DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the Amendments filed on 12/22/2025.
Claim 4 is cancelled.
Claim 21 is newly added
Claims 1-3 and 5-21 are rejected.
Claims 1-3 and 5-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 12/22/2025, has been entered. Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended.
Priority
The current Application is a CON of US Patent No. 12,073,458, which is a CON of and US Patent No. 11,210,730 filed 10/31/2018. Therefore, the instant claims receive the effective filing date of 10/31/2018.
As Previously Indicated Regarding Double Patenting:
Regarding US Patent No. 12,073,458, there is no double patenting as US Patent No. 12,073,458 and the current claims are distinct inventions.
Regarding US Patent No. 11,210,730, there is no double patenting as US Patent No. 11,210,730 and the current claims are distinct inventions.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3 and 5-21 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).
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 8 as representative, the claim recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including:
-one or more processors; and
-one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to perform actions comprising:
-storing, in an inventory database associated with a server computing device of a payment processing service, inventory data associated with items offered for sale by a plurality of merchants, wherein the inventory data for an individual item of the items includes corresponding item information and at least one corresponding item image;
-obtaining, by the server computing device, an image depicting two or more items of the items offered for sale;
-based at least in part on the inventory data and the image, and using a machine learning (ML) model trained on images of items associated with inventory items of merchants associated with the payment processing service, identifying, by the server computing device, in the image, a first portion of the image including a first item offered for sale by a first merchant and a second portion of the image including a second item offered for sale by a second merchant; and
-causing display, by the server computing device and via a display of a device, of (i) the image and (ii) a first selectable [option] control overlayed onto the image within a threshold distance of at least one of the first item and the second item,
-wherein selection of the first selectable [option] control causes at least first item information associated with the first item, second item information associated with the second item, and one or more second selectable [options] controls to be overlayed onto the image the display, and
-wherein selection of a second selectable [option] control of the one or more second selectable [options] controls causes addition of at least one of the first item or the second item to a virtual cart
The above limitations recite the concept of providing an image with items available for purchase for the user to buy. 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 one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to perform actions comprising: storing, in an inventory database associated with a server computing device of a payment processing service, inventory data associated with items offered for sale by a plurality of merchants, wherein the inventory data for an individual item of the items includes corresponding item information and at least one corresponding item image; obtaining, by the server computing device, an image depicting two or more items of the items offered for sale; based at least in part on the inventory data and the image, and using a machine learning (ML) model trained on images of items associated with inventory items of merchants associated with the payment processing service, identifying, by the server computing device, in the image, a first portion of the image including a first item offered for sale by a first merchant and a second portion of the image including a second item offered for sale by a second merchant; and causing display, by the server computing device and via a display of a device, of (i) the image and (ii) a first selectable [option] control overlayed onto the image within a threshold distance of at least one of the first item and the second item, wherein selection of the first selectable [option] control causes at least first item information associated with the first item, second item information associated with the second item, and one or more second selectable [options] controls to be overlayed onto the image the display, and wherein selection of a second selectable [option] control of the one or more second selectable [options] controls causes addition of at least one of the first item or the second item to a virtual cart are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a commercial interaction. That is, other than reciting that the actions are performed by one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, that the storing is in an inventory database associated with a server computing device of a payment processing service, that the obtaining is by the server computing device, that the identifying is by the server computing device and using a trained machine learning (ML) model, that the merchants are associated with the payment processing service, that the causing display is by the server computing device and via a display of a device, that the first selectable option is a first selectable control, that the one or more second selectable options are one or more second selectable controls, that the image is shown is via the display, that the second selectable option second selectable control, and that the cart is a virtual cart, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by people. For example, but for the “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions,” “one or more processors,” “an inventory database,” “a server computing device,” “a payment processing service,” “a trained machine learning (ML) model,” “a display of a device,” “a first selectable control,” “one or more second selectable controls,” “a second selectable control,” and “a virtual cart” language “storing,” “obtaining,” “identifying,” “causing display,” “selection,” and “selection” 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).
