DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2, 5-10, and 13-18 are pending in this application. 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
Applicant's amendment dated December 29, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-10 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the user-interface" in the fourth phrase. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 10 and 13-16 depend from claim 9 and inherit the same deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 5-10, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-2, 5-10, and 13-18, under Step 1, the claims recite a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Under Step 2A claims 1-2, 5-10, and 13-18 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 9 as representative, claim 9 recites: A method comprising: linking, from a merchant site to a non-commerce site, a product catalog including data about a product; providing, to the non-commerce site, a checkout link associated with a checkout process on the merchant site; providing an advertisement on the non-commerce site for the product; receiving, from the non-commerce site and at the merchant site, a transition of a user from a user interface on the non-commerce site into a merchant user interface presenting the checkout process on the merchant site for the product, wherein the transition is based on the user interacting with a graphical object associated with the product on the user interface of the non-commerce site, the graphical object having the checkout link that, where the user interacts with the graphical object, causes a transition of the user from the user-interface of the non-commerce site to merchant user interface and the checkout process on the merchant site; and processing, at the merchant site, a payment for the product.
The above limitations that set forth a procedure for organizing human activity, such as by performing commercial interactions including marketing activity and business relations. This is because the claim recites the steps performed in order to transition to a checkout process for payment for a good or service. Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) the claim recites an abstract idea because the claim recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 9 recites additional elements, including a user interface and a graphical object.
These additional elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 9 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) 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.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 9 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 9 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
In view of the above, representative claim 9 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claims 10 and 13-16 recite limitations which are similarly directed to and elaborate on the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 9. Thus, each of claims 10 and 13-16 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, claims 10 and 13-16 do not set forth further additional elements. Considered both individually and as a whole, claims 10 and 13-16 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Lastly, under step 2B, dependent claims 10 and 13-16 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and specified at a high level of generality.
Claims 1-2, 5-8 and 17-18 are parallel, i.e. recite similar concepts and elements, to claims 9-10 and 13-16, analyzed above, and the same rationale is applied.
In view of the above, claims 1-2, 5-10, and 13-18 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-10, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wallaja, US PG Pub 2013/0297425 A1, previously cited.
Regarding claim 9, Wallaja discloses a method comprising: linking, from a merchant site to a non-commerce site, a product catalog including data about a product (¶¶0029-0031 and 0037);
providing, to the non-commerce site, a checkout link associated with a checkout process on the merchant site (¶¶0033 and 0045);
providing an advertisement on the non-commerce site for the product (¶¶0042-0045); and
receiving, from the non-commerce site and at the merchant site, a transition of a user from a user interface on the non-commerce site into a merchant user interface presenting the checkout process on the merchant site for the product, wherein the transition is based on the user interacting with a graphical object associated with the product on the user interface of the non-commerce site, the graphical object having the checkout link that, when the user interacts with the graphical object, causes a transition of the user from the user-interface of the non-commerce site to merchant user interface and the checkout process on the merchant site (¶¶0039-0051 and 0068-0073); and processing, at the merchant site, a payment for the product (¶¶0037-0044).
Regarding claim 10, Wallaja discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the non-commerce site comprises a search site (¶¶0024-0027 and 0079-0084).
Regarding claim 13, Wallaja discloses the method of claim 9, wherein on the non-commerce site presents a buy button in connection with the advertisement that, when interacted with by the user, transitions the user from the non-commerce site directly to the checkout process for the product on the merchant site (¶¶0032-0033 and 0037-0039).
Regarding claim 14, Wallaja discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the non-commerce site presents the buy button and an alternate button for the user to choose to buy the product or perform some other action by interacting with the alternate button (¶¶0059-0061).
Regarding claim 15, Wallaja discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the alternate button transitions the user to the merchant site but not in the checkout process (¶0045).
Regarding claim 16, Wallaja discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the checkout link comprises checkout universal resource locator (URL) that identifies how to transition the user to the checkout process on the merchant site (¶0051).
Regarding claims 1-2, 5-8 and 17-18, all of the limitations in claims 1-2 and 5-8 and 17-18 are closely parallel to the limitations of method claims 9-10 and 13-16, analyzed above, and are rejected on the same bases.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments regarding the §101 rejection, the examiner disagrees. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the focus is not marketing activity. A claim is directed to an abstract idea if it is set forth or recited in the claims. The claims recite steps for processing payment of a product which is commercial activity. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea as shown above.
Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application because the user interacts with a graphical object. Applicant distinguishes this from conventional behavior of “leaving users to manually traverse pages and re-enter context,” but the claims do preclude this. For example, if the graphical object is a hyperlink url, then the user is manually traversing pages and no limitations are directed to re-entering context or not. Therefore, the claims are not integrated into a practical application for the reasons stated above.
Applicant argues that the claims are a non-conventional arrangement of known components, however the rejection does not assert that the claims are well-understood, routine, and conventional. To the extent that applicant believes that further additional elements from the specification would support the claims being integrated into a practical application, the examiner encourages applicant to recite said additional elements.
Applicant disagrees with the assertion that the claims are nominally tied to a website environment, however such an assertion is not dispositive to whether the claims constitute significantly more than the abstract idea. Being nominally tied to a technological environment is one of many factors to consider. The claims are currently nominally tied to a website environment because they lack requisite technological details which would more robustly integrate the claims into that environment.
Applicant argues that Wallaja does not disclose generating a product catalog at a merchant site, a transition that returns the user to the merchant site’s checkout user interface, or processing payment. However, as cited Wallaja discloses the limitations. For example, as cited ¶0037 describes how the merchant server maintains a product database containing information of products or merchandise or content that is available for purchase, ¶0039 describes that the merchant server provides checkout or payment function embedded into content in a web page enabled by the merchant server, ¶0044 describes that the user does not need to navigate away from the URL thus reducing the possibility of fraud, and ¶0043 describes using funding source information such as credit card and bank card information to process payment to the merchant server on behalf of the user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rothman, US PG Pub 2009/0164315 A1, teaches a software system for decentralizing eCommerce with a single page buy.
Rollins et al., US PG Pub 2004/0078294 A1, teaches providing navigation objects for communications over a network.
Non-patent literature Belk, Marios, et al. teaches a human cognitive processing perspective in designing e-commerce checkout processes.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-5549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Smith can be reached on 571-272-6763. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights