Detailed Action
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is in reply to the Amendment filed on 6/24/2026. Claims 1-14, 19-24 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 15-18 have been cancelled; claims 1, 6, 8-9 have been amended; claims 21-24 have been newly entered.
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/24/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim of priority to foreign application KR10-2022-0171393 is acknowledged; the claims are therefore afforded an effective filing date of 12/9/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 6/24/2026 was received and has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to for the following informality: “query a transactional item database to identify one or more transactional items that are mapped to the determined semantic intent as recommended products” should not be followed by the word “and.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to for the following informality: “querying a transactional item database to identify one or more transactional items that are mapped to the determined semantic intent as recommended products” should not be followed by the word “and.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24 is objected to for the following informality: “determined the recommended products” should read “determine the recommended products”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejection – 35 USC §112(a)
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 1-14, 19-24 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 6 recite “in response to receiving, via the user profile view, a user input associated with the status message object, where the user input is associated with the first profile item: analyz[ing] text data of the status message using a natural language processing (NLP) algorithm to determine a semantic intent of the second user; query[ing] a transactional item database to identify one or more transactional items that are mapped to the determined semantic intent as recommended products.” The subject matter of the claim does not conform to the disclosure in such a manner in which one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized such methods as being that which Applicant adequately described as the invention or what applicant actually had possession of at the time of the invention. A review of the disclosure does not support this analysis and querying being contingent upon an input to a first profile item; while the Specification discloses such a button/item, and discloses steps of querying based on the status message and analyzing the meaning of a status message through NLP, the disclosure does not support either of these steps being responsive to the input to the first item/first profile item as claimed. It is noted that this is not an enablement rejection. Applicant's failure to disclose the analyzing and querying being in response to the input on the first profile item raises questions whether applicant truly had possession of this feature at the time of filing.
Claims 2-5, 7-14, 19-24 inherit the deficiencies of Claims 1, 6 and are rejected on the same basis.
Claim Rejection - 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 1-14, 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. In the instant case, claims 1-5, 21-24 are directed to a machine, claims 6-14; 19 are directed to a process, and claim 20 is directed to an article of manufacture. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 as described in MPEP 2106 (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong Two of Step 2A).
Claims 1, 6, and 20 recite at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
retrieve, via a source, profile data corresponding to a user profile of a second user, wherein the source is associated with a first user;
identify one or more status messages in the profile data;
display, via a user profile view of the second user, a status message object comprising profile items based on the profile data, wherein the profile items include a status message, a first profile item for transmitting the transactional item data to the second user, and a second profile item associated with a profile element;
identify, from among the profile items of the status message object, the state message;
in response to receiving, via the user profile view, a user input associated with the status message object:
Where the user input is associated with the first profile item:
analyze text data of the status message to determine a semantic intent of the second user;
query a transactional item storage to identify one or more transactional items that are mapped to the determined semantic intent as recommended products; and
display transactional item data corresponding to the one or more transactional items, wherein the transactional item data is displayed via an item selection view displayed on at least a partial region of a display, wherein, in response to selection of a transactional item through the item selection view, a transaction view is displayed;
receive a user input associated with the one or more transactional items,
instantiate a transaction authentication of the one or more transactional items by causing transmission, to a third location, of transaction information data associated with the first user; and
cause, based on the transaction authentication of the one or more transactional items, delivery of the one or more transactional items to the second user by causing a display, provided to the second user and corresponding to a service-provider account, to display the one or more transactional items as a message;
where the user input is associated with the second profile item:
display an emoticon input comprising an emoticon arrangement displaying a plurality of emoticons;
receive a user input selecting a first emoticon from among the plurality of emoticons;
display the selected first emoticon at predetermined coordinates on the display as a visual effect corresponding to the status message; and
cause the source to synchronize and display a reaction receipt record to the second user, wherein the reaction receipt record comprises an item record received through the first profile item and an emoticon receipt record received through the second profile item.
The above limitations recite the concept of personalized gifting and communication. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106, in that they recite commercial interactions, e.g. sales activities/behaviors, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, e.g., following rules or instructions. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Prong Two of Step 2A is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or user the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements of:
an apparatus comprising a display configured to receive at least one user input, a communication interface, one or more processors, and memory string processor-executed instructions
an instant messenger application executing on the apparatus
Interactive elements
A natural language processing algorithm
a database
user interface
a view being displayed as a background to another view
a close button configured to close a view
chatroom interface
computing devices
a keyboard
elements being dynamic
a terminal
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions executed by a processor
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use 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 to monopolize the exception.
