DETAILED ACTION
The following is a non-final, first office action in response to the application filed December 17, 2025. Claims 1-9 and 13-20 have been elected. Claims 10-12 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-9 and 13-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category
(MPEP § 2106)
The claims are directed to a method and computer-readable medium.
Conclusion: The claims are directed to a statutory category: a process and article of manufacture, as defined under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 2A, Prong One: Judicial Exception – Abstract Idea
(MPEP § 2106.04)
Claim 1 recites a series of steps that, when considered individually and in combination, are directed to collecting, analyzing, and presenting information, which constitutes an abstract idea.
Specifically, the claim recites:
displaying information of recommended products in a first area on a page;
recording a user’s behavior into feature information including user characteristics and product characteristics;
sending information of a current product and the feature information to a server;
receiving information of similar products selected from a product database based on sorting and filtering using the feature information; and
displaying information of similar products in a second area on the page.
These limitations collectively describe obtaining information, analyzing the information using sorting and filtering, and presenting the results, which fall within the categories of abstract ideas identified by the courts, including:
mental processes (e.g., evaluating and comparing products),
certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., product recommendation and selection), and
mathematical or logical concepts implemented as data processing (e.g., sorting and filtering based on characteristics).
Such concepts could be performed mentally or with pen and paper, or by using generic computer components as tools to automate the process.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into a Practical Application
(MPEP § 2106.04(d))
Claim 1 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Although the claim recites displaying information in a “first area” and a “second area” of a page and transmitting information to and from a server, these elements merely describe the use of generic computing components to perform the abstract idea of recommending and presenting product information.
The claim does not recite:
a specific improvement to computer functionality,
a particular graphical user interface technique that improves the operation of the computer or display,
a specific data structure, rendering process, or event-handling mechanism, or
a technological solution to a technical problem in computer systems or user interfaces.
Instead, the claimed steps amount to applying the abstract idea using conventional computer components and generic user interface concepts to improve a user’s experience, which is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claim 1 does not satisfy Step 2A, Prong Two.
Step 2B: Inventive Concept
(MPEP § 2106.05)
Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional elements—such as a page, areas for display, a server, a database, and the sending and receiving of information—are all well-understood, routine, and conventional components performing their ordinary functions.
The claim does not include a non-conventional or non-generic arrangement of these elements, nor does it recite a specific technical mechanism that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
Accordingly, the claim lacks an inventive concept sufficient to render it patent eligible.
Therefore, the claim is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding Claim 13
Independent Claim 13 is parallel in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Regarding Claims 2-9 and 14-20
Dependent claims 2-9 and 14-20 merely set forth further embellishments to the abstract idea (i.e., they serve to further limit practically performable determining and associating functions), and therefore do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are ineligible for similar reasons to claims 1 and 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-6, 9, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma et al (US 2009/0063972 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Ma discloses an interactive recommendation method comprising:
displaying information of recommended products in a first area having an original size on a page (Ma: F paragraph [0145] - As an example, when the selectable items in the first pane pertain to albums of audios tracks, full contextual content for an album can include a plurality of: title, artist, image (e.g., artwork), genre, track listing, rating, label, copyright, release date, play counts, etc. The full contextual content might also provide ancillary information such as recommendations to other media items, reviews, etc. Basic contextual content for the album would, for example, include title and artist);
in response to a user's triggering action on a current product in the first area, recording the user's behavior into feature information, wherein the feature information includes user characteristics and product characteristics; sending information of the current product and the feature information to a server; receiving information of similar products from the server, wherein the similar products are selected by the server from a product database, and are resulted from sorting and filtering based on the feature information; inserting a second area having the original size on the page; and displaying the information of the similar products in the second area (Ma: paragraph [0102] - One example of the display screen presentation process 900 is where the first data displayed in the first pane is a list (e.g., menu) of selectable items, and the second data displayed in the second pane is data contextually related to at least some portion of the first data. When the user interacts with the first pane to scroll or traverse the list of selectable items and thus identify an item in the list, the first pane can be enlarged so that navigation and viewing of the first pane is easier. Typically, when the first pane is enlarged, the second pane is reduced. Additionally, the second data can dynamically adjust to be contextually relevant to the selected item in the list displayed in the first pane. In this example, the user can also interact with the second pane. Hence, when the user subsequently interacts with the second pane, the second pane can be enlarged so that the second data is easier to view. Typically, when the second pane is enlarged, the second pane is reduced. Hence, in this example, the pane corresponding to user interaction is enlarged while the other corresponding pane is made smaller).