-one or more processors; and
-one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to perform actions comprising:
-storing, in an inventory database associated with a server computing device of a payment processing service, inventory data associated with items offered for sale by a plurality of merchants, wherein the inventory data for an individual item of the items includes corresponding item information and at least one corresponding item image;
-obtaining, by the server computing device, an image depicting two or more items of the items offered for sale;
-based at least in part on the inventory data and the image, and using a machine learning (ML) model trained on images of items associated with inventory items of merchants associated with the payment processing service, identifying, by the server computing device, in the image, a first portion of the image including a first item offered for sale by a first merchant and a second portion of the image including a second item offered for sale by a second merchant; and
-causing display, by the server computing device and via a display of a device, of (i) the image and (ii) a first selectable control overlayed onto the image within a threshold distance of at least one of the first item and the second item,
-wherein selection of the first selectable control causes at least first item information associated with the first item, second item information associated with the second item, and one or more second selectable controls to be overlayed onto the image the display, and
-wherein selection of a second selectable control of the one or more second selectable controls causes addition of at least one of the first item or the second item to a virtual cart
These limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application because:
The additional elements of claim 8 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 [0052] of Applicant’s specification – “In the context of software, the blocks represent computer-executable instructions stored on one or more computer-readable storage media that, when executed by processor(s), perform the recited operations. Generally, computer-executable instructions include routines, programs, objects, components, data structures, and the like that perform particular functions or implement particular abstract data types.” Specifically, the additional elements of one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions, one or more processors, an inventory database, a server computing device, a payment processing service, a trained machine learning (ML) model, a display of a device, a first selectable control, one or more second selectable controls, a second selectable control, and a virtual cart are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing the generic computer functions of obtaining data, identifying data, causing display of data, and selecting data, as well as, a generic database performing the generic functions of storing 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 8, 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 8. Examiner notes that claim 1 recites the additional elements of an inventory database, a server computing device, a payment processing service, a trained machine learning (ML) model, a display of a device, a first selectable control, one or more second selectable controls, a second selectable control, and a virtual cart, however, claim 1 does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons as claim 8 indicated above.
Claim 15 is a method reciting similar functions as claim 8. Examiner notes that claim 15 recites the additional elements of one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions, one or more processors, an inventory database, a server computing device, a payment processing service, a trained machine learning (ML) model, a display of a device, a first selectable control, one or more second selectable controls, a second selectable control, and a virtual cart, however, claim 15 does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons as claim 8 indicated above.
Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15 do not provide an inventive concept and do not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-14, and 16-21, 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 2-3, 5-7, 9-14, and 16-21 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas in that they recite commercial interactions. Dependent claims 5-6, 12-13, and 19-20 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, 7, 9-11, 14, 16-18, and 21 recite the additional elements of the second selectable control, the virtual cart, the server computing device, a third selectable control, a first computing device of the first merchant, a second computing device of the second merchant, the payment processing service, and the first selectable control, 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 2-3, 5-7, 9-14, and 16-21 are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above. Thus, dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-14, and 16-21 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Next, under Step 2B, similar to the analysis of claims 1, 8, and 15, dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-14, and 16-21 when analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, merely further define the commonplace business method (i.e. providing an image with items available for purchase for the user to buy) 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 § 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 1, 5-6, 8, 11-13, 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endresen et al. (US 8,719,104 B1), hereinafter Endresen, in view of Wang et al. (US 2016/0335688 A1), hereinafter Wang, in further view of Akhanov et al. (US 2019/0377461 A1), newly cited and hereinafter Akhanov.
