as output from a model using a similarity measure or a machine-learned classifier, a confidence score for each of a plurality of products in a database, wherein the confidence score is based on comparing the item attribute including the description of the item and the image attribute to item attributes and image attributes of a plurality products stored in a database, the confidence score representing an amount of overlap between each of the products to the item attribute and the image attribute of the image provided by the user;
comparing each of the confidence scores to one or more threshold values;
identifying the item listing as fraudulent based on confidence score;
receiving a search request comprising a content associated with the item listing;
generating a search ranking of item listings based on the search request;
demoting, based on the classifying the item attribute as fraudulent a ranking of the item listing in the search ranking of the item listings to obtain a modified search ranking;
generating in response to the demoting, a user interface to display the modified search ranking of the item listings;
transmitting the user interface in response to the search request; and
selectively publishing the plurality item listings.
However, the examiner has been unable to find prior art that would be obvious to combine with the prior art of Grandhi, Bandini, and Majumder, without the use of impermissible hindsight by using the applicant’s claims as a roadmap, which discloses:
obtaining, as output from a model using a similarity measure or a machine-learned classifier, a confidence score representing an overlap between the item attribute including the description of the item and the image attribute;
classifying the item attribute as incorrect based on the comparing the confidence score to one or more threshold values;
storing the modified search ranking of the item listing in an offline database;
receiving an additional search request comprising the content associated with the item listing;
obtaining the modified search ranking of the item listing from the offline database based on the additional search request;
generating a user interface, responsive to obtaining the modified search ranking of item listings from the offline database, wherein the user interface comprises the modified search ranking of the item listings; and
transmitting the user interface in response to the additional search request.
Thus, the claims contain subject matter that would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant were to be able to overcome the Double Patenting rejections, 35 USC 112(a) rejections and 35 USC 101 rejections above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the Double Patenting rejections the applicant argues that the claim 1-19 of US Patent 11,244,349 are directed to publishing an item publication after requesting and receiving an update to an attribute that is classified as spam and as such is distinct from the instant invention. The question is not whether the claims are distinct or not. The question is whether the claims are patentable distinct by claiming an invention that is not an obvious variant of claim 1-19 of US Patent 11,244,349. Both claim 1-9 and 11-21 of the instant invention and claims 1-19 of US Patent 11,244,349 claim nearly identical steps with regards to how a determination regarding an item listing as spam (incorrect) or not spam (correct) is being made. Both claim sets deal with receiving a search request, obtaining a ranked list of search results, and modifying the ranked list based on the determination regarding an item listing as spam (incorrect) or not spam (correct) (see at least claim 11 of US Patent 11,244,349). The only significant differences between the claims of the instant invention and the claims of US Patent 11,244,349 is that the modification of the search ranking is a demotion of the listing or promotion of the listing rather than a removal of the listing which are obvious variants of removing the listing and performing the modification before the search results rather than in real-time after a search result occurs which is an obvious variant of the claims in US Patent 11,244,349. The applicant even admits in paragraph 19 of the disclosure that conventional systems, when spam is detected, try to either prevent the seller from listing the spam item or demotes the items’ ranking in the search results page. As such, the argued differences between the claims are clearly obvious variants of one another and, as such, are not patentably distinct. The applicant further argues that claims 1-20 of US Patent 11,830,031 are directed to cancelling publication of an item publication after classifying it as spam and, as such, is distinct from the instant claims. Again, the examiner disagrees. Claims 1-20 of US Patent 11,830,031 claim nearly identical steps with regards to how a determination regarding an item listing as spam (incorrect) or not spam (correct) is being made. The only significant difference between the two claim sets is that rather than merely removing the listing from the publisher site, the instant claims maintain the listing, but ensure that it is not the top ranked listing returned when a user search for an item which is an obvious variant. The applicant even admits in paragraph 19 of the disclosure that conventional systems, when spam is detected, try to either prevent the seller from listing the spam item or demotes the items’ ranking in the search results page. As such, the argued differences between the claims are clearly obvious variants of one another and, as such, are not patentably distinct. Thus, the rejections have been maintained.
In regards to the 35 USC 101, the applicant argues that the claims overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 2 because they are similar to the claims in the CoreWireless decision and/or Abstract Idea Example 37, in that the recite a specific graphical user interface with specific functionality that transforms the abstract idea into a practical application. The examiner disagrees. While the claims as currently amended do indeed recite a graphical user interface that enables adjustment of a position of the item listing to reflect the ranking of the item listing being demoted in the modified search results. The examiner has been unable to find support in the applicant’s specification for a graphical user interface with the claim functionality as indicated in the 35 USC 112(a) rejection above. When interpreting the claims in light of the applicant’s specification the functionality attributed to the claimed user interface is actually performed by the system prior to generating and transmitting the user interface. As such, the claims, as amended and interpreted in light of the applicant’s disclosure do not recite a graphical user interface with specific functionality that is capable of transforming an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and/or do not recite a graphical user interface with specific functionality that is capable of being considered significantly more under Step 2b. As such, the claims bear no similarity to the claims in the CoreWireless decision. The examiner notes that the claims in the CoreWireless decision recited a graphical user interface with a menuing capability that summarized information about applications install on the user device and allow for the applications installed on the user device to be executed from the graphical user interface. This combination of functionality was considered an improvement to graphical user interfaces that transformed the abstract idea into a specific practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and/or was considered significantly more under Step 2b. Likewise, the claims in Abstract Idea Example 37 recited a graphical user interface that automatically reorganized the applications on a home screen such that the one used most often were closest to the start menu. While graphical user interfaces that rearranged icons based on different criterial were known, one that did so based on the frequency of use of the application was found to be an improvement than transformed the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and/or was considered significantly more under Step 2b. In contrast, had the claims as amended been supported by the applicant’s specification, the graphical user interface would not have been an improved graphical user interface capable of transforming the abstract idea into a practical application and not an improved graphical user interface capable of being considered significantly more under Step 2b. Webpages that allow for such reordering were well-understood routine and conventional well before January 29, 2018. Many used drag and drop functionality in their websites that allowed users to perform such functions on an ordered list, the drag and drop functionality was part of the java and/or javascript library others created customized java, javascript, perl, or activeX modules to allow users to perform such sorting of listing in a webpage. For example JQuery UI had a GUI widget called a Sortable Widget that could be added to a webpage or other application allowed a user to modify the location of items in an ordered list. These JQuery UI widgets were the second most popular JavaScript library by November 2015 and used on over 197,000 of the top one million websites (see at least Wikipedia, jQuery UI, November 17, 2015, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=JQuery_UI&oldid=691106634, pages 1-5). As such, even had the disclosure supported a graphical user interface with such functionality, the claims would not have overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection because they would not have been considered to recite an improved graphical user interface. Thus, the rejection has been maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bandara et al. (PGPUB: 2016/0292757) which discloses a product evaluation system that receives product information such as a product attribute; receiving a genuine image showing a characteristic part for evaluating whether a product is a genuine product; requesting a user to take a photograph of the product they are considering purchasing; determining whether the product in the photographic is genuine or fraudulent based on comparing the photograph to the product information and the genuine images.
Le Henaff (PGPUB: 2018/0349695) which discloses a system for detecting the authenticity of products by detecting a unique chaotic signature, wherein photos of the products are taken at the plant and stored in a database/server, the photos are processed to detect for each authentic product a unique authentic signature; a user/buyer takes a picture of the product and send it to the server; the server analyzes the receive image in search for a pre-detected and/or pre-stored chaotic signature associated with an authentic product and returns a response to the user indicating the result of the search.
Ferrara (PGPUB: 2013/0076726) which discloses receiving information about a configuration of items to be displayed on the fixture; receiving an image depicting the actual configuration of the fixture; analyzing the received information and image to determine whether the fixture is in compliance with the specified configuration.
Agarwal et al. (PGPUB: 2015/0348045) which disclose using image analysis to determine that an attribute is incorrect based on a confidence score transgressing a predetermined threshold; and in response to determining that the attribute is incorrect, causing presentation of a notification comprising a request to change the attribute.
Karpathy, Deep Visual-Semantic Alignments for Generating Image Descriptions, 2015, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.2306, pgs. 1-17 which discloses how images can be analyzed in order to determine attributes of the image and using machine language models to determine and order the attributes.
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 JOHN W VAN BRAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-8198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30 am - 4 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Spar Ilana can be reached on 571-270-7537. 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.
/John Van Bramer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622