In addition, the recitations are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use 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 to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use 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 to monopolize the exception. For example, claims 2, 4-5, 7,10, 12-14, 18-19 are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above. As for claims 3, 8-9, 11, 15-17 these claims are similar to the independent claims except that they recite the further additional elements of a chatroom, a server, visual effects, a display screen. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use 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 to monopolize the exception. Therefore, the dependent claims do not create an integration for the same reasons.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
an apparatus comprising a display configured to receive at least one user input, a communication interface, one or more processors, and memory string processor-executed instructions
an instant messenger application executing on the apparatus
Interactive elements
A natural language processing algorithm
a database
user interface
a view being displayed as a background to another view
a close button configured to close a view
chatroom interface
computing devices
a keyboard
elements being dynamic
a terminal
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions executed by a processor
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims lack one or more limitations which amount to an inventive concept in the claims.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim Rejection – 35 USC § 103
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 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 non-
obviousness.
Claims 1-14, 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sirota et al (US 20200294110 A1), hereinafter Sirota, in view of DeMattei (US 20150324858 A1), hereinafter DeMattei, and further in view of Cundall et al (US 20220394001 A1), hereinafter Cundall.
Regarding Claim 1, Sirota discloses an apparatus of a first user configured to use a messenger application (Sirota: messaging application [0028] for a text message [0026]) to automatically connect digital user activity associated with a profile view of an account with transactional item data, the apparatus comprising: a display configured to receive at least one user input; a communication interface; one or more processors; and memory storing instructions (Sirota: [0069], [0071]) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to:
retrieve, via the messenger application executing on the apparatus, profile data corresponding to a user profile of a second user [recipient], wherein the apparatus is associated with a first user (Sirota: “ the gifting application detects, from the social media application operating on a user's device, that a friend or other person the user is communicating with is the subject of an event” [0029] – “maintain detailed information and preferences for different entities, including the recipient. … preferences may be determined based on previous gifts selected by the recipient, activities identified through a recipient profile, ” [0060] – “a gifting application may detect, from a social media post, a hashtag or other type of content that may be associated with a particular event or milestone for a possible recipient” [0044]);
identify one or more status messages in the profile data (Sirota: “a gifting application may detect, from a social media post, a hashtag or other type of content that may be associated with a particular event or milestone for a possible recipient” [0044] – “based on a social media post presented via the social media application 1304, the gifting application 1306 may determine that it is the birthday of the subject of the social media post. ” [0049]);
display, via a user profile view of the second user in the messenger application, a status message object comprising profile items based on the profile data, wherein the profile items include a status message , a first profile item for transmitting the transactional item data to the second user [“send a gift” button], and a second profile item associated with an interactive profile element [keyboard/interactive elements] (Sirota: “a social media post presented via the social media application” [0049] – The user is communicating with someone or reviewing their post. [0059] – “a gifting application may detect, from a social media post, a hashtag or other type of content that may be associated with a particular event or milestone for a possible recipient (e.g., a birthday, an anniversary, etc.). In response to detecting a hashtag or other type of content associated with a particular event or milestone, the gifting application may present the user, via the graphical interface, with an option to deliver a gift to the possible recipient that is the subject of the social media post. Selection of this option may cause the gifting application to present the user with various products and/or product categories that may be provided to the recipient” [0044] – See Figures 2 & 11, which illustrate the text/message post, send a gift button, and keyboard or other interactive elements);
identify, from among the profile items of the status message object, the status message (Sirota: “detect, from a social media post, a hashtag or other type of content that may be associated with a particular event or milestone for a possible recipient (e.g., a birthday, an anniversary, etc.).” [0044]);
in response to receiving, via the user profile view, a user input associated with the
where the user input is associated with the first profile item:
