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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This action is in response to the Amendment filed on 2/20/2026, and is a Final Office Action. Claims 2-5, 7-22 are pending in the application.
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: 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 / wherein the computer script was provided by a service provider entity to the merchant entity / causing, based on determining that the computer script embedded in the web site of the merchant entity has been executed, computer instructions to be loaded / determining that a computer script embedded in a web site of a merchant entity has been executed in response to an action by a user of the merchant entity. 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.” Claim 2 also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept – i.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper , including an observation/evaluation/judgment, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: 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. This claimed limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements – see below, thus still being in the mental process category. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 2 includes the additional elements of a computer system, which represents a generic computing element. The additional element of automatically executing instructions– i.e. the execution of the loaded computer instructions is automatically performed without an input from the user with respect to the web site – does 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 element of automatically executing instructions– i.e. the execution of the loaded computer instructions is automatically performed without an input from the user with respect to the web site – does 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.
Claim 13 is directed towards a system, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 13 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: the computer script having been previously provided to the merchant by the service provide / determining, based on the execution of the computer script, a respective benefit provided by each of a plurality of digital codes associated with a product or service offered for sale by the merchant / recommending , to 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 / detecting an execution of a computer script embedded in a web site of a merchant when a user is browsing the web site. Claim 13 also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept – i.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper , including an observation/evaluation/judgment, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: determining, based on the execution of the computer script, a respective benefit provided by each of a plurality of digital codes associated with a product or service offered for sale by the merchant / recommending , to 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. These claimed limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements – see below, thus still being in the mental process category. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 13 includes the additional elements of a processor / non-transitory computer readable medium / a computing device of the user / automatically executing instructions. The additional element of automatically executing instructions– i.e. the automatic execution of the computing script is performed without an interaction of the user with respect to the web site – does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The processor/medium/device represent generic computing elements. 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 13 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 element of automatically executing instructions– i.e. the automatic execution of the computing script is performed without an interaction of the user with respect to the web site – does 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 13 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 19 is directed towards a machine readable medium, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 19 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: wherein the computer script was previously provided by a second entity to the first entity / executing, as a result of the execution of the computer script, additional computer instructions, wherein the execution of the additional computer instructions determines a respective predefined benefit provided by a plurality of digital codes associated with a product or a service / automatically filling, based on a result of the execution of the additional computer instructions, an entry field on the web site with a first digital code of the plurality of digital codes / determining an execution computer script embedded in a web site of a first entity while a user is browsing the web site, wherein the computer script…contains an electronic link. Claim 19 also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept – i.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper , including an observation/evaluation/judgment, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: determines a respective predefined benefit provided by a plurality of digital codes associated with a product or a service / filling an entry field with a first digital code of the plurality of digital codes.
These claimed limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements – see below, thus still being in the mental process category. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 19 includes the additional elements of a server . The server represents a generic computing element. The additional element of automatically executing instructions– i.e. the execution of the computer script is automatically triggered without receiving a command from the user through the web site – does 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 19 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 element of automatically executing instructions– i.e. the execution of the computer script is automatically triggered without receiving a command from the user through the web site – does 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 19 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 4, 5 , 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Fisher (20140074584) in further view of Corrieri (WO2020061064A1) in even further view of Fadali (20250356388).
As per Claim 2, Fisher teaches:
Determining that a computer script embedded in a web site of a merchant entity has been executed in response to an action by a user of the merchant entity, wherein the computer script was provided by a service provider entity to the merchant entity before the determining; (at least: para 33, 38, 46; merchant entity different from the service provider – at least para 29: general merchant website)
Causing, based on determining that the computer script embedded in the web site of the merchant entity has been executed, computer instructions to be loaded to a computer system of the service provider entity; (the computer system represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. at least: para 31, 67-68)
Corrieri further teaches:
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. (at least: fig5 and associated text – the coupon codes are ranked by coupon code savings; the best coupon code may be applied automatically without user input – at least: page 8, last para overlapping page 9; at least page 5 – determine a highest ranked set of codes , and displaying the list at the user client device)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Fisher’s existing features, with Corrieri’s feature of 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, to provide the maximum benefit and automatically apply coupons to a user in electronic commerce – Corrieri, page 3, first para. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Fisher in view of Corrieri teach loaded computer instructions and 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, as noted above. Fadali further teaches:
Wherein the execution of the loaded computer instructions is automatically performed without an input from the user with respect to the web site. (at least para 166 – “The personalized item recommendation is associated with a personalized respective identifier or code. The personalized code is specifically assigned or generated for an individual user for which the personalized item recommendation is made, i.e., the user 202 of the client device 212. This personalized code is unique to that particular user and can be used to avail discounts, special offers, or other incentives on the given resource 255 during the time period. In one or more other implementations, the personalized unique code serves as a digital token that is automatically applied and/or that the user can enter during the checkout process to apply the associated discount or promotional offer to their purchase.”)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Fisher’s existing features, combined with Corrieri’s existing features, with Fadali’s feature of the execution of the loaded computer instructions is automatically performed without an input from the user with respect to the web site, to provide personalized codes – Fadali, para 166.
Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 3, Fisher in view of Corrieri in view of Fadali teach:
The computer script contains an electronic link to a server of the service provider entity. (the server represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitation. (Fisher, at least para 33, 38)
As per Claim 4, Fisher in view of Corrieri in view of Fadali teach:
One or more of the digital codes in the plurality of digital codes corresponds to a coupon or a promotion for a purchase of a product or a service. ( Corrieri, at least: abstract – electronic coupon codes)
As per Claim 5, Fisher in view of Corrieri in view of Fadali teach:
The predefined benefit comprises a greatest reduction on a price of the product or the service. (Corrieri - at least: fig5 and associated text – the coupon codes are ranked by coupon code savings; the best coupon code may be applied automatically without user input – at least: page 8, last para overlapping page 9)
As per Claim 7, Fisher in view of Corrieri in view of Fadali teach:
The action by the user is taken via a web browser, and wherein the computer instructions are loaded without installing an extension for the web browser. (Fisher, at least: para 6, 26-27, 28-29)
As per Claim 8, Fisher in view of Corrieri in view of Fadali teach:
the recommending is performed at least in part by automatically selecting the first digital code for the entry into the web site without receiving an input from the user. (Fisher: at least fig5 and associated text ; page 8, last para overlapping page 9)
As per Claim 10, Fisher in view of Corrieri in view of Fadali teach:
The computer script comprises a single line JavaScript code. (Fisher, at least para 26, 27; also teaches “Although certain example methods, apparatus and articles of manufacture have been described herein, the scope of coverage of this patent is not limited thereto. On the contrary, this patent covers all methods, apparatus and articles of manufacture fairly falling within the scope of the claims of this patent.” – para 70, 71, thus teaching “a single line JavaScript code”)
As per Claim 12, Fisher in view of Corrieri in view of Fadali teach:
the computer script is executed based on a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) of a current webpage of the web site matching an URL of a checkout page of the web site. (Fisher, at least: para 33, 40; web pages associated with URLs- at least para 28)
As per Claim 13, Fisher teaches:
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: (the processor/medium represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations. At least: abstract, para 31)
detecting an execution of a computer script embedded in a web site of a merchant when a user is browsing the web site, the computer script having been previously provided to the merchant by the service provider; (at least: para 33, 38, 46; merchant entity different from the service provider – at least para 29: general merchant website)
Corrieri further teaches:
determining, based on the execution 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.
