SMART MERCHANDISE BRANDING

§101 §102 §103

DETAILED ACTION This action is in reply to the original application filed on 03/14/2024. Claims 1-20 are rejected. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Information Disclosure Statement Information Disclosure Statement received 07/08/2025 has been reviewed and considered. 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 Objections Claims 14-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: -Claims 14-18 read “The media of claim 13” but should likely read “The one or more computer-storage media of claim 13” Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories (see MPEP 2106.03). All the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (YES). Examiner Note: While claims 13-18 are “one or more computer-storage media,” claims 13-18 are not interpreted as signals per se in light of paragraph [0045] of Applicant’s spec stating “Computer storage media excludes signals per se.” Under Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception (see MPEP 2106.04). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception (YES). Taking Claim 19 as representative, the claim recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including: -A computerized system comprising: -one or more computer processors; and -computer memory storing computer-useable instructions that, when used by the one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations, the operations comprising: -identifying active sellers in a store management system; -determining a seller of the active sellers is eligible for smart strips; -enabling the smart strips on an electronic storefront of the store management system corresponding to the seller; and -automatically populating the smart strips on the electronic storefront with data Examiner notes: smart strips are describes by paragraph [0002] of Applicant’s spec as a designated portion of the storefront corresponding to the seller that highlights particular items the seller has listed for sale. The above limitations recite the concept of presenting seller item data. The above limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a). Certain methods of organizing human activity include: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risk) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and business relations) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) The limitations of identifying active sellers in a store management system; and determining a seller of the active sellers is eligible for smart strips are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a commercial interaction. For example, “identifying” and “determining” in the context of this claim encompass advertising, and marketing or sales activities. Similarly, the limitations of a computerized system comprising: computer memory storing computer-useable instructions that, when used by the one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations, the operations comprising: enabling the smart strips on an electronic storefront of the store management system corresponding to the seller; and automatically populating the smart strips on the electronic storefront with data are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a commercial interaction. That is, other than reciting that the system is a computerized system, that the operation are performed by one or more computer processors that use computer memory storing computer-useable instructions, that the storefront is an electronic storefront, and that the population is done automatically, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by people. For example, but for the “computerized system, “computer memory storing computer-useable instructions,” “one or more computer processors,” “an electronic storefront,” and “automatically populating” language, “perform,” “enabling,” and “populating” in the context of this claim encompasses advertising, and marketing or sales activities. Under Prong 2, it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (NO). -A computerized system comprising: -one or more computer processors; and -computer memory storing computer-useable instructions that, when used by the one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations, the operations comprising: -identifying active sellers in a store management system; -determining a seller of the active sellers is eligible for smart strips; -enabling the smart strips on an electronic storefront of the store management system corresponding to the seller; and -automatically populating the smart strips on the electronic storefront with data These limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application because: The additional elements of claim 19 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea) as supported by paragraph [0042] of Applicant’s specification – “The invention may be described in the general context of computer code or machine-useable instructions, including computer-executable instructions such as program modules, being executed by a computer or other machine, such as a personal data assistant or other handheld device. Generally, program modules including routines, programs, objects, components, data structures, etc. refer to code that perform particular tasks or implement particular abstract data types. The invention may be practiced in a variety of system configurations, including hand-held devices, consumer electronics, general-purpose computers, more specialty computing devices, etc.” Specifically, the additional elements of a computerized system, one or more computer processors, computer memory storing computer-useable instructions, an electronic storefront, and automatically populating are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing the generic computer functions of performing operations, identifying data, determining data, enabling data, and populating data) such that they amount do no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks). Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application. Additionally, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, ii) apply the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Under Step 2B, it is determined whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims of the present application do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (NO). In the case of claim 19, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 9 do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above under step 2A (prong 2) with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed functions amount to no more than a general link to a technological environment. Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually. Claim 1 is a method reciting similar functions as claim 19. Examiner notes that claim 1 recites the additional elements of an electronic storefront and automatically populating, however, claim 1 does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons as claim 19 indicated above. Claim 13 is one or more computer-storage media reciting similar functions as claim 19. Examiner notes that claim 13 recites the additional elements of one or more computer-storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon, a computing system, a processor, a memory, an electronic storefront and automatically populating, however, claim 13 does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons as claim 19 indicated above. Therefore, claims 1, 13, and 19 do not provide an inventive concept and do not qualify as eligible subject matter. Dependent claims 2-12, 14-18, and 20, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claims 2-12, 14-18, and 20 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas in that they recite commercial interactions. Dependent claims 4-5, 9-11, 14-15, and 17 do not recite any farther additional elements, and as such are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons discussed above. Dependent claims 2-3, 6-8, 12, 16, 18, and 20 recite the additional elements of a first API call, second API call, a third API call, a fourth API call, fifth API call, a sixth API call, a seventh API call, automatically, and the electronic storefront, but similar to the analysis under prong two of Step 2A these additional elements are used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, under prong two of Step 2A, claims 2-12, 14-18, and 20 are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above. Thus, dependent claims 2-12, 14-18, and 20 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Next, under Step 2B, similar to the analysis of claims 1, 13, and 19, dependent claims 2-12, 14-18, and 20 when analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, merely further define the commonplace business method (i.e. presenting seller item data) being applied on a general-purpose computer and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 4-8, 12-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O’Neill et al. (US 2023/0020751 A1), hereinafter O’Neill . Regarding claim 1, O’Neill discloses a method of activating and populating smart strips, the method comprising: -identifying active sellers in a store management system (O’Neill, see at least: “the computing device may receive user input (e.g., from a product or brand manager, a software developer, etc.) in the form of one or more URLs (e.g., an address of a product webpage, a plurality of web addresses, etc.). The URLs may identify one or more websites [i.e. identifying active sellers in a store management system], and they may be entered into a web portal or provided using an application programming interface (API)” [0024] and “The eCommerce Website 3006 may cause the marketing campaign manager 3016 and/or website analysis system 3004 to perform various operations to automatically trigger promotions for a product (e.g., by adding it to a promotions webpage, including it in an email mailshot, etc.) in response to determining that a competitor is selling an identical product for a lower price (within a range)” [0383] and “generally describe how the computing device analyzes the main website navigation menu to extract and process all of the menu items within it (each menu item represents a group of products that are available for purchase on the website) [i.e. identifying active sellers in a store management system]” [0269] Examiner notes that [0029] of Applicant’s spec indicates that an active seller includes a user who currently has an item listed for sale) -determining a seller of the active sellers is eligible for smart strips (O’Neill, see at least: “The eCommerce Website 3006 may cause the marketing campaign manager 3016 and/or website analysis system 3004 to perform various operations to automatically trigger promotions for a product (e.g., by adding it to a promotions webpage [i.e. determining a seller of the active sellers is eligible for smart strips], including it in an email mailshot, etc.) in response to determining that a competitor is selling an identical product for a lower price (within a range)” [0383] and “The promotions 2006 part of a webpage typically includes information that has a short lifetime (e.g., a special offer that is only valid for the next weekend, product information about a newly launched product, seasonal products that are now in stock, extended opening hours, competition details, etc.) [i.e. determining a seller of the active sellers is eligible for smart strips], and the promotions are changed frequently. The promotions are normally