analyze text data of the status message to determine a semantic intent of the second user (Sirota: “present the user of the sender device 1302, via a graphical interface, with an option to send a gift to the subject of the social media post. If the user selects this option, the gifting application 1306 may transmit a request to a gifting distribution system 1308 to determine what products and/or product categories may be available for delivery to the subject of the social media post. In an embodiment, the gifting application 1306 can provide, in the request, contextual information corresponding to the detected event … This contextual information may be used by the gifting distribution system 1308 to recommend possible products and/or product categories that may be provided as gifts to the subject of the social media post. The contextual information may include the event detected by the gifting application” [0049]);
query a transactional item database to identify one or more transactional items that are mapped to the determined semantic intent as recommended products (Sirota: “detect, from a social media post, a hashtag or other type of content that may be associated with a particular event or milestone for a possible recipient (e.g., a birthday, an anniversary, etc.)” [0044] – “a contextual trigger (e.g. an indication of a birthday in a social media environment or context) can be used to automatically generate a curated selection of gifts” [0029]); and
display, via a user interface of the messenger application, transactional item data corresponding to the one or more transactional items (Sirota: “based on the contextual information provided by the gifting application 1306, the gifting distribution system 1308 may identify products … that may be presented to the user of the sender device 1302 by the gifting application” [0050]),
wherein, in response to selection of a transactional item through the item selection view, a transaction view is displayed on the screen (Sirota: “the gifting application 1306 may present the user of the sender device 1302, via the graphical interface, with these selection options. Via the graphical interface, the user of the sender device 1302 may select a product that may be given to the recipient (e.g., subject of the social media post) as a gift.” [0051] – “through the gifting application 1306, the user of the sender device 1302 can provide payment information that may be used for payment of a gift for the recipient. For instance, as illustrated in FIG. 3, the user may utilize a mobile payment service or digital wallet (e.g., Apple Pay®, etc.) to provide payment for the gift.” [0054] – See Figures 2-3, which illustrate a user being taken to a transaction/payment view or page after selecting one of the presented gift options.);
receive, via the user interface, a user input associated with the one or more transactional items (Sirota: “the gifting application 1306 may present the user of the sender device 1302, via the graphical interface, with these selection options. Via the graphical interface, the user of the sender device 1302 may select a product that may be given to the recipient (e.g., subject of the social media post) as a gift.” [0051]);
instantiate a transaction authentication of the one or more transactional items by causing transmission, to a third computing device, of transaction information data associated with the first user (Sirota: “the user may utilize a mobile payment service or digital wallet (e.g., Apple Pay®, etc.) … credit card information,…and like that may be used to obtain payment for the gift. The gifting application 1306 may provide the payment information to the gifting distribution system 1308, which may communicate with a corresponding payment service 1312 to authenticate the payment information. If the payment information is valid and payment can be made for the gift, the payment service 1312 may provide the gifting distribution system 1308 with the requisite payment” [0054]); and
cause, based on the transaction authentication of the one or more transactional items, delivery of the one or more transactional items to a second computing device of the second user by causing a chatroom interface, provided to the second computing device of the second user and corresponding to a service- provider account, to display the one or more transactional items as a message (Sirota: “the gifting distribution system 1308 transmits the gift to the recipient via the social media platform through which the user of the sender device 1302 and the recipient are communicating. … A recipient receiving the gift may be presented with a redemption code or other information that may use to redeem the gift provided therein.” [0055] – “a recipient can initially receive a gift card from a first coffee company and then be presented with the option to select a different coffee company for redemption of the gift card.” [0032] –“ a gift recipient can receive a gift (e.g., in the form a gift card, a voucher, or a coupon), from a first merchant ” [0036] - See at least Figures 4-5, which illustrate the conversational thread/chat space.).
While Sirota teaches that the messaging application can handle text messages [0026], and the item selection view is displayed on the same screen as the user profile view [Figure 3], it does not specifically teach that it is an instant messenger application, that the text data of the status message is analyzed using a natural language processing (NLP) algorithm, that the transactional item data is displayed via an item selection view displayed on at least a partial region of a screen of the apparatus with the user profile view as a background, wherein the item selection view comprises a close button configured to close the item selection view; or where the user input is associated with the second profile item: display an emoticon input interface comprising an emoticon keyboard displaying a plurality of emoticons; receive a user input selecting a first emoticon from among the plurality of emoticons; display the selected first emoticon at predetermined coordinates on the screen of the apparatus as a dynamic visual effect corresponding to the status message; and cause the messenger application to synchronize and display a reaction receipt record on a terminal of the second user, wherein the reaction receipt record comprises an item record received through the first profile item and an emoticon receipt record received through the second profile item.