Regarding claim 1, Endresen discloses a method comprising:
-storing, in an inventory database associated with a server computing device, inventory data associated with items offered for sale by a plurality of merchants, wherein the inventory data for an individual item of the items includes corresponding item information and at least one corresponding item image (Endresen, see at least: “site 106 hosts an electronic catalog 112 that includes one or more items 114(1), . . . , 114(N) [i.e. storing, in an inventory database associated with a server computing device, inventory data associated with items offered for sale]. An item includes anything that site 106 offers for purchase, rental, subscription, viewing, informative purposes or some other form of consumption” Col. 5 Ln. 2-7 and “For items such as books or music CDs, for example, electronic catalog 112 may contain a description, images of the product [i.e. wherein the inventory data for an individual item of the items includes corresponding item information and at least one corresponding item image], author/artist names, publication data, pricing, shipping information, and so forth. For other types of items, electronic catalog 112 may contain different information appropriate for those items” Col. 5 Ln. 18-23 and Fig. 4 indicates that each of the items in the image are from different merchants, such as the Hat being from “Hats R Us” and the scarf being from “Acme” [i.e. associated with items offered for sale by a plurality of merchants]);
-obtaining, by the server computing device, an image depicting two or more items of the items offered for sale (Endresen, see at least: “image 202 comprises a digital photograph a celebrity and, more particularly, a photograph of Halle Berry at the Academy Awards. One of users 102, site 106, or another entity may have provided this image [i.e. obtaining, by the server computing device, an image]. As illustrated, image 202 illustrates a hat 204, a jacket 206, a scarf 208 and a purse 210 [i.e. depicting two or more items of the items offered for sale]. Users 102, item-identification service 124, site 106 or another entity may have associated each of items 204-210 with an item in electronic catalog 112 and/or in one or more other electronic catalogs” Col. 7 Ln. 16-24);
-based at least in part on the inventory data and the image, and using image recognition on images of items associated with inventory items of merchants, identifying, by the server computing device, in the image, a first portion of the image including a first item offered for sale by a first merchant and a second portion of the image including a second item offered for sale by a second merchant (Endresen, see at least: “To allow for identification of the illustrated items, servers 110(1)-(N) also store or have access to an item-identification tool 122. Item-identification tool 122 enables users 102, an operator of site 106, or some other entity such as an item-identification service 204 to identify items illustrated within images 120(1)-(O) [i.e. and using image recognition on images of items associated with inventory items of merchants] and/or other items that are related to the illustrated items” Col. 5 Ln. 49-55 and “hat 202 may be associated with the same hat offered for purchase from electronic catalog 112 [i.e. based at least in part on the inventory data and the image, identifying, by the server computing device, in the image]. As such, image 202 may be tagged as being associated with this item in the electronic catalog [i.e. on images of items associated with inventory items of merchants]. Additionally or alternatively, an area that approximately frames hat 204 may be associated with a link to a page associated with hat 204. For instance, this area may be associated with a link to a page that includes details of hat 204, reviews of hat 204 or any other page that somehow relates to the illustrated hat” Col. 7 Ln. 27-35 and Fig. 4 indicates that each of the items in the image are from different merchants, such as the Hat being from “Hats R Us” and the scarf being from “Acme” [i.e. a first portion of the image including a first item offered for sale by a first merchant and a second portion of the image including a second item offered for sale by a second merchant]); and
-causing display, by the server computing device and via a display of a device, of (i) the image and (ii) a first selectable control (Endresen, see at least: “user interface 200 [i.e. causing display, by the server computing device] further includes functionality that allows a user to initiate acquisition of each of the items that have been associated with image 202 and/or information about these items. Here, this functionality comprises an icon 212 entitled "Buy it All" that [i.e. and (ii) a first selectable control], when selected, initiates acquisition of each of the associated items or information about these items” Col. 7 Ln. 35-37 and “one or more users 102 utilize computing devices 104 (1), . . . , 104(M) [i.e. and via a display of a device] to access a site 106 of a service provider via a network 108” Col. 4 Ln. 53-59 and user interface in Fig. 3 displays the image as well as the “Buy It All” icon 212 [i.e. causing display of (i) the image and (ii) a first selectable control]),
-wherein selection of the first selectable control causes at least first item information associated with the first item, second item information associated with the second item, and one or more second selectable controls to be presented in the display (Endresen, see at least: “FIG. 4 illustrates an example user interface 400 [i.e. to be presented in the display] that site 106 (or another site) may serve in response to the user selecting icon 212 [i.e. wherein selection of the first selectable control causes] from the UI of FIG. 2 or 3. As illustrated, the site allows the user to place each item in electronic catalog 112 that has been associated with image 202 into a shopping cart of the user [i.e. and one or more second selectable controls]. In some instances, site 106 serves user interface 400 in response to a single user input, such as selection of icon 212” Col. 9 Ln. 20-27 and “user interface 400 includes a list 402 of each of the items illustrated in and associated with image 202. This UI also includes a list 404 of prices of these individual items as well as a price of the collection of items [i.e. at least first item information associated with the first item, second item information associated with the second item]” Col. 9 Ln. 41-44 and “User interface 400 allows the user to add all or a portion of the listed items in a shopping cart of the user with the use of checkboxes and an icon 406 [i.e. and one or more second selectable controls]” Col. 9 Ln. 45-47 and Fig. 4), and
-wherein selection of a second selectable control of the one or more second selectable controls causes addition of at least one of the first item or the second item to a virtual cart (Endresen, see at least: “User interface 400 allows the user to add all or a portion of the listed items in a shopping cart of the user with the use of checkboxes and an icon 406 [i.e. wherein selection of a second selectable control of the one or more second selectable controls causes addition of at least one of the first item or the second item to a virtual cart]” Col. 9 Ln. 45-47 and Fig. 4).