displayed in a block list or grid layout, and they normally start on, and continue off the bottom of, the initial viewport” [0299]); -enabling the smart strips on an electronic storefront of the store management system corresponding to the seller (O’Neill, see at least: “The eCommerce Website 3006 may cause the marketing campaign manager 3016 and/or website analysis system 3004 to perform various operations to automatically trigger promotions for a product (e.g., by adding it to a promotions webpage [i.e. enabling the smart strips], including it in an email mailshot, etc.) in response to determining that a competitor is selling an identical product for a lower price (within a range)” [0383] and “The promotions 2006 part of a webpage [i.e. on an electronic storefront of the store management system corresponding to the seller] typically includes information that has a short lifetime (e.g., a special offer that is only valid for the next weekend, product information about a newly launched product, seasonal products that are now in stock, extended opening hours, competition details, etc.), and the promotions are changed frequently. The promotions are normally displayed in a block list or grid layout, and they normally start on, and continue off the bottom of, the initial viewport” [0299]); -automatically populating the smart strips on the electronic storefront with data (O’Neill, see at least: “The eCommerce Website 3006 may cause the marketing campaign manager 3016 and/or website analysis system 3004 to perform various operations to automatically trigger promotions for a product (e.g., by adding it to a promotions webpage [i.e. automatically populating the smart strips with data], including it in an email mailshot, etc.)” [0383] and “The promotions 2006 part of a webpage typically includes information that has a short lifetime (e.g., a special offer that is only valid for the next weekend, product information about a newly launched product, seasonal products that are now in stock, extended opening hours, competition details, etc.), and the promotions are changed frequently. The promotions are normally displayed in a block list or grid layout, and they normally start on, and continue off the bottom of, the initial viewport [i.e. automatically populating the smart strips on the electronic storefront with data]. The promotions typically link to collection promotion webpages” [0299]). Regarding claim 4, O’Neill discloses the method of claim 1. O’Neill further discloses: -wherein determining the seller of the active sellers is eligible for smart strips comprises determining the seller has manually enabled the smart strips for featured categories (O’Neill, see at least: “a website owner may request to be sent an alert when a competitor offers a promotional or discounted product price for a market leading product. The website owner may then automatically adjust the pricing on its website [i.e. wherein determining the seller of the active sellers is eligible for smart strips comprises determining the seller has manually enabled the smart strips] in order to offer a matching or improved offer for the same market leading product [i.e. for featured categories]” [0363] and “the computing device may identify the product fields that need to be segmented for a specific webpage. In some embodiments, the computing device may identify the product fields based on user input or user preferences as specified in a web portal” [0154]). Regarding claim 5, O’Neill discloses the method of claim 4. O’Neill further discloses: -retrieving a category preference corresponding to the seller (O’Neill, see at least: “a website owner [i.e. corresponding to the seller] may request to be sent an alert when a competitor offers a promotional or discounted product price for a market leading product [i.e. retrieving a category preference]. The website owner may then automatically adjust the pricing on its website in order to offer a matching or improved offer for the same market leading product” [0363] Examiner notes that the preference is for the category of discounted products). Regarding claim 6, O’Neill discloses the method of claim 5. O’Neill further discloses: -retrieving, via a fourth API call, the data corresponding to categories based on items sold; or retrieving, via a fifth API call, the data corresponding to active categories (O’Neill, see at least: “The promotions 2006 part of a webpage typically includes information that has a short lifetime (e.g., a special offer that is only valid for the next weekend, product information about a newly launched product, seasonal products that are now in stock, extended opening hours, competition details, etc.), and the promotions are changed frequently [i.e. retrieving the data corresponding to active categories]” [0299] and “the method may remove the product from the website (i.e., so that it is not possible to purchase it) in optional block 2618 (e.g., by using an API to access a product inventory [i.e. via a fifth API call]” [0337]). Regarding claim 7, O’Neill discloses the method of claim 1. O’Neill further discloses: -wherein determining the seller of the active sellers is eligible for smart strips comprises determining, via a sixth API call, the seller has not manually enabled the smart strips for newly listed items (O’Neill, see at least: “The promotions 2006 part of a webpage typically includes information that has a short lifetime (e.g., a special offer that is only valid for the next weekend, product information about a newly launched product [i.e. for newly listed items], seasonal products that are now in stock, extended opening hours, competition details, etc.), and the promotions are changed frequently [i.e. wherein determining the seller of the active sellers is eligible