However, DeMattei teaches a messaging solution that provides gift cards within a text message [Abstract], including:
an instant messenger application (DeMattei: “A text messaging or instant messaging user interface” [0026] – “ a wireless device 200, which may be any suitable message initiator, transmits a text message, an SMS message, an instant message or an MMS message or the like (collectively referred to as message or text message)” [0028]);
that the transactional item data is displayed via an item selection view displayed on at least a partial region of a screen of the apparatus with the user profile view as a background, wherein the item selection view comprises a close [cancel] button configured to close the item selection view (DeMattei: “FIG. 11 is an exemplary user interface screen for the embodiment described in FIG. 10 after the user selects a greeting card. As illustrated in screen 1100, the text area includes a message from the recipient saying “Its my Birthday” 1012 and a response from the sending “Happy Birthday” 1014. Further, the sender has selected to the illustrated greeting card 1020 and now in the illustrated embodiment, the sender has the option to attach and send the card 1022, attach the card and add a message 1024 or cancel 1026. Further, in some embodiments an additional feature including add a gift card 1028 may also be made available to the sender.” [0060] – See Figures 10-11); and
where the user input is associated with the second profile item:
display an input interface comprising a keyboard displaying a plurality of characters (DeMattei: “the second party has the option to … attach the card and add a message 1624” [0070] – “The “tray” or “deck” may also be used in the generation of a message, such as allowing the user to select content directly with the keyboard (i.e., add a video, add a picture, add an emoticon, etc.).” [0064]);
receive a user input selecting a first character from among the plurality of characters (DeMattei: “the second party has selected to include the illustrated greeting card 1620 and now, in the illustrated embodiment, the second party has the option to attach and send the card 1622, attach the card and add a message 1624 …the second party could be presented an option to attach or include the greeting card 1620 in a to be prepared, already prepared, or being prepared text message. Thus, the greeting card could be anywhere in the body of a text message similar to an emoticon.” [0070]);
display the selected first character at predetermined coordinates on the screen of the apparatus as a dynamic visual effect corresponding to the status message (DeMattei: “the greeting card could be anywhere in the body of a text message similar to an emoticon.” [0070] – “content is restricted within the “bubble” of the text message. As such, a thumb nail of the video, or some other icon is presented in the bubble to the text message and touching the thumb nail results in the play back” [0066] – “The key word or key words (which may also include text sequences, icons, emoticons, graphics, URL's other content, audible commands, audio, video, etc.) that are input in the body of the text message through a first mobile user's interface may be utilized to access, index into, or form search queries into a database that can provide a select list of audio and/or video recordings, graphic images, URL's and other content based on the first mobile device user's text message content typed, selected or otherwise entered in by the first mobile device user” [0032]); and
cause the messenger application to synchronize and display a reaction receipt record on a terminal of the second user, wherein the reaction receipt record comprises an item record received through the first profile item and a character receipt record received through the second profile item (DeMattei: “FIG. 14 is an exemplary user interface screen that could be displayed to a recipient after having played the greeting card or, having simply received the gift card. …the screen 1400 includes a text window 1402 for sending and displaying received and sent text messages. In addition, the electronic gift card 1404 is presented to the recipient of the message” [0066] – See Figure 14.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, Sirota would continue to teach a messenger application and display, via a user interface of the messenger application, transactional item data corresponding to the one or more transactional items, except that now it would also teach an instant messenger application and that the transactional item data is displayed via an item selection view displayed on at least a partial region of a screen of the apparatus with the user profile view as a background, wherein the item selection view comprises a close button configured to close the item selection view; and where the user input is associated with the second profile item: display an input interface comprising a keyboard displaying a plurality of characters; receive a user input selecting a first character from among the plurality of characters; display the selected first character at predetermined coordinates on the screen of the apparatus as a dynamic visual effect corresponding to the status message; and cause the messenger application to synchronize and display a reaction receipt record on a terminal of the second user, wherein the reaction receipt record comprises an item record received through the first profile item and a character receipt record received through the second profile item, according to the teachings of DeMattei. This is a predictable result of the combination.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because it would result in an enhanced ability to provides gift content through a text message (DeMattei: [0001]).
While Sirota/DeMattei teach emoticon elements on keyboard (Sirota: Fig. 2) and that emoticons can be input in the body of a test message (DeMattei: [0032]), they do not specifically teach that the text data of the status message is analyzed using a natural language processing (NLP) algorithm; or that the input interface comprising a keyboard displaying a plurality of characters is an emoticon input interface comprising an emoticon keyboard displaying a plurality of emoticons; that the first character is a first emoticon from among the plurality of emoticons; or that character receipt record is a emoticon receipt record.
However, Cundall teaches systems and methods for selecting of additional content to include in a communication thread [Abstract], including:
that the text data of the status message is analyzed using a natural language processing (NLP) algorithm (Cundall: “performing context identifying processes involving rules, natural language processing and/or machine vision to identify not only the content of messages, but also the context of the messages” [0021] – “the context may be determined using natural language processing (NLP) algorithms from text of messages” [0042]);
an emoticon input interface comprising an emoticon keyboard displaying a plurality of emoticons (Cundall: “emoji may be an emoji selected from a menu of assorted, selectable emojis” [0090] – “conventional systems only provide a predetermined, selectable menu of images necessitating manual input from a user.” [0020]);
that the first character from among the plurality of characters is a first emoticon from among the plurality of emoticons and displaying an emoticon receipt record (Cundall: “a computing device receives an indication of a selection of a first image by a first user for transmission to a second user in a communication thread. … the first image is a baseline emoji (operation 816). A baseline emoji may be an emoji selected from a menu of assorted, selectable emojis.” [0090]); and
that the character receipt record is an emoticon receipt record (Cundall: “a user of user device 300 receives a message 302, an emoji of a martini glass…. receives an indication of a selection of a first image by a first user for transmission to a second user in a communication thread. … may be an emoji selected from a menu of assorted, selectable emojis” [0090] – “ A first view of a user interface of user device 200 includes an example view of a communication platform (e.g., chat window for a conversation group) that provides an interface to communicate with one or more people. A user of user device 200 sends data in a communication stream as an emoji 202.” [0038] – See Figures 2A-B and 3A-B, which illustrate this record of the emoticon in particular coordinates within the texting thread.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, Sirota/DeMattei would continue to teach where the user input is associated with the second profile item: display an input interface comprising a keyboard displaying a plurality of characters; receive a user input selecting a first character from among the plurality of characters; display the selected first character at predetermined coordinates on the screen of the apparatus as a dynamic visual effect corresponding to the status message; and cause the messenger application to synchronize and display a reaction receipt record on a terminal of the second user, wherein the reaction receipt record comprises an item record received through the first profile item and a character receipt record received through the second profile item, except that now it would also teach that the text data of the status message is analyzed using a natural language processing (NLP) algorithm; an emoticon input interface comprising an emoticon keyboard displaying a plurality of emoticons; that the first character from among the plurality of characters is a first emoticon from among the plurality of emoticons and displaying an emoticon receipt record and that the character receipt record is an emoticon receipt record, according to the teachings of Cundall. This is a predictable result of the combination.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to combine these references because it would result in an improved ability to provide electronic communications that feel personal (Cundall: [0003]).