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Ma discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claims 1 and 13. Ma further discloses the page's browsing orientation is vertical, with multiple columns arranged horizontally on the page, the width of the original size corresponds to the column width, and the height of the original size corresponds to the height of a product information display area; or, the page's browsing orientation is horizontal, with multiple rows arranged vertically on the page, the width of the original size corresponds to the width of the product information display area, and the height corresponds to a row height (Ma: Figure 13B-D).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Ma discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claims 1 and 13. Ma further discloses after displaying the information of the similar products in the second area, in response to the user's scrolling action along a browsing direction within the second area, determining whether the number of similar products viewed through the scrolling action exceeds a threshold, and if the number of the similar products viewed through the scrolling action exceeds the threshold, enlarging the size of the second area from the original size to an enlarged size for display, wherein the area of the enlarged size is greater than the area of the original size (Ma: paragraph [0131] - FIGS. 13B-13D are exemplary display screen formats for a multi-pane display screen according to certain embodiments of the invention. FIG. 13B illustrates a display screen format have a balance split-pane design. FIG. 13C illustrates a display screen format with an unbalanced split-pane design. In the unbalanced split-pane design, a primary pane is allocated most of the area of the display screen, and a secondary pane is allocated a remaining portion of the area of the display screen. FIG. 13D also illustrates a display screen format with an unbalanced split-pane design. The panes of the unbalanced split-pane design in FIG. 13D is similar to the unbalanced split-pane design in FIG. 13C. However, the secondary pane the unbalanced split-pane design in FIG. 13D presents data with a perspective distortion to provide a 3D-like effect).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Ma discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claims 1 and 13. Ma further discloses after displaying the information of the similar products in the second area, in response to the user's scrolling action along a browsing direction within the first area, determining whether the number of the recommended products viewed through the scrolling action exceeds a threshold, and if the number of the recommended products viewed through the scrolling action exceeds the threshold, reducing the size of the second area from the original size to a reduced size for display, while maintaining the display of similar products in the second area as currently viewed similar products, wherein the area of the reduced size is smaller than the area of the original size (Ma: paragraph [0131] - FIGS. 13B-13D are exemplary display screen formats for a multi-pane display screen according to certain embodiments of the invention. FIG. 13B illustrates a display screen format have a balance split-pane design. FIG. 13C illustrates a display screen format with an unbalanced split-pane design. In the unbalanced split-pane design, a primary pane is allocated most of the area of the display screen, and a secondary pane is allocated a remaining portion of the area of the display screen. FIG. 13D also illustrates a display screen format with an unbalanced split-pane design. The panes of the unbalanced split-pane design in FIG. 13D is similar to the unbalanced split-pane design in FIG. 13C. However, the secondary pane the unbalanced split-pane design in FIG. 13D presents data with a perspective distortion to provide a 3D-like effect).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Ma discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claims 4 and 16. Ma further discloses after reducing the size of the second area from the original size to the reduced size for display, in response to the user's scrolling action along the browsing direction within the second area, determining whether the number of the similar products viewed through the scrolling action exceeds a threshold, and if the number of the similar products viewed through the scrolling action exceeds the threshold, restoring the size of the second area from the reduced size to the original size for display (Ma: paragraph [0131] - FIGS. 13B-13D are exemplary display screen formats for a multi-pane display screen according to certain embodiments of the invention. FIG. 13B illustrates a display screen format have a balance split-pane design. FIG. 13C illustrates a display screen format with an unbalanced split-pane design. In the unbalanced split-pane design, a primary pane is allocated most of the area of the display screen, and a secondary pane is allocated a remaining portion of the area of the display screen. FIG. 13D also illustrates a display screen format with an unbalanced split-pane design. The panes of the unbalanced split-pane design in FIG. 13D is similar to the unbalanced split-pane design in FIG. 13C. However, the secondary pane the unbalanced split-pane design in FIG. 13D presents data with a perspective distortion to provide a 3D-like effect).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Ma discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claims 4 and 16. Ma further discloses after reducing the size of the second area from the original size to the reduced size for display, in response to the user's rollback operation within the first area, maintaining the size of the second area as the reduced size for continued display, wherein the rollback operation includes a scrolling action directed towards previously browsed products (Ma: paragraph [0106] - Hence, a user can typically traverse a hierarchical arrangement of display screens by transitioning from one display screen to another).
Regarding claim 9, Ma discloses all of the limitations as noted above in clam 1. Ma further discloses:
wherein: the triggering action is either a click operation on the current product or staying within the display area of the current product for a duration exceeding a specified length, the user's behavior includes at least one of the following: (Ma: paragraph [0102] - One example of the display screen presentation process 900 is where the first data displayed in the first pane is a list (e.g., menu) of selectable items, and the second data displayed in the second pane is data contextually related to at least some portion of the first data. When the user interacts with the first pane to scroll or traverse the list of selectable items and thus identify an item in the list, the first pane can be enlarged so that navigation and viewing of the first pane is easier);
clicking, adding to cart, bookmarking, or sharing, and the product features include both static and dynamic features, wherein the dynamic features include product statistical information (Ma: paragraph [0050] - The display screens discussed above can, in one embodiment, be implemented as a hierarchy of cards. A card refers to a particular instance of a display screen in which the information is organized in a predetermined layout. A card can include static content and/or dynamic content).