for smart strips comprises]” [0299] and “a single template set of normalization rules may be used when creating taxonomies for all websites. Further, this template set of normalization rules may be updated automatically based upon the information extracted from a website (e.g., if a new type of item is found) [i.e. determining the seller has not manually enabled the smart strips for newly listed items]” [0273] and “the method may remove the product from the website (i.e., so that it is not possible to purchase it) in optional block 2618 (e.g., by using an API to access a product inventory [i.e. via a sixth API call]” [0337]). Regarding claim 8, O’Neill discloses the method of claim 7. O’Neill further discloses: -retrieving, via a seventh API call, the data comprising one or more items the seller has listed, within a threshold timeframe, to sell (O’Neill, see at least: “The promotions 2006 part of a webpage typically includes information that has a short lifetime (e.g., a special offer that is only valid for the next weekend, product information about a newly launched product, seasonal products that are now in stock [i.e. retrieving the data comprising one or more items the seller has listed, within a threshold timeframe, to sell], extended opening hours, competition details, etc.), and the promotions are changed frequently” [0299] and “the method may remove the product from the website (i.e., so that it is not possible to purchase it) in optional block 2618 (e.g., by using an API to access a product inventory [i.e. via a seventh API call]” [0337] Examiner notes that the seasonal products are listed within the threshold timeframe of the season). Regarding claim 12, O’Neill discloses the method of claim 1. O’Neill further discloses: -automatically removing the smart strips from the electronic storefront when the seller is determined to be no longer eligible for smart strips (O’Neill, see at least: “The promotions 2006 part of a webpage typically includes information that has a short lifetime [i.e. automatically removing the smart strips from the electronic storefront when the seller is determined to be no longer eligible for smart strips] (e.g., a special offer that is only valid for the next weekend, product information about a newly launched product, seasonal products that are now in stock, extended opening hours, competition details, etc.), and the promotions are changed frequently [i.e. automatically removing]” [0299] and “The online advertiser 3106 may work in conjunction with the website analysis system 3004 to automatically increase or decrease [i.e. automatically removing] a product promotion based on its availability and promotion in a geographic region (there is no point in advertising it if it is not in stock anywhere) [i.e. the smart strips from the electronic storefront when the seller is determined to be no longer eligible for smart strips]” [0387] and Examiner notes that seasonal promotions are removed after the season ends as the seller is no longer selling those seasonal items). Claims 13 and 18 recite limitations directed towards one or more computer-storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon that, when executed by a computing system having a processor and memory, cause the processor to perform operations (O’Neill, see at least: “embodiments may include a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium having stored thereon processor-executable instructions configured to cause a processor to perform various operations corresponding to any or all of the method operations discussed above” [0441]). The rest of the limitations recited in claims 13 and 18 are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claims 1 and 12, respectively, and are therefore rejected for those same reasons set forth above in claims 1 and 12, respectively. Regarding claim 14, O’Neill discloses the one or more computer-storage media of claim 13. O’Neill further discloses: -wherein the data corresponds to one or more of: auctions ending soonest, featured categories, or newly listed items (O’Neill, see at least: “The promotions 2006 part of a webpage typically includes information that has a short lifetime (e.g., a special offer that is only valid for the next weekend, product information about a newly launched product [i.e. wherein the data corresponds to one or more of: auctions ending soonest, featured categories, or newly listed items], seasonal products that are now in stock, extended opening hours, competition details, etc.), and the promotions are changed frequently” [0299]). Regarding claim 15, O’Neill discloses the one or more computer-storage media of claim 13. O’Neill further discloses: -wherein the seller of the active sellers is eligible for smart strips if the seller has not manually enabled the smart strips (O’Neill, see at least: “a single template set of normalization rules may be used when creating taxonomies for all websites. Further, this template set of normalization rules may be updated automatically based upon the information extracted from a website (e.g., if a new type of item is found) [i.e. wherein the seller of the active sellers is eligible for smart strips if the seller has not manually enabled the smart strips]” [0273]). Regarding claim 17, O’Neill discloses the one or more computer-storage media of claim 13. O’Neill further discloses: -retrieving the data corresponding to the items listed for sale (O’Neill, see at least: “FIGS. 10A and 10B illustrate methods 1000, 1050 of determining the product fields in a webpage, including segmenting and extracting product information (i.e., one or more product fields, etc.) from product webpages on an eCommerce website [i.e. retrieving the data corresponding to the items listed for sale]” [0123] and “With