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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/6/2026 has been entered.
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 2-5, 7-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 2 is directed towards a method, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 2 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction/fundamental economic practice, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: dynamically generating a user interface element that is added to a web site of a merchant entity while a user of the merchant entity is browsing the web site, wherein the user interface element is generated / the computer script was provided by a service provider entity to the merchant entity without an involvement of the user and before the user is browsing the web site, the service provider entity being different from the merchant entity/ executing the computer script/ causing, based on the executing of the computer script, computer instructions to be loaded / recommending, based on an execution of the loaded computer instructions, a first digital code of a plurality of digital codes for an entry into the web site, wherein the entry of the first digital code is associated with a predefined benefit for the user, and wherein the execution of the loaded computer instructions is automatically performed without an input from the user with respect to the web site. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm: “Codes frequently offer perks such as free/discounted shipping or a lower price on an entire basket of products, a specific product category, a specific product, a certain number of products, products above or below a certain value, or even products that meet some combination of these and other criteria. In some cases, these codes are advertised to consumers during the online shopping experience; however, these codes are often hidden from many consumers and only known to those consumers who have been exposed to the codes through other channels (e.g., online advertisements, television advertisements, email correspondence).”, “Online shopping is a form of electronic commerce (“e-commerce”) that allows consumers to buy goods or services from a merchant over the Internet using a web browser, software program, mobile application, or over-the-top (“OTT”) application. Consumers find a product of interest by visiting the website of the merchant directly or by searching among alternative vendors using a shopping search engine (e.g., Amazon.com®, Jet®, or Alibaba®), which displays the same product’s availability and pricing at different merchants. Consumers can shop online using a variety of different electronic computing devices, including mobile phones, tablet computers, laptop computers, and desktop computers.”, “After selecting one or more products or services for purchase, a consumer can complete a transaction by providing a valid method of payment, such as a payment card (e.g., credit card or debit card) or a credentials for a payment service (e.g., PayPal®). Most merchants use shopping cart software to allow the consumer to accumulate items and/or adjust quantities. Accordingly, when the consumer elects to complete the checkout process, the consumer can access a checkout interface (also referred to as a “shopping cart”) and provide payment information and/or delivery information.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 2 includes the additional element of a computer system of the service provider, which represents a generic computing element. The additional elements of embedding a computer script into the website/executing the computer script based on an interaction of the user with respect to the user interface element do no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements do not , alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements of embedding a computer script into the website/executing the computer script based on an interaction of the user with respect to the user interface element do no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 2 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 13 and 19 are directed to a system and CRM, respectively, for performing similar claimed limitations to those of claim 1; the claims recite the same abstract idea as claim 1. Claims 13, 19 perform the claimed limitations using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claims 13, 19 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 1.
Remaining dependent claims 3-5, 7-12, 14-18, 20-22 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of the independent claims themselves. The claims further recite the additional elements of using a machine learning process , a website/website script comprising HTML and Java Script code. Using machine learning to analyze/determine data does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Using websites/website scripts that comprise HTML and JavaScript does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11961103. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the difference is the following:
Limitations in instant Application
system of a service provider, comprising: a hardware processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that are executable by the hardware processor to cause the system of the service provider to perform operations comprising:
causing a user interface element to be displayed on a web site of a merchant via a computer script embedded in the web site when a user is browsing the web site, the computer script having been previously provided to the merchant, before the browsing, by the service provider without an involvement of the user;
executing the computer script based on an interaction of the user with respect to the user interface element determining, based on the executing of the computer script, a respective benefit provided by each of a plurality of digital codes associated with a product or a service offered for sale by the merchant;
and recommending, to the user via a computing device of the user, a first digital code of the plurality of digital codes for an entry into the web site when the user selects the product or the service for purchase, wherein a monetary value of the benefit provided with the first digital code exceeds a monetary value of the benefits provided by a rest of the digital codes of the plurality of digital codes.
Limitations in US Patent No. 11961103
A system comprising: a processor;
and a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that are executable by the processor to cause the system to perform operations comprising:
determining, by a server of a service provider, that a webpage of an entity has been accessed by a user via a user device, the webpage including an item and a numerical value associated with the item, the entity being different from the service provider;
executing, by the server of the service provider and based on the determining that the webpage has been accessed, a computer code script of the service provider, wherein the computer code script is embedded in the webpage and contains an electronic link to an electronic resource of the service provider,
and wherein an execution of the computer code script automatically loads, based on the electronic link to the electronic resource of the service provider, a plurality of digital codes to the webpage independent of user input;
determining, by the server of the service provider and for each of the digital codes of the plurality of digital codes, a corresponding amount of change in the numerical value;
identifying, by the server of the service provider and from the plurality of digital codes, a first digital code that has a greatest corresponding amount of change in the numerical value;
and automatically applying, by the server of the service provider, the first digital code to the webpage or providing a recommendation to the user to apply the first digital code to the webpage.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the apparent changes above, in order to cover slightly broader limitations. Furthermore, the claimed elements perform the same function as before.
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of claims 2-5, 7-22. Fisher (20140074584) describes determining that a user is accessing a webpage of a first entity, the webpage including an item and a numerical value associated with the item/accessing, based on the determining that the user is accessing the webpage, a computer code script that is embedded in the webpage, the computer code script containing an electronic link to a second entity that is different from the first entity/loading, based on the electronic link contained in the computer code script embedded in the webpage, instructions from the second entity, wherein the loading of the instructions causes a plurality of digital codes to be automatically applied to the webpage independent of any input from the user. However, it lacks the combination of claimed limitations as claimed by the instant independent claims. Corrieri (WO2020061064A1) describes determining whether the numerical value changes in response to an application of the digital codes of the plurality of digital codes/selecting a first digital code that has a greatest corresponding numerical value change among the plurality of digital codes. However, it fails to teach the combination of claimed elements of the instant independent claims.
When taken as a whole, the claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not
suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; Applicant argues with substance:
The amendments are supported by at least paragraphs [0017], [0019], [0045], [0059], [0061], [0074], and [0096] of the present application. Applicant submits that, under current guidance (including the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance effective January 7, 2019 (hereinafter "2019 Guidance")), the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 cannot be maintained over the current claims. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2) provides: "The mere inclusion of a judicial exception . .. in a claim means that the claim 'recites' a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One. However, mere recitation of a judicial exception does not mean that the claim is 'directed to' that judicial exception under Step 2A Prong Two. Instead, under Prong Two, a claim that recites a judicial exception is not directed to that judicial exception, if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception." Furthermore, the USPTO recently updated the MPEP in December 2025 to take into account of the Ex Parte Desjardins decision. In this regard, the § 101 eligibility analysis of claim 2 (representative of the claims) is analogous to that of Claim 1 of Example 42 of the USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. Although Claim 1 of Example 42 recites the abstract idea of allowing access to patients' medical records and receiving updated patient information in real time from other users (a method of organizing human activity), Claim 1 of Example 42, when evaluated as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim recites a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user.
Similar to Claim 1 of Example 42, the amended claims herein integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application by reciting specific improvements over conventional online transaction schemes. In that regard, paragraph [0014] of the specification explains drawbacks associated with conventional online checkouts: [0014] However, consumers often experience several issues when interacting with conventional checkout interfaces. For example, conventional checkout interfaces require that the consumer manually discover and enter each code. But consumers frequently and inadvertently attempt to use codes that no longer work, or simply do not work as described. As another example, codes are often hidden from many consumers and only known to those consumers who have been exposed to the codes through other channels (e.g., online advertisements, television advertisements, email correspondence). Consequently, many consumers never come into possession of the most valuable codes. Amended claim 2 overcomes the above problem by dynamically generating a user interface element that is added to a web site of a merchant entity while a user of the merchant entity is browsing the web site, where the user interface element is generated via a computer script that is embedded in the website and that was provided by a service provider entity to the merchant entity without an involvement of the user. The computer script is executed based on an interaction of the user with respect to the interface element, which then causes computer instructions to be loaded to a computer system of the service provider entity. The execution of the computer instructions allows an automatic identification and application of discount codes on behalf of the user. For example, as explained in paragraph [0016] of the specification, in part: [0016] Disclosed here, therefore, are computer-implemented techniques and systems for systematically identifying and applying codes on behalf of a consumer who has selected one or more items for purchase on an electronic commerce platform, with all the benefits above, but without the need to install a client-side browser software, or browser extension. More specifically, embodiments of the present disclosure allow the promotional code or discount code resulting in the largest reduction in price to be identified as the "best code," which is then applied to the item(s) offered for sale by the electronic commerce platform. One primary benefit of this technology is to help consumers achieve the best price available without requiring the consumers to devote a large amount of time and effort to searching for codes, manually applying codes, tracking the impact of each code, etc., and without the consumers installing a client-side browser software, or browser extension. Paragraphs [0017] and [0018] further explain: [0017] In some embodiments, an online computer system that is coupled to a public network and directly interfaces with a webpage of a third-party website on which instructions, code or script (e.g. JavaScript) have been embedded or incorporated, and that causes a numerical value (e.g., the total price to be paid) displayed on the webpage to change in value when one or more digital codes (e.g., promotional codes and discount codes) are transmitted to the third-party website, the online computer system is configured to generate the one or more digital codes. When a user (or consumer) connects with the third-party website on a user's device, the online computer system may execute the program code; when the user opens the webpage, the online computer system may dynamically generate a graphical user interface (or special interface or graphical trigger) to be presented on an electronic display of the user's device. The online computer system may identify a second interface (e.g., check-out interface) to input each of the one or more digital codes. a g. [0018] In some embodiments, responsive to detecting that the user selects the graphical user interface, the online computer system may automatically input each of the one or more digital codes into the second interface (e.g., into data entry field in the webpage of the third party website that is configured to receive a digital code, such as a promotion/coupon/discount code field in the check-out interface) to invoke a function for each of the one or more digital codes without requiring the user to manually select each of the one or more digital codes, thereby causing the third-party website to receive the one or more digital codes and to return a response to each of the received one or more digital codes. Based on the above discussions, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 2 effectively transforms a general-purpose computer into a specialized tool that improves conventional online checkout schemes, which is a practical application of an alleged abstract idea of "recommending a first digital code of a plurality of digital codes for an entry into the web site, wherein the entry of the first digital code is associated with a predefined benefit for the user." Applicant respectfully submits that, even if amended claim 2 is considered an abstract idea, it is a very specific practical application of the alleged abstract idea and is achieved through a specific ordered combination of limitations in claim 2. The practical application is clearly not just a result of a drafting effort designed to monopolize the alleged abstract idea of "recommending a first digital code of a plurality of digital codes for an entry into the web site, wherein the entry of the first digital code is associated with a predefined benefit for the user," which can be performed in countless ways other than what is recited in Applicant's claim 2. Applicant further submits that the limitations (including the newly added limitations) of claim 2 should not be evaluated in a vacuum, completely separate from the recited judicial exception. Instead, the analysis should take into consideration all the claim limitations and how those limitations interact and impact each other when evaluating whether the exception is integrated into a practical application, as further emphasized in the USPTO Memo of August 4, 2025 at pages 3-4. Since amended claim 2 improves the functionality of a computer and integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application, it satisfies . Prong Two of Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance, and therefore claim 2 is patent eligible per the
2019 Guidance. The claims are patent eligible under Step 2B of the 2019 Guidance Applicant further submits that amended claim 2 is also patent eligible based on step 2B of the 2019 Guidance, because it recites elements that amount to significantly more than any alleged judicial exception. The 2019 PEG states that "it is possible that a claim does not 'integrate' a recited judicial exception is nonetheless patent eligible... because the additional elements recited in the claims provided 'significantly more' than the recited judicial exception (e.g., because the additional elements were unconventional in combination)." The 2019 PEG further states that "the examiner should explain why the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the exception (Step 2B). For instance, when the examiner has concluded that certain claim elements recite well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field, the examiner must expressly support such a rejection in writing with one of the four options specified in Section III.A. of the Berkheimer Memorandum." In that regard, the USPTO recently clarified what is considered "well-understood, routine and conventional", in a memorandum entitled "Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) (hereinafter referred to as Berkheimer Memo) dated April 19, 2018. The Berkheimer memo states that "[i]n a step 2B analysis, an additional element (or combination of elements) is not well-understood, routine or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly
supports a rejection in writing with, one or more of the following: 1. A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)...2. A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). 3. A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)... 4. A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)." In the case at hand, Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action has not satisfactorily produced any of the above. For example, the Office Action has not identified any part of the specification, any publication, or any court case stating that the claim limitations herein are "well-understand, routine, and conventional in the field" per Berkheimer. In addition, although not dispositive by itself, the absence of prior art rejections further demonstrates that the claims herein are not "well-understand, routine, and conventional in the field" per Berkheimer. For this reason alone, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims amount to significantly more than an abstract idea, and therefore should be patentable based on step 2B of the 2019 Guidance. While not identical in scope to claim 2, the other independent claims 13 and 19 (and all the dependent claims) contain similar limitations as claim 2 and should be patent eligible for at least the same reasons discussed above in association with claim 2. Applicant further submits that while the above clearly supports the claims are statutory under current guidance, the USPTO Memo of August 4, 2025 at page 5 also states that "Examiners are reminded that if it is a 'close call' as to whether a claim is eligible, they should only make a rejection when it is more likely than not (i.e., more than 50%) that the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101" and "unpatentability must be established by a preponderance of the evidence." For these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101.