Endresen does not explicitly disclose the server computing device being of a payment processing service; the merchants being associated with the payment processing service; and a first selectable control being overlayed onto the image within a threshold distance of at least one of the first item and the second item.
Wang, however, teaches determining multiple sellers for an item represented in an image (i.e. [0085]), including the known technique of storing, in an inventory database associated with a server computing device of a payment processing service, inventory data associated with items offered for sale by a plurality of merchants (Wang, see at least: “The seller 106 may provide to the management service 110 an item catalog listing one, some, or all of the items that the seller offers for sale [i.e. inventory data associated with inventory of at least one merchant of a plurality of merchants]. As discussed further below, the management service 110 may store the seller provided item catalog in the item catalog data store 115 [i.e. storing, in an inventory data structure associated with a server computing device of a payment processing service, inventory data]” [0039] and “a server system 100 that includes…one or more sellers 106, such as a Seller A 106(1), Seller B 106(2)-Seller C 106(N) [i.e. associated with items offered for sale by a plurality of merchants] communicatively connected via a network 108” [0035] and “the management service may facilitate a payment (e.g., via a third party payment processor) by the user for the item on behalf of the seller [i.e. of a payment processing service] and provide the seller with a payment confirmation” [0066] Examiner notes that the management service is a payment processing service as it prepares all the necessary purchase information of the customer for the particular purchase transaction, sends the information to a payment processor for confirmation that the payment is authorized);
the known technique of merchants associated with the payment processing service (Wang, see at least: “The seller 106 may provide to the management service 110 an item catalog listing one, some, or all of the items that the seller offers for sale [i.e. merchants associated with the payment processing service]. As discussed further below, the management service 110 may store the seller provided item catalog in the item catalog data store 115” [0039] and “the management service may facilitate a payment (e.g., via a third party payment processor) by the user for the item on behalf of the seller [i.e. merchants associated with the payment processing service] and provide the seller with a payment confirmation” [0066] Examiner notes that the management service is a payment processing service as it prepares all the necessary purchase information of the customer for the particular purchase transaction, sends the information to a payment processor for confirmation that the payment is authorized); and
the known technique of a first selectable control overlayed onto the image within a threshold distance of at least one of the first item and the second item (Wang, see at least: “FIG. 10 is a representation of a segmented image 1000 presented on a display of a client device 1004 with purchase controls associated with objects of the image that are determined to be items offered for sale by one or more sellers, according to an implementation. For each item determined in the segmented image to be available for purchase from one or more sellers, a purchase control may be presented near the determined item that is selectable by the user [i.e. a first selectable control within a threshold distance of at least one of the first item and the second item]” [0089] and Fig. 10 displays that each purchase control is overlaid on the segmented part of the image associated with a corresponding item [i.e. a first selectable control overlayed onto the image within a threshold distance of at least one of the first item and the second item]). These known techniques are applicable to the method of Endresen as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to determining multiple sellers for an item represented in an image.
It would have been recognized that applying the known techniques of storing, in an inventory database associated with a server computing device of a payment processing service, inventory data associated with items offered for sale by a plurality of merchants; merchants associated with the payment processing service; and a first selectable control overlayed onto the image within a threshold distance of at least one of the first item and the second item, as taught by Wang, to the teachings of Endresen 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 storing, in an inventory database associated with a server computing device of a payment processing service, inventory data associated with items offered for sale by a plurality of merchants; merchants associated with the payment processing service; and a first selectable control overlayed onto the image within a threshold distance of at least one of the first item and the second item, as taught by Wang, into the method of Endresen would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would enable a seller to offer items for sale directly and as a merchant through a management service without having to maintain separate inventory, manually update information with the management service, and/or manage orders from the management service (Wang, [0026]).