reference to FIG. 10A, in block 1002, the computing device may receive user input (e.g., from a product or brand manager, a software developer, etc.) in the form of one or more URLs (e.g., an address of a product webpage [i.e. retrieving the data corresponding to the items listed for sale], a plurality of web addresses, etc.)” [0124]). Claims 19 and 20 recite limitations directed towards computerized system comprising: one or more computer processors; and computer memory storing computer-useable instructions that, when used by the one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations (O’Neill, see at least: “embodiments may include a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium having stored thereon processor-executable instructions configured to cause a processor to perform various operations corresponding to any or all of the method operations discussed above” [0441] and abstract). The rest of the limitations recited in claims 19 and 20 are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claims 1 and 12, respectively, and are therefore rejected for those same reasons set forth above in claims 1 and 12, respectively. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neill in view of Dru et al. (US 2015/0302470 A1), hereinafter Dru. Regarding claim 2, O’Neill discloses the method of claim 1. O’Neill further discloses: -wherein determining the seller of the active sellers is eligible for smart strips comprises: -determining, via a first API call, the seller has a threshold number of sales (O’Neill, see at least: “Some of the repeating structures within the collection product webpage may represent products that are being promoted or that may be popular [i.e. wherein determining the seller of the active sellers is eligible for smart strips comprises: determining the seller has a threshold number of sales]. Such products may appear together (often before any other products), may have different styling, may be associated with a specific HTML attribute, and may include specific keywords (e.g., “Sponsored,” “Promotion,” “Special Offer,” “Best Sellers,” “Popular”)” [0094] and “the computing device may receive user input (e.g., from a product or brand manager, a software developer, etc.) in the form of one or more URLs (e.g., an address of a product webpage, a plurality of web addresses, etc.). The URLs may identify one or more websites, and they may be entered into a web portal or provided using an application programming interface (API) [i.e. via a first API call]” [0124] Examiner notes that in order); and -determining the seller has not manually enabled the smart strips for deals (O’Neill, see at least: “The eCommerce Website 3006 may cause the marketing campaign manager 3016 and/or website analysis system 3004 to perform various operations to automatically trigger promotions for a product (e.g., by adding it to a promotions webpage [i.e. determining the seller has not manually enabled the smart strips for deals], including it in an email mailshot, etc.) in response to determining that a competitor is selling an identical product for a lower price (within a range)” [0383] and “The promotions 2006 part of a webpage typically includes information that has a short lifetime (e.g., a special offer that is only valid for the next weekend, product information about a newly launched product, seasonal products that are now in stock, extended opening hours, competition details , etc.) [i.e. the smart strips for deals], and the promotions are changed frequently” [0299] and Examiner notes that if the promotion is automatically triggered, it was not previously set manually by the seller [i.e. determining the seller has not manually enabled the smart strips]). O’Neill does not explicitly disclose the sales being sales as auctions; determining, via a second API call, the seller has a threshold number of live auction listings; the smart strips being for auctions ending soonest; and determining the seller has less than a threshold number of inventory strips. Dru, however, teaches generating interactive web content (i.e. abstract) including the known technique of determining, via a first API call, the seller has a number of sales as auctions (Dru, see at least: and “Example embodiments of ad widgets are described below, including example embodiments for auctions [i.e. as auctions] and buy-now sales, and embodiments for sale of physical items as well as ad space” [0205] and “These features may allow advertisers to know exactly, in real-time, on which websites are all of their advertisements embedded as well as real-time statistics. Additionally, an API [i.e. via a first API call] may be provided to allow developers to develop custom layouts/functions/features for their advertisements along with developing applications for other users to be able to use with their widgets” [0179] and “An ad/bid tracking, accounting, and history 266 component can be configured to track user activities associated with an advertisement” [0034] and Examiner notes that each advertisement widget is tracked [i.e. determining the seller has a number of sales as auctions]); the known technique of determining, via a second API call, the seller has a threshold number of live auction listings (Dru, see at least: “These features may allow advertisers to know exactly, in real-time, on which websites are all of their advertisements embedded as well as real-time statistics [i.e. live auction listings]. Additionally, an API [i.e. via a second API call] may be provided to allow developers to develop custom layouts/functions/features for their advertisements along with developing applications for other users to be able to use with their widgets” [0179] and “Example embodiments of ad widgets are described below, including example