Regarding Claim 2, Sirota/DeMattei/Cundall teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to:
display the transactional item data on a first portion of the user interface; simultaneously display the one or more status messages on a second portion of the user interface (Sirota: “FIG. 3 shows an illustrative example of an environment 300 in which a gift recommendation is presented in response to detection of an event associated with a potential recipient … a contextual trigger (e.g. an indication of a birthday in a social media environment or context) can be used to automatically generate a curated selection of gifts. For instance, if the gifting application detects, from the social media application operating on a user's device, that a friend or other person the user is communicating with is the subject of an event (e.g., birthday, anniversary, graduation, etc.), the gifting application may present the user, via the graphical interface, with various gift options and/or categories corresponding to the detected event.” [0029] – As illustrated in Figures 3 & 10, the messaging is displayed in one part of the screen while the products are displayed in another part simultaneously. – “the presentation of the option to generate the gift is performed using a pop-up window presented alongside elements of a social media application.” Claim 19);
query the database further based on an item identification list associated with the second user (Sirota: “The gifting distribution system may identify, based on this detailed information and preferences for the recipient, what products and/or product categories may be of interest to the recipient. These preferences may be determined based on previous gifts selected by the recipient, activities identified through a recipient profile, and the like.” [0060]); and
instantiate the transaction authentication of the one or more transactional items by receiving, via the user interface, a user input of the transaction information data (Sirota: “Via the graphical interface, the user of the sender device 1302 may select a product that may be given to the recipient (e.g., subject of the social media post) as a gift.” [0051] – “through the gifting application 1306, the user of the sender device 1302 can provide payment information that may be used for payment of a gift for the recipient.” [0054]).
Regarding Claim 3, Sirota/DeMattei/Cundall teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to instantiate the transaction authentication of the one or more transactional items by: transmitting, via a chatroom associated with a service provider and using the instant messenger application, at least a portion of the transactional item data (Sirota: “ the application can prompt the user for payment information that can be used to process payment for the selected gift. ” [0028] – “a recipient can initially receive a gift card from a first coffee company and then be presented with the option to select a different coffee company for redemption of the gift card.” [0032] –“ a gift recipient can receive a gift (e.g., in the form a gift card, a voucher, or a coupon), from a first merchant ” [0036] .).
Regarding Claim 4, Sirota/DeMattei/Cundall teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to display the transactional item data corresponding to the one or more transactional items by: determining, based on an item transaction restriction, whether the first user is eligible to perform a transaction operation associated with the one or more transactional items (Sirota: “the user may be presented with a payment option that is linked to a user's payment information. This payment information may be transmitted to the gifting distribution system or to a payment provider, which may verify the provided payment information and determine whether the payment information is valid. As described above, if the payment information is valid, the payment is processed and the selected gift is transmitted to the recipient using delivery information associated with the recipient (e.g., social media platform identifier, e-mail address, physical mailing address, etc.). However, if the provided payment information is not valid, the request to provide a gift to the recipient may be denied and/or the user may be notified that the payment information provided is not valid.” [0031]).
Regarding Claim 5, Sirota/DeMattei/Cundall teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the user profile view further comprises:
at least one first interfacing object configured to receive the user input associated with the one or more status messages, wherein the at least one first interfacing object comprises a visual indicator indicating an interface associated with a transaction operation of the one or more transactional items (Sirota: “a graphical interface can include a general suggestion for giving a “quick gift”. In another example, a graphical interface can include a sponsored ad suggesting a gift of a “free frosty” or other item associated with a particular brand.” [0024] – See Figure 1); and
at least one second interfacing object configured to receive a user input that causes display of an emoticon input interface associated with the one or more status messages (Sirota: “after determining that a user has indicated, via a messaging platform, that a gift is to be sent to a recipient, one or more emojis can be presented via the graphical interface.” [0020] – See Figures 1 & 3).