The Examiner has followed and applied the current MPEP Guidance, including the Desjardins / Berkheimer Memos. The pending instant claims do recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements do not , alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device itself or other technology/technical field, as noted above. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm, and describes the claimed invention as seeking to, when implemented, at best optimize a business practice/goal: “Codes frequently offer perks such as free/discounted shipping or a lower price on an entire basket of products, a specific product category, a specific product, a certain number of products, products above or below a certain value, or even products that meet some combination of these and other criteria. In some cases, these codes are advertised to consumers during the online shopping experience; however, these codes are often hidden from many consumers and only known to those consumers who have been exposed to the codes through other channels (e.g., online advertisements, television advertisements, email correspondence).”, “Online shopping is a form of electronic commerce (“e-commerce”) that allows consumers to buy goods or services from a merchant over the Internet using a web browser, software program, mobile application, or over-the-top (“OTT”) application. Consumers find a product of interest by visiting the website of the merchant directly or by searching among alternative vendors using a shopping search engine (e.g., Amazon.com®, Jet®, or Alibaba®), which displays the same product’s availability and pricing at different merchants. Consumers can shop online using a variety of different electronic computing devices, including mobile phones, tablet computers, laptop computers, and desktop computers.”, “After selecting one or more products or services for purchase, a consumer can complete a transaction by providing a valid method of payment, such as a payment card (e.g., credit card or debit card) or a credentials for a payment service (e.g., PayPal®). Most merchants use shopping cart software to allow the consumer to accumulate items and/or adjust quantities. Accordingly, when the consumer elects to complete the checkout process, the consumer can access a checkout interface (also referred to as a “shopping cart”) and provide payment information and/or delivery information.”
Selecting and providing digital discount codes to users while they interact with a merchant website represents a business practice/goal, not other technology/technical field; thus , improving this practice pertains to a business practice optimization, not to an improvement to other technology/technical field. The pending claims, when implemented, do not improve the functioning of the computing device itself or other technology/technical field. The Desjardins Memo claimed invention and the instant claims have different fact patterns and claimed limitations, and thus the two are not analogous. Furthermore, in the Desjardins Memo, the claimed invention was deemed patent eligible since it provided an improvement to machine learning technology by explaining how the machine learning model is trained to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting,” and the claims reflected the improvement identified in the specification. Contrary to the Desjardins Memo claimed invention, the instant claims do not provide an improvement to machine learning technology; the instant claims do not recite a machine learning model that is trained to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting,” and that the claims do not reflect any such improvement that is identified in the specification. USPTO Example 42 , Claim 1 and the instant claims have different fact patterns and claimed limitations, and thus the two are not analogous. Furthermore, in Example 42, Claim 1, the claimed invention was deemed patent eligible since it is not directed to the recited judicial exception; the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. Contrary to Example 42, Claim 1, the instant claims do recite a judicial exception; the claims do not recite any additional elements that recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. There is no technical support/technical evidence in the paras noted by the Applicant above that the instant claimed invention, when implemented, improves the functioning of the computing device itself or other technology/technical field. The Examiner has fully complied with the Berkheimer Memo requirements – i.e. the Examiner has not identified any additional elements as being well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See Office Action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101 analysis.
Cited prior art does not teach the amended claimed limitations of pending independent claims 2/13/19
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of claims 2-5, 7-22. Fisher (20140074584) describes determining that a user is accessing a webpage of a first entity, the webpage including an item and a numerical value associated with the item/accessing, based on the determining that the user is accessing the webpage, a computer code script that is embedded in the webpage, the computer code script containing an electronic link to a second entity that is different from the first entity/loading, based on the electronic link contained in the computer code script embedded in the webpage, instructions from the second entity, wherein the loading of the instructions causes a plurality of digital codes to be automatically applied to the webpage independent of any input from the user. However, it lacks the combination of claimed limitations as claimed by the pending independent claims. Corrieri (WO2020061064A1) describes determining whether the numerical value changes in response to an application of the digital codes of the plurality of digital codes/selecting a first digital code that has a greatest corresponding numerical value change among the plurality of digital codes. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims. When taken as a whole, the claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not
suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandru Cirnu whose telephone number is (571) 272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. 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, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
10/7/2026
Prosecution Insights