embodiments for auctions [i.e. live auction listings] and buy-now sales, and embodiments for sale of physical items as well as ad space” [0205] and “An ad/bid tracking, accounting, and history 266 component can be configured to track user activities associated with an advertisement” [0034] and Fig. 9 illustrates that each seller is limited to a threshold number of bidding widgets to user on external pages per month based on their membership status and each advertisement widget is tracked [i.e. determining the seller has a threshold number of live auction listings]); the known technique of smart strips for auctions ending soonest (Dru, see at least: “FIG. 5 presents an availability page of the admin website. The availability page may be displayed at the graphical user interface and may comprise an open advertisements page and a marketplace page. The open advertisements page may comprise: … 1. A page that shows all the pages that have advertisements [i.e. smart strips] that are up for bid;” [0065]-[0066] and Fig. 5 displays an option to sort the available ad widgets by the ending time [i.e. for auctions ending soonest]); and the known technique of determining the seller has less than a threshold number of inventory strips (Dru, see at least: “These features may allow advertisers to know exactly, in real-time, on which websites are all of their advertisements embedded as well as real-time statistics [i.e. determining]. Additionally, an API may be provided to allow developers to develop custom layouts/functions/features for their advertisements along with developing applications for other users to be able to use with their widgets [i.e. of inventory strips]” [0179] and “Example embodiments of ad widgets are described below, including example embodiments for auctions and buy-now sales, and embodiments for sale of physical items as well as ad space” [0205] and “An ad/bid tracking [i.e. determining], accounting, and history 266 component can be configured to track user activities associated with an advertisement” [0034] and Fig. 9 illustrates that each seller is limited to a threshold number of bidding widgets to user on external pages per month based on their membership status and each advertisement widget is tracked so the number of bidding widgets are tracked [i.e. determining the seller has less than a threshold number of inventory strips]). These known techniques are applicable to the method of O’Neill as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to generating interactive web content. It would have been recognized that applying the known techniques of determining, via a first API call, the seller has a number of sales as auctions; determining, via a second API call, the seller has a threshold number of live auction listings; smart strips for auctions ending soonest; and determining the seller has less than a threshold number of inventory strips, as taught by Dru, to the teachings of O’Neill would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modifications of determining, via a first API call, the seller has a number of sales as auctions; determining, via a second API call, the seller has a threshold number of live auction listings; smart strips for auctions ending soonest; and determining the seller has less than a threshold number of inventory strips, as taught by Dru, into the method of O’Neill would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would increase sales and allow for seamless tracking (Dru, [0024]). Regarding claim 9, O’Neill discloses the method of claim 1. O’Neill does not explicitly disclose that determining the seller of the active sellers is eligible for smart strips comprises determining the seller has less than a threshold number of inventory strips. Dru, however, teaches generating interactive web content (i.e. abstract) including the known technique of determining the seller of the active sellers is eligible for smart strips comprising determining the seller has less than a threshold number of inventory strips (Dru, see at least: “These features may allow advertisers to know exactly, in real-time, on which websites are all of their advertisements embedded as well as real-time statistics [i.e. determining]. Additionally, an API may be provided to allow developers to develop custom layouts/functions/features for their advertisements along with developing applications for other users to be able to use with their widgets [i.e. of inventory strips]” [0179] and “Example embodiments of ad widgets are described below, including example embodiments for auctions and buy-now sales, and embodiments for sale of physical items as well as ad space” [0205] and “An ad/bid tracking [i.e. determining], accounting, and history 266 component can be configured to track user activities associated with an advertisement” [0034] and “A user can set-up a widget by operating his or her computer device to: … 1. Identify if a widget is for an Item [i.e. inventory strip] or an Ad Space [i.e. smart strip] ” [0194]-[0195] and Fig. 9 illustrates that each seller is limited to a threshold number of bidding widgets to user on external pages per month based on their membership status and each advertisement widget is tracked so the number of bidding widgets are tracked [i.e. wherein determining the seller of the active sellers is eligible for smart strips comprises determining the seller has less than a threshold number of inventory strips]). This known technique is applicable to the method of O’Neill as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to generating interactive web content. It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of determining the seller of the active sellers is eligible for smart strips comprising determining the seller has less than a threshold