Endresen in view of Wang does not explicitly teach using a machine learning (ML) model trained on the images of items; and selection of the first selectable control causing one or more second selectable controls to be overlayed onto the image in the display.
Akhanov, however, teaches generating an interactive image file (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of using a machine learning (ML) model trained on images of items, identifying in the image, a first portion of the image including a first item and a second portion of the image including a second item (Akhanov, see at least: “Generation of a file (e.g. an interactive file) may be facilitated by … artificial intelligence (e.g. neural-network based semantic image segmentation, Mask R-CNN) [i.e. using a machine learning (ML) model trained on images of items]” [0067] and “FIGS. 8A and 8B illustrate an example embodiment of an application of an interactive file. A viewport and/or interactive file display area 800 may display an image. An image may comprise a person 810 and/or objects 812, 814, 816, 818. [i.e. identifying in the image, a first portion of the image including a first item and a second portion of the image including a second item] A person 810 and/or object 812, 814, 816, 818 may be selectable by a user via a touchscreen or clicking on a person and/or object with a mouse cursor 820” [0092] and “an input non-interactive media file (e.g. an image file) may be locally processed (e.g. with an image segmentation algorithm) and/or sent to a third party network for further processing and/or data generation (e.g. associate segments of the image with appropriate objects, merchandise [i.e. using a machine learning (ML) model trained on images of items, identifying in the image, a first portion of the image including a first item and a second portion of the image including a second item], people, users, location, information, etc.)” [0045] and “the interaction server 620 and/or interaction service environment 600 may send real-time information to a user device upon user interaction with an interactive file (for example, a user may request a search of a displayed item, and/or request purchase of a displayed item)” [0081]); and
the known technique of selection of the first selectable control causing one or more second selectable controls to be overlayed onto the image in the display (Akhanov, see at least: “FIGS. 8A and 8B illustrate an example embodiment of an application of an interactive file. A viewport and/or interactive file display area 800 may display an image. An image may comprise a person 810 and/or objects 812, 814, 816, 818. A person 810 and/or object 812, 814, 816, 818 may be selectable by a user via a touchscreen or clicking on a person and/or object with a mouse cursor 820. [i.e. selection of the first selectable control] A graphical and/or visual indicator 880 (e.g. a “P”, which may indicate interactive file format) that the displayed and/or outputted media content is interactive may also be present” [0092] and “Once a trigger event occurs, such as a user click action [i.e. wherein selection of the first selectable control causes], the displayed interactive file may transition from a first display state (e.g. a “default” and/or un-triggered image display state, corresponding to FIG. 8A) to a second display state (e.g. a “modified” and/or triggered image display state, corresponding to FIG. 8B). For example, a second display state may graphically present further interaction options to a user within an interaction window 840 [i.e. causes one or more second selectable controls to be overlayed onto the image in the display]. In this example, after a user clicks on a hat object 812 worn by a person 810 in the displayed media content of the interactive file, a search box 840 is presented, which may search for hats generally, similar hats, hats in the same price range, hats nearby, hats of the same color, etc. Searched hats 842, 860, 862, 864 may be displayed and scrolled through via an interaction element 844, such a scroll bar. Additional search functionality may be provided, such as a textual search bar 846 and/or a search filter 848” [0093] and Fig. 8B displays that the interactive window 840 is overlaid over the image [i.e. causes one or more second selectable controls to be overlayed onto the image in the display]). This known technique is applicable to the method of Endresen in view of Wang as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to generating an interactive image file.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of using a machine learning (ML) model trained on images of items, identifying in the image, a first portion of the image including a first item and a second portion of the image including a second item; and selection of the first selectable control causing one or more second selectable controls to be overlayed onto the image in the display, as taught by Akhanov, to the teachings of Endresen in view of Wang 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 using a machine learning (ML) model trained on images of items, identifying in the image, a first portion of the image including a first item and a second portion of the image including a second item; and selection of the first selectable control causing one or more second selectable controls to be overlayed onto the image in the display, as taught by Akhanov, into the method of Endresen in view of Wang would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would provide increased flexibility on the types of interactive content and interaction mechanisms provided with media files (Akhanov, [0102]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Endresen/Wang/Akhanov teaches the method of claim 1. Endresen further discloses:
-wherein item information for an individual item of the items comprises (i) a description of the individual item, (ii) a cost of the individual item, and (iii) a characteristic associated with the individual item (Endresen, see at least: “user interface 400 includes a list 402 of each of the items illustrated in and associated with image 202. This UI also includes a list 404 of prices of these individual items as well as a price of the collection of items [i.e. wherein item information for an individual item of the items comprises (ii) a cost of the individual item]” Col. 9 Ln. 41-44 and interface 400 in Fig. 4 displays the prices [i.e. (ii) a cost of the individual item], seller, and size and/or color of the items [i.e. wherein item information for an individual item of the items comprises (i) a description of the individual item and (iii) a characteristic associated with the individual item]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Endresen/Wang/Akhanov teaches the method of claim 1. Endresen further discloses:
-wherein obtaining the image depicting the two or more items of the items offered for sale comprises obtaining the image from at least one of the first merchant or the second merchant (Endresen, see at least: “image 202 comprises a digital photograph a celebrity and, more particularly, a photograph of Halle Berry at the Academy Awards. One of users 102, site 106 [i.e. from at least one of the first merchant or the second merchant], or another entity may have provided this image [i.e. obtaining, by the server computing device, an image]. As illustrated, image 202 illustrates a hat 204, a jacket 206, a scarf 208 and a purse 210 [i.e. depicting two or more items of the items offered for sale]. Users 102, item-identification service 124, site 106 or another entity may have associated each of items 204-210 with an item in electronic catalog 112 and/or in one or more other electronic catalogs” Col. 7 Ln. 16-24 and “Site 106 can be any type of site that supports user interaction, including online retailers [i.e. from at least one of the first merchant or the second merchant], informational sites, social networking sites, blog sites, search engine sites, news and entertainment sites, and so forth” Col. 4 Ln. 64-67 & Col. 5 Ln. 1).
Claims 8 and 12-13 recite limitations directed towards a system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to perform actions (Endresen, see at least: “Illustrated servers 110(1)-(N) have processing capabilities and memory suitable to store and execute computer-executable instructions. In this example, server(s) 110 include one or more processors 902 and memory 904. Memory 904 may include volatile and nonvolatile memory, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information, such as computer-readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or other data” Col. 12 Ln. 36-44). The rest of the limitations recited in claims 8 and 12-13 are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claims 1 and 5-6, respectively, and are therefore rejected for those same reasons set forth above in claims 1 and 5-6, respectively.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Endresen/Wang/Akhanov teaches the system of claim 8.
Endresen does not explicitly disclose the payment processing service processing payments for transactions associated with the plurality of merchants.
Wang further teaches determining multiple sellers for an item represented in an image (i.e. [0085]), including the known technique of the payment processing service processing payments for transactions associated with the plurality of merchants (Wang, see at least: “the management service may facilitate a payment (e.g., via a third party payment processor) by the user for the item on behalf of the seller [i.e. wherein the payment processing service processes payments for transactions] and provide the seller with a payment confirmation” [0066] and “The server system 100 may also be configured to exchange information with one or more sellers 106 [i.e. associated with the plurality of merchants]. The sellers 106 may include any type of entity and/or individual(s) that offers items for sale. For example, sellers 106 may include e-commerce websites that sells and delivers items, a service offering, a traditional retail or wholesale store, etc.” [0038] and “the sellers 106 may interact with the management service 110 and provide and/or update an item catalog listing items offered for sale by the seller [i.e. associated with the plurality of merchants]” [0039] and Examiner notes that the management service is a payment processing service as it prepares all the necessary purchase information of the customer for the particular purchase transaction, sends the information to a payment processor for confirmation that the payment is authorized). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Endresen with Wang for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 8.