Regarding Claim 6, the limitations of claim 6 are closely parallel to the limitations of claim 1, and are rejected on the same basis.
Regarding Claim 7, Sirota/DeMattei/Cundall teach the method of claim 6, wherein the profile data comprises one or more of: a third user interface element for displaying D-day date information, and a fourth user interface element for displaying text (Sirota: “a gift recommendation is presented in response to detection of an event associated with a potential recipient in accordance with at least one embodiment. In an embodiment, a contextual trigger (e.g. an indication of a birthday in a social media environment or context) can be used to automatically generate a curated selection of gifts.” [0029] – See Figures 3, 6, 10, which illustrate that date information of the arrival of the event, e.g. It’s Jeff’s Birthday Today,” is displayed. Figures 2-4 further illustrate elements for displaying additional text, such as a gift message, a gift selection screen, or accessing a keyboard.).
Regarding Claim 8, Sirota/DeMattei/Cundall teach the method of claim 6, further comprising:
displaying, via the user profile view, an emoticon input object comprising a plurality of emoticons (Cundall: “emoji may be an emoji selected from a menu of assorted, selectable emojis” [0090] – “conventional systems only provide a predetermined, selectable menu of images necessitating manual input from a user.” [0020]); and
in response to receiving the user input selecting the first emoticon from among the plurality of emoticons: transmitting, to a server, a request to transmit the first emoticon to the second computing device; and wherein the screen comprises the user profile view (Cundall: “a computing device receives an indication of a selection of a first image by a first user for transmission to a second user in a communication thread. … the first image is a baseline emoji (operation 816). A baseline emoji may be an emoji selected from a menu of assorted, selectable emojis.” [0090] – “ A first view of a user interface of user device 200 includes an example view of a communication platform (e.g., chat window for a conversation group) that provides an interface to communicate with one or more people. A user of user device 200 sends data in a communication stream as an emoji 202.” [0038] – See Figures 2A-B and 3A-B, which illustrate this record of the emoticon in particular coordinates within the texting thread.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cundall with Sirota/DeMattei for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 6.
Regarding Claim 9, Sirota/DeMattei/Cundall teach the method of claim 8, wherein the emoticon receipt record is displayed via a profile view of the second user displayed on the second computing device, and wherein the emoticon receipt record includes a reception record of the first emoticon (Cundall: “a computing device receives an indication of a selection of a first image by a first user for transmission to a second user in a communication thread. … the first image is a baseline emoji (operation 816). A baseline emoji may be an emoji selected from a menu of assorted, selectable emojis.” [0090] – “ A first view of a user interface of user device 200 includes an example view of a communication platform (e.g., chat window for a conversation group) that provides an interface to communicate with one or more people. A user of user device 200 sends data in a communication stream as an emoji 202.” [0038] – See Figures 2A-B and 3A-B, which illustrate this record of the emoticon in particular coordinates within the texting thread.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cundall with Sirota/DeMattei for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 6.
Regarding Claim 10, Sirota/DeMattei/Cundall teach the method of claim 6, wherein the instantiating the transaction authentication of the one or more transactional items further comprises: receiving, via the user interface, a user input of the transaction information data (Sirota: “Via the graphical interface, the user of the sender device 1302 may select a product that may be given to the recipient (e.g., subject of the social media post) as a gift.” [0051] – “through the gifting application 1306, the user of the sender device 1302 can provide payment information that may be used for payment of a gift for the recipient.” [0054]).
Regarding Claims 11-12, the limitations of claims 11-12 are closely parallel to the limitations of claims 3-4 and are rejected on the same basis.
Regarding Claim 13, Sirota/DeMattei/Cundall teach the method of claim 12, wherein the item transaction restriction comprises at least one of: an age restriction, a country restriction , or a condition regarding an activation status of the second user (Sirota: “ the application can prompt the user for payment information that can be used to process payment for the selected gift. ” [0028] – “a recipient can initially receive a gift card from a first coffee company and then be presented with the option to select a different coffee company for redemption of the gift card.” [0032] –“ a gift recipient can receive a gift (e.g., in the form a gift card, a voucher, or a coupon), from a first merchant ” [0036])
Regarding Claim 14, Sirota/DeMattei/Cundall teach the method of claim 6, wherein the transactional item data comprises transactional item stock data (Sirota: “any products from the product category selected that are not in stock or are otherwise unavailable are hidden from view or are otherwise not presented to the gift recipient. In another example, if a particular product selected by the sender is unavailable, the gift recipient may be presented with other products of the same product category as the unavailable product.” [0036]).