number of inventory strips, as taught by Dru, to the teachings of O’Neill would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modification of determining the seller of the active sellers is eligible for smart strips comprising determining the seller has less than a threshold number of inventory strips, as taught by Dru, into the method of O’Neill would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would increase sales and allow for seamless tracking (Dru, [0024]). Regarding claim 16, O’Neill discloses the one or more computer-storage media of claim 13. O’Neill does not explicitly disclose that the seller of the active sellers is eligible for smart strips if the seller has less than a threshold number of inventory strips on the electronic storefront. Dru, however, teaches generating interactive web content (i.e. abstract) including the known technique of the seller of the active sellers being eligible for smart strips if the seller has less than a threshold number of inventory strips on the electronic storefront (Dru, see at least: “These features may allow advertisers to know exactly, in real-time, on which websites [i.e. on the electronic storefront] are all of their advertisements embedded as well as real-time statistics. Additionally, an API may be provided to allow developers to develop custom layouts/functions/features for their advertisements along with developing applications for other users to be able to use with their widgets [i.e. of inventory strips]” [0179] and “Example embodiments of ad widgets are described below, including example embodiments for auctions and buy-now sales, and embodiments for sale of physical items as well as ad space” [0205] and “An ad/bid tracking [i.e. determining], accounting, and history 266 component can be configured to track user activities associated with an advertisement” [0034] and “A user can set-up a widget by operating his or her computer device to: … 1. Identify if a widget is for an Item [i.e. inventory strip] or an Ad Space [i.e. smart strip] ” [0194]-[0195] and Fig. 9 illustrates that each seller is limited to a threshold number of bidding widgets to user on external pages per month based on their membership status and each advertisement widget is tracked so the number of bidding widgets are tracked [i.e. the seller of the active sellers is eligible for smart strips if the seller has less than a threshold number of inventory strips on the electronic storefront]). This known technique is applicable to the one or more computer-storage media of O’Neill as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to generating interactive web content. It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of the seller of the active sellers being eligible for smart strips if the seller has less than a threshold number of inventory strips on the electronic storefront, as taught by Dru, to the teachings of O’Neill would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar one or more computer-storage media. Further, adding the modification of the seller of the active sellers being eligible for smart strips if the seller has less than a threshold number of inventory strips on the electronic storefront, as taught by Dru, into the one or more computer-storage media of O’Neill would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved one or more computer-storage media that would increase sales and allow for seamless tracking (Dru, [0024]). Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neill in view of Dru, in further view of Palmer et al. (US 11,030,657 B1), hereinafter Palmer. Regarding claim 3, O’Neill in view of Dru teaches the method of claim 1. O’Neill in view of Dru does not explicitly teach retrieving, via a third API call, the data comprising live auction listings up to the threshold number of live auction listings sorted by ending date. Palmer, however, teaches a product placement opportunity (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of retrieving, via a third API call, the data comprising live auction listings up to the threshold number of live auction listings sorted by ending date (Palmer, see at least: “the product placement marketplace may provide the list of one or more currently available product placement opportunities sorted according to a particular variable. In another example, each studio user or fashion user may have a list of one or more related product placement opportunities [i.e. the data comprising live auction listings up to the threshold number of live auction listings] sorted according to a particular variable. As an example, the list may be sorted based on product placement opportunities ending first [i.e. sorted by ending date]” Col. 17 Ln. 62-67 & Col. 18 Ln. 1-2 and “the server computing device 106 may provide a web application programming interface (API). The API may define HTTP request messages and the structure of response messages. The API may be a public and/or private API that provides a specification of remote calls exposed to consumer devices, e.g., studio client computing devices 102 and fashion client computing devices 104. The API may be a REST API and/or a SOAP API, among others [i.e. retrieving, via a third API call, the data]” Col. 26 Ln. 48-56). This known technique is applicable to the method of O’Neill in view of Dru as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to a product placement opportunity. It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of retrieving, via a third API call, the data comprising live auction listings up to the threshold number of live auction listings sorted by ending date, as taught by Palmer, to the teachings of O’Neill in view of Dru would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modification of retrieving, via a third API call, the data comprising live auction listings up to the threshold number of live auction listings sorted by ending date, as taught by Palmer, into the method of O’Neill in view of Dru would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would allow for product placements to be sorted by a variety of variables (Palmer, Col. 17 Ln. 62-65). Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neill in view of Dru, in further view of Lewis et al. (US 11,062,358 B1), hereinafter Lewis. Regarding claim 10, O’Neill discloses the method of claim 1. O’Neill further discloses: -wherein determining the seller of the active sellers is eligible for smart strips comprises determining the seller adds an item to sell (O’Neill, see at least: “The promotions 2006 part of a webpage typically includes information that has a short lifetime (e.g., a special offer that is only valid for the next weekend, product information about a newly launched product [i.e. comprises determining the seller adds an item to sell], seasonal products that are now in stock, extended opening hours, competition details, etc.) [i.e. determining the seller of the active sellers is eligible for smart strips], and the promotions are changed frequently. The promotions are normally displayed in a block list or grid layout, and they normally start on, and continue off the bottom of, the initial viewport” [0299] and “The eCommerce Website 3006 may cause the marketing campaign manager 3016 and/or website analysis system 3004 to perform various operations to automatically trigger promotions for a product (e.g., by adding it to a promotions webpage [i.e. determining the seller of the active sellers is eligible for smart strips], including it in an email mailshot, etc.) in response to determining that a competitor is selling an identical product for a lower price (within a range)” [0383]). O’Neill does not explicitly disclose determining the seller of the active sellers is eligible for smart strips comprises determining the seller has reached the threshold number of existing smart strips for newly listed items and adds an item to sell. Lewis, however, teaches dynamically providing content (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of determining the seller of the active sellers is eligible for content items comprises determining the seller has reached the threshold number of existing content items for newly listed items and adds an item to sell (Lewis, see at least: “the number of auxiliary content items in the auxiliary content section can be restricted (e.g., less than N number of auxiliary content items) [i.e. determining the seller of the active sellers is eligible for content items comprises determining the seller has reached the threshold number of existing content items]. According to these aspects, the server interface component 112 and/or the client interface component 124 can determine which auxiliary content items to include/remove from the auxiliary content section based on recency of inclusion (e.g., wherein older auxiliary content items are replaced with newer ones) [i.e. for newly listed items and adds an item to sell] and/or relevance to the user” Col. 19 Ln. 19-27 and “content/service provider 102 is an online merchant configured to sell goods or services to users via a website or thin client application” Col. 7 Ln. 1-3). This known technique is applicable to the method of O’Neill as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to dynamically providing content. It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of determining the seller of the active sellers is eligible for content items comprises determining the seller has reached the threshold number of existing content items for newly listed items and adds an item to sell, as taught by Lewis, to the teachings of O’Neill would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, adding the modification of determining the seller of the active sellers is eligible for content items comprises determining the seller has reached the threshold number of existing content items for newly listed items and adds an item to sell, as taught by Lewis, into the method of O’Neill would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would provide a collection of recent or relevant content (Lewis, Col. 4 Ln. 58-60). Regarding claim 11, O’Neill in view of Lewis teaches the method of claim 10. O’Neill further discloses: -removing the existing smart strips (O’Neill, see at least: “The promotions 2006 part of a webpage typically includes information that has a short lifetime [i.e. removing the existing smart strips] (e.g., a special offer that is only valid for the next weekend, product information about a newly launched product, seasonal products that are now in stock, extended opening hours, competition details, etc.), and the promotions are changed frequently” [0299] and “This may be because the web site uses a content management system (CMS) that generates the web resources on demand to ensure that the web resources are always up-to-date (e.g., the website owner may want to temporarily add a seasonal greeting [i.e. removing the existing smart strips] to the top of every webpage, etc.” [0078] Examiner notes that seasonal promotions are removed after the season ends). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. -Konik et al. (US 2016/0342288 A1) teaches highlighting item listing features. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLE E WEINER whose telephone number is (571)272-9007. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00. 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, Maria-Teresa (Marissa) Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ARIELLE E WEINER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689