Claims 15 and 19-20 recite limitations directed towards one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by one or more processors that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform actions (Endresen, see at least: “Illustrated servers 110(1)-(N) have processing capabilities and memory suitable to store and execute computer-executable instructions. In this example, server(s) 110 include one or more processors 902 and memory 904. Memory 904 may include volatile and nonvolatile memory, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information, such as computer-readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or other data” Col. 12 Ln. 36-44). The rest of the limitations recited in claims 15 and 19-20 are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claims 1 and 5-6, respectively, and are therefore rejected for those same reasons set forth above in claims 1 and 5-6, respectively.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Endresen/Wang/Akhanov teaches the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 15.
Endresen does not explicitly disclose the payment processing service processing payments for transactions associated with the plurality of merchants.
Wang further teaches determining multiple sellers for an item represented in an image (i.e. [0085]), including the known technique of the payment processing service processing payments for transactions associated with the plurality of merchants (Wang, see at least: “the management service may facilitate a payment (e.g., via a third party payment processor) by the user for the item on behalf of the seller [i.e. wherein the payment processing service processes payments for transactions] and provide the seller with a payment confirmation” [0066] and “The server system 100 may also be configured to exchange information with one or more sellers 106 [i.e. associated with the plurality of merchants]. The sellers 106 may include any type of entity and/or individual(s) that offers items for sale. For example, sellers 106 may include e-commerce websites that sells and delivers items, a service offering, a traditional retail or wholesale store, etc.” [0038] and “the sellers 106 may interact with the management service 110 and provide and/or update an item catalog listing items offered for sale by the seller [i.e. associated with the plurality of merchants]” [0039] and Examiner notes that the management service is a payment processing service as it prepares all the necessary purchase information of the customer for the particular purchase transaction, sends the information to a payment processor for confirmation that the payment is authorized). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Endresen with Wang for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 15.
Claims 2-3, 9-10, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endresen, in view of Wang, in further view of Akhanov, in further view of Bhosle et al. (US 9,189,811 B1), hereinafter Bhosle.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Endresen/Wang/Akhanov teaches the method of claim 1. Endresen further discloses:
-wherein selection of the second selectable control causes addition of the first item and the second item to the virtual cart (Endresen, see at least: “User interface 400 allows the user to add all or a portion of the listed items in a shopping cart [i.e. causes addition of the first item and the second item to the virtual cart] of the user with the use of checkboxes and an icon 406 [i.e. wherein selection of the second selectable control causes]” Col. 9 Ln. 45-47 and Fig. 4), the method further comprising:
-responsive to receiving an indication of selection of the second selectable control, adding, by the server computing device, the first item and the second item to the virtual cart (Endresen, see at least: “User interface 400 allows the user to add all or a portion of the listed items in a shopping cart of the user with the use of checkboxes and an icon 406 [i.e. responsive to receiving an indication of selection of the second selectable control]” Col. 9 Ln. 45-47 and “Once the user has selected the desired items, the user may again select icon 406 to place the selected items in the shopping cart of the user [i.e. adding, by the server computing device, the first item and the second item to the virtual cart]” Col. 11 Ln. 22-24 and Fig. 4).
The combination of Endresen/Wang/Akhanov does not teach, responsive to receiving an indication of selection of a third selectable control, processing, by the server computing device, a payment for the first item and the second item on behalf of the first merchant and the second merchant based at least in part on the first item information and the second item information.
Bhosle, however, teaches using a virtual shopping cart to purchase items online (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of, responsive to receiving an indication of selection of a third selectable control, processing, by the server computing device, a payment for the first item and the second item on behalf of the first merchant and the second merchant based at least in part on the first item information and the second item information (Bhosle, see at least: “The interface 500 may also include a proceed-to-checkout button 532 [i.e. responsive to receiving an indication of selection of a third selectable control] to enable navigation to another interface that may be used to process a payment for selected items in the cart 104 [i.e. processing, by the server computing device, a payment for the first item and the second item on behalf of the first merchant and the second merchant based at least in part on the first item information and the second item information]” Col. 8 Ln. 27-30 and “At 918, the cart utilities module 126 may process payment for selected items in the cart 104 and a respective merchant of purchased items [i.e. on behalf of the first merchant and the second merchant] to initiate fulfillment of the item and/or other related tasks” Col. 14 Ln. 3-6 and “the checkout process may be hosted by a third party that offers a payment processing system [i.e. on behalf of the first merchant and the second merchant]. After a transaction