Claim Rejections - 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 7-8 and 19-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al (US 2009/0063972 A1) in view of Goturk et al (US 2010/0070529 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Ma discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claims 4 and 16. Ma further discloses after reducing the size of the second area from the original size to the reduced size for display: obtaining categories of products that have been exposed in the second area (Ma: paragraph [0087] - The exemplary display screen 800 can also include a collection category 816 (e.g., artist) and a status indicator 818. In this example, the collection category 816 pertains to an artist (e.g., "The Beatles"), and the status indicator 818 reflects battery status).
Ma does not expressly disclose sending information of the exposed products to the server; receiving information of diverse products returned by the server, wherein the diverse products are selected by the server from a product database according to a diversity strategy and sorted and filtered based on the feature information, and in the diversity strategy, the categories of the exposed products are treated with a down-weighting operation; and displaying the information of the diverse products in the second area. Goturk discloses sending information of the exposed products to the server; receiving information of diverse products returned by the server, wherein the diverse products are selected by the server from a product database according to a diversity strategy and sorted and filtered based on the feature information, and in the diversity strategy, the categories of the exposed products are treated with a down-weighting operation; and displaying the information of the diverse products in the second area (Goturk: paragraph [0032] - or example, if criteria 130 is generated from supplemental content item in one category (e.g. shoes), at least one of the selected content items of the search result 150 may, under one embodiment, correspond to a similar looking object of a different category (e.g. purse) or an object matching in style but not necessarily in color (for e.g. black boots matching a blue jeans). In the context of clothing, this enables the consumer to identify a clothing ensemble, such as matching shoes to dresses/shirts; or pants to shirts etc. As another specific example of similarity searching across different categories, a supplemental content item depicting a red strappy shoe may result in the generation of criteria 130 that identifies a red leather hand purse).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and apparatus of Ma to have included sending information of the exposed products to the server; receiving information of diverse products returned by the server, wherein the diverse products are selected by the server from a product database according to a diversity strategy and sorted and filtered based on the feature information, and in the diversity strategy, the categories of the exposed products are treated with a down-weighting operation; and displaying the information of the diverse products in the second area, as taught by Goturk because it would allow for discovery of cross-categories (Goturk: paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Ma discloses all of the limitations as noted above in claims 1 and 13.
Ma does not expressly disclose after displaying the information of the similar products in the second area, in the recommended products within the first area, performing a down-weighting operation on products that belong to the same category as the current product, wherein the down-weighting operation includes lowering a sorting priority or removing from display. Goturk discloses after displaying the information of the similar products in the second area, in the recommended products within the first area, performing a down-weighting operation on products that belong to the same category as the current product, wherein the down-weighting operation includes lowering a sorting priority or removing from display (Goturk: paragraph [0032] - or example, if criteria 130 is generated from supplemental content item in one category (e.g. shoes), at least one of the selected content items of the search result 150 may, under one embodiment, correspond to a similar looking object of a different category (e.g. purse) or an object matching in style but not necessarily in color (for e.g. black boots matching a blue jeans). In the context of clothing, this enables the consumer to identify a clothing ensemble, such as matching shoes to dresses/shirts; or pants to shirts etc. As another specific example of similarity searching across different categories, a supplemental content item depicting a red strappy shoe may result in the generation of criteria 130 that identifies a red leather hand purse).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and apparatus of Ma to have included after displaying the information of the similar products in the second area, in the recommended products within the first area, performing a down-weighting operation on products that belong to the same category as the current product, wherein the down-weighting operation includes lowering a sorting priority or removing from display, as taught by Goturk because it would allow for discovery of cross-categories (Goturk: paragraph [0032]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PTO-892 Reference U discloses "The architecture of a one-stop web-window shop.
US 2021/0182948 A1, Du et al discloses PRODUCT BROWSING METHOD AND APPARATUS, DEVICE AND STORAGE MEDIUM.
US 2019/0018562 A1, Bernstein et al discloses Device, Method, and Graphical User Interface for Scrolling Nested Regions.
US 8,875,284 B1, Amacker discloses Displaying search completion results.
US 2014/0229342 A1, Marlowe et al discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ENHANCED SHOPPING, PREFERENCE, PROFILE AND SURVEY DATA INPUT AND GATHERING.
US 2014/0074652 A1, Wu et al discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR A GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE HAVING A RESIZABLE RECOMMENDATIONS AREA.
US 7,366,721 B1, Bennett et al discloses Method and apparatus for displaying a plurality of related products to a user based upon the selection of a main product by the user.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN G PALAVECINO whose telephone number is (571)270-1355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at (571) 272-6763. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
KATHLEEN GAGE PALAVECINO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/KATHLEEN PALAVECINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688