Regarding Claim 19, Sirota/DeMattei/Cundall teach the method of claim 6, wherein the user profile view further comprises: at least one first interfacing object configured to receive the user input associated with the one or more status messages, wherein the at least one first interfacing object comprises a visual indicator indicating an interface associated with a transaction operation of the one or more transactional items; and at least one second interfacing object configured to receive a user input that causes display of an emoticon input interface associated with the one or more status messages (Sirota: “after determining that a user has indicated, via a messaging platform, that a gift is to be sent to a recipient, one or more emojis can be presented via the graphical interface.” [0020] – “when a heart emoji is selected, jewelry, chocolates, flowers, or other romantic-minded gifts may be presented via the graphical interface.” [0021] – See Figures 1 & 3).
Regarding Claim 20, the limitations of Claim 20 are closely parallel to the limitations of Claim 6, with the additional limitation of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform steps (Sirota: [0106], Claim 14), and are rejected on the same basis.
Regarding Claim 21, Sirota/DeMattei/Cundall teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the item selection view comprises at least one of: an item range category, an item recommendation based on the status message, a recommended item based on an item identification list associated with the second user, or a recommended item based on an item transaction record (Sirota: “the gifting application 1306 may present the user of the sender device 1302, via the graphical interface, with these selection options. Via the graphical interface, the user of the sender device 1302 may select a product that may be given to the recipient (e.g., subject of the social media post) as a gift.” [0051] – See Figures 2, 3, & 6).
Regarding Claim 22, Sirota/DeMattei/Cundall teach the apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the service-provider account corresponds to a channel for an item transaction service provided in a user interface of the instant messenger application (Sirota: “ the application can prompt the user for payment information that can be used to process payment for the selected gift. ” [0028] – “a recipient can initially receive a gift card from a first coffee company and then be presented with the option to select a different coffee company for redemption of the gift card.” [0032] –“ a gift recipient can receive a gift (e.g., in the form a gift card, a voucher, or a coupon), from a first merchant ” [0036] .), and
wherein the message displayed in the chatroom interface comprises at least one of item-related information, instructions on how to view received transactional item data, or an item stock database access button (Sirota: “A recipient receiving the gift may be presented with a redemption code or other information that may used to redeem the gift provided therein. For instance, if the gift is a gift card for a particular store, the recipient may redeem the gift card at the store (e.g., online storefront, etc.)…. as illustrated in FIG. 4, a recipient may be presented with various brands of coffee as an alternative to the brand selected by the sender. This enables the recipient to select a product of its choice if the recipient does not want to receive the product originally selected by the sender. ” [0055] – See Figure 4.).
Regarding Claim 23, Sirota/DeMattei/Cundall teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the memory stores additional instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to: display, with the user profile view as a background, a transaction completion message comprising at least one of an item image, transaction completion text, or item-related information (DeMattei: “As illustrated in screen 1600, the text area includes a message from a first party to a second party saying “Its my Birthday” 1612 and a response from the second party saying “Happy Birthday” 1614. Further, the second party has selected to include the illustrated greeting card 1620 and now, in the illustrated embodiment, the second party has the option to attach and send the card 1622” [0070] -See Figure 16, which illustrates a screen overlaying the text thread which notes that the gift preparation is complete and ready to send.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine DeMattei with Sirota/Cundall for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 24, Sirota/DeMattei/Cundall teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein analyzing the text data of the status message using the NLP algorithm comprises using a deep learning model to analyze a meaning of the status message and extracting a keyword from the status message to determine the recommended products (Cundall: “a machine learning model is trained to detect and determine whether messages in a conversation group fulfill trigger conditions” [0076] – “By performing context identifying processes involving rules, natural language processing and/or machine vision to identify not only the content of messages, but also the context of the messages,” [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cundall with Sirota/DeMattei for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, instead stating that “claim 1 recites a specific technical flow.” Applicant argues that “these features define a specific technical process for how an instant messenger application processes and displays data across multiple specific UI states, not merely the concept of personalized gifting.”
Examiner disagrees. With reference to the rejection above, the claims recite a series of steps including data transmission, data procession, and data display that amount to a particular concept for personalized gifting. These steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106, in that they recite commercial interactions, e.g. sales activities/behaviors, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, e.g., following rules or instructions. Argued limitations such as displaying certain data, receiving inputs, analyzing text and querying available items, etc. are part of this abstract idea as identified in the rejection except for the recitation of additional elements as addressed in subsequent steps of the 101 analysis.