(at least: fig5 and associated text – the coupon codes are ranked by coupon code savings; the best coupon code may be applied automatically without user input – at least: page 8, last para overlapping page 9; at least page 5 – determine a highest ranked set of codes , and displaying the list at the user client device)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Fisher’s existing features, with Corrieri’s feature of determining, based on the execution 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, to provide the maximum benefit and automatically apply coupons to a user in electronic commerce – Corrieri, page 3, first para. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Fisher in view of Corrieri teach loaded computer instructions and 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, as noted above. Fadali further teaches:
Wherein the automatic execution of the loaded computer instructions is performed without an interaction of the user with respect to the web site / an automatic execution . (at least para 166 – “The personalized item recommendation is associated with a personalized respective identifier or code. The personalized code is specifically assigned or generated for an individual user for which the personalized item recommendation is made, i.e., the user 202 of the client device 212. This personalized code is unique to that particular user and can be used to avail discounts, special offers, or other incentives on the given resource 255 during the time period. In one or more other implementations, the personalized unique code serves as a digital token that is automatically applied and/or that the user can enter during the checkout process to apply the associated discount or promotional offer to their purchase.”)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Fisher’s existing features, combined with Corrieri’s existing features, with Fadali’s feature of the automatic execution of the loaded computer instructions is performed without an interaction of the user with respect to the web site / an automatic execution, to provide personalized codes – Fadali, para 166. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 16, Fisher in view of Corrieri in further view of Fadali teach:
wherein the benefit provided by the first digital code comprises a greatest numerical reduction in a price of the product or the service. (Fisher, at least: fig5 and associated text – the coupon codes are ranked by coupon code savings; the best coupon code may be applied automatically without user input – at least: page 8, last para overlapping page 9; at least page 5 – determine a highest ranked set of codes , and displaying the list at the user client device)
As per Claim 17, Fisher in view of Corrieri in further view of Fadali teach an automatic execution of the computer script, as noted above, as well as:
the automatic execution of the computer script is based on a determination that the user is browsing a checkout page of the web site. (Fisher, at least: para 33, 40)
As per Claim 18, Fisher in view of Corrieri in further view of Fadali teach:
the web site comprises Hyper Text Markup Language (HTML) code, and wherein the computer script comprises JavaScript code that is embedded in the HTML code. (Fisher, at least para 26, 27)
Claims 9, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Fisher (20140074584) in further view of Corrieri (WO2020061064A1), in further view of Fadali (20250356388), in even further view of Durbha (20140257956 ).
As per Claim 9, Durbha further teaches:
the automatically selecting is performed at least in part by automatically filling a text entry field with the first digital code in the web site of the merchant entity. (at least para 26: “A submission redirect message 84 may be transmitted from the MSO 14 with the coupon code to direct the browser 22 to automatically input the coupon code to the website 16 using a signed coupon code message 86. “)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Fisher’s existing features, combined with Corrieri’s existing feature, combined with Fadali’s existing feature, with Durbha’s feature of the automatically selecting is performed at least in part by automatically filling a text entry field with the first digital code in the web site of the merchant entity, to allow for coupon code redemption/administration – Durbha, abstract. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 14, Durbha further teaches:
the recommending comprises automatically filling a field on the web site with the first digital code. (at least para 26: “A submission redirect message 84 may be transmitted from the MSO 14 with the coupon code to direct the browser 22 to automatically input the coupon code to the website 16 using a signed coupon code message 86. “)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Fisher’s existing features, combined with Corrieri’s existing feature, combined with Fadali’s existing feature, with Durbha’s feature of the recommending comprises automatically filling a field on the web site with the first digital code, to allow for coupon code redemption/administration – Durbha, abstract. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 19, Fisher teaches:
determining an execution of a computer script embedded in a web site of a first entity while a user is browsing the web site, wherein the computer script was previously provided by a second entity to the first entity and contains an electronic link to a server of the second entity; (the server represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. at least: para 33, 38, 46; merchant entity different from the service provider – at least para 29: general merchant website)
executing, as a result of the execution of the computer script, additional computer instructions via the server of the second entity (at least: para 31, 67-68)
Corrieri further teaches:
executing, as a result of the execution of the computer script, additional computer instructions via the server of the second entity, wherein the execution of the additional computer instructions determines a respective predefined benefit provided by a plurality of digital codes associated with a product or a service ; (at least: fig5 and associated text – the coupon codes are ranked by coupon code savings; the best coupon code may be applied automatically without user input – at least: page 8, last para overlapping page 9; at least page 5 – determine a highest ranked set of codes , and displaying the list at the user client device)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Fisher’s existing features, with Corrieri’s feature of executing, as a result of the execution of the computer script, additional computer instructions via the server of the second entity, wherein the execution of the additional computer instructions determines a respective predefined benefit provided by a plurality of digital codes associated with a product or a service, to provide the maximum benefit and automatically apply coupons to a user in electronic commerce – Corrieri, page 3, first para. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Fisher in view of Corrieri teach loaded computer instructions and 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, as noted above. Fadali further teaches:
Wherein the execution of the computer script is automatically triggered receiving a command from the user through the web site. (at least para 166 – “The personalized item recommendation is associated with a personalized respective identifier or code. The personalized code is specifically assigned or generated for an individual user for which the personalized item recommendation is made, i.e., the user 202 of the client device 212. This personalized code is unique to that particular user and can be used to avail discounts, special offers, or other incentives on the given resource 255 during the time period. In one or more other implementations, the personalized unique code serves as a digital token that is automatically applied and/or that the user can enter during the checkout process to apply the associated discount or promotional offer to their purchase.”)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Fisher’s existing features, combined with Corrieri’s existing features, with Fadali’s feature of the execution of the computer script is automatically triggered receiving a command from the user through the web site, to provide personalized codes – Fadali, para 166.
Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Durbha further teaches:
automatically filling, based on a result of the execution of the additional computer instructions, an entry field on the web site with a first digital code of the plurality of digital codes. (at least para 26: “A submission redirect message 84 may be transmitted from the MSO 14 with the coupon code to direct the browser 22 to automatically input the coupon code to the website 16 using a signed coupon code message 86. “)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Fisher’s existing features, combined with Corrieri’s existing feature, combined with Fadali’s existing feature, with Durbha’s feature of automatically filling, based on a result of the execution of the additional computer instructions, an entry field on the web site with a first digital code of the plurality of digital codes, to allow for coupon code redemption/administration – Durbha, abstract. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 20, Fisher in view of Corrieri in further view of Fadali in even further view of Durbha teach:
the execution of the computer script is automatically triggered in response to a determination that the user is currently browsing a checkout page of the web site for purchasing the product or the service. (Durbha, at least para 26)
As per Claim 21, Fisher in view of Corrieri in further view of Fadali in even further view of Durbha teach:
the first digital code provides a greatest price discount for purchasing the product or the service (Corrieri, at least: fig5 and associated text – the coupon codes are ranked by coupon code savings; the best coupon code may be applied automatically without user input – at least: page 8, last para overlapping page 9; at least page 5 – determine a highest ranked set of codes , and displaying the list at the user client device)
As per Claim 22, Fisher in view of Corrieri in further view of Fadali in even further view of Durbha teach:
The computer script if executed without a web browser extension. (Fisher, at least para 6, 26-27, 28-29)
Claims 11 , 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Fisher (20140074584) in further view of Corrieri (WO2020061064A1), in further view of Fadali (20250356388), in even further view of Wang (CN 109087124 A).
As per Claim 11, Fisher in view of Corrieri teach recommending a digital code, as noted above, and Wang further teaches:
the execution of the loaded computer instructions performs a machine learning process, and wherein the first digital code is recommended as a part of an output of the machine learning process. (at least: page 7, last 3 paras)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Fisher’s existing features, combined with Corrieri’s existing feature, combined with Fadali’s existing feature, with Wang’s feature of the execution of the loaded computer instructions performs a machine learning process, and wherein the first digital code is recommended as a part of an output of the machine learning process, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 15, Fisher in view of Corrieri teach recommending a digital code, as noted above, and Wang further teaches:
the determining is performed at least in part via a machine learning process.. (at least: page 7, last 3 paras)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Fisher’s existing features, combined with Corrieri’s existing feature, combined with Fadali’s existing feature, with Wang’s feature of the determining is performed at least in part via a machine learning process, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; Applicant argues with substance:
Assuming, arguendo, that claim 2 recites a judicial exception (a point not conceded by the Applicant) based on Prong One, Applicant still respectfully submits that amended claim 2 is patent eligible under Prong Two of the 2019 Guidance, because amended claim 2 integrates the alleged exception into a practical application. In explaining what is considered a practical application that has integrated an exception therein, the 2019 Guidance provides, as an example, "an additional element that implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim." For example, a Fourdrinier machine (which is understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) that is arranged in a particular way that uses gravity to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web is considered an integration of a judicial
exception into a practical application. Similarly, the limitations of amended claim 2 utilize a function of a particular machine (e.g., a computer) in a way that is integral to the claim. In that regard, paragraph [0014] of the specification explains drawbacks associated with conventional online checkout schemes: [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. Consequently, many consumers never come into possession of the most valuable codes. Amended claim 2 overcomes the above problem by automatically executing a computer script to identify and apply discount codes on behalf of a user shopping on a merchant web site without requiring user input with respect to the merchant web site. Applicant notes paras 16-18 of the Spec.
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 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 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. 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.
Remaining arguments: Applicant’s remaining arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 ALEXANDRU CIRNU whose telephone number is (571)272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-5pm. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sincerely,
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
4/6/2026