Applicant further argues that the claims provide “a specific manner of displaying data…which provides a specific improvement to the user interface of instant messenger applications.” Applicant argues that the item selection view being displayed with the profile view “as a background” allows users “to avoid unnecessary application-swapping and data entry,” such that “this [is] an improvement to computer functioning, not merely a business improvement, by “improving the process by which users might effectuate electronic communications and electronic purchases.” Applicant argues that “juggling of different applications/websites for different use cases can be time-consuming …not to mention computationally wasteful.” Applicant concludes that “the dual-path structure recited in claim 1…consolidates what would otherwise require multiple separate applications into a single integrated interface, thereby reducing the computational waste.”
Examiner disagrees. The additional element of one view being visible in the background of another view appears to be mere extra-solution activity, reciting a preferred visual effect that does not impact the technical operation of the claimed invention. The functionality of presenting one view from another view based on an input, without needing to re-enter data or “application-swap,” is part of the abstract idea itself. Similarly, the “dual-path structure” of offering transactional services or character-communication services from the same page, depending on user selection, is part of the abstract idea itself; at best, the alleged improvements from not having to go to a different website to perform a task that the system offers instead are business improvements rooted solely in the abstract idea, except for the recitation of computer related additional elements at a high level of generality, which provide only a general linking to computer technology [MPEP 2106.05(f)]. In other words, offering multiple services that could otherwise be offered by multiple different systems is at best a business improvement and not a technological one; the alleged improvement to computational efficiency from not having to use a different system to engage a service that a current system offers is rooted solely in the abstract idea identified in the rejection above.
Applicant further argues that the claims provide “a technical security improvement,” because “the purchaser need not juggle multiple accounts and applications to effectuate the purchase of a gift, lowering the user’s exposure to cybersecurity threats (e.g. theft of their payment information).” Applicant argues that the claims “provide a specific UI architecture …with explicit open/close controls and defined transitions between views,” which is “a specific technical implementation.”
Examiner disagrees. Similar to the discussion above, the ability to rely on a single system to make and send a purchase, instead of a hypothetical series of systems where payment details need to repeatedly shared to effectuate a single purchase, is part of the abstract idea, such that any alleged improvement to security from not having to use additional systems/methods to select, pay for, and send a gift to a communication partner is at best a business improvement rooted solely in the abstract idea. The additional elements are invoked as mere instructions to apply this abstract idea to a technological environment, e.g. for a single-source gifting/communication technique to be a digital single source gifting/communication technique [MPEP 2106.05(f)]. The argued specific architecture comprises the steps of the abstract idea itself, e.g. displaying, analyzing, querying, receiving inputs, etc. The “explicit open/close controls,” which appears to refer to the “button configured to close the …view” in the claim, is a generic additional element recited at a high level of generality, which provides only a general linking to computer technology.
Applicant further argues that the claims provide “a specific, ordered sequence of UI interactions with a dual path structure depending on which profile item the user selects,” which “defines a specific technical UI architecture” that “defines how the computer processes and displays data at each stage. It is a complete technical pipeline that transforms a profile view interaction into either a transaction delivered through a service-provider chatroom or a synchronized emoticon reaction.” With reference to Desjardins, Applicant argues that “the NLP step in claim 1 is not recited in isolation. Rather, it is part of a specific technical pipeline,” such that “it is integrated into a specific UI flow that produces a specific technical result. Namely, an overlaid item selection view with semantically matched recommendations displayed within the context of the profile view.”
Examiner disagrees. As noted above, the ordered sequence of interactions comprises the steps of the identified abstract idea. Rather than being a “complete technical pipeline,” it is a series of abstract steps for providing communications and personalized gift-giving, along with high-level additional elements that provide a general linking to computer technology. Whereas Desjardins identifies a specific problem that exists in the technology and claims a specific solution to that problem, the pending claims merely invoke additional elements as instruction to apply the abstract idea, including semantic analysis of user communications and providing a user with “semantically matched recommendations,” to a technological environment [MPEP 2106.05(f)]. As discussed above, the extra-solution activity of certain data being visible in a background when the user is presented with gift options to choose from does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, but merely provides a general linking to computer technology.
Applicant further argues that the combination of additional elements “represents a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement.”
Examiner disagrees. As discussed above, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, and are invoked as mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
Applicant argues that claims 6 and 20 are eligible “for at least similar reasons as those noted above,” and that the dependent claims are similarly eligible “at least by virtue of their dependence on an allowable independent claim.”
Examiner disagrees for the reasons addressed in the response and rejection above.
Claim Rejection – 35 USC §103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mayblum et al (US 20160005028 A1) teaches gifting within a text-message conversation, including the use of emoticons.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9736. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8-5 PT.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached on (571) 272-6764. 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.
/T.J.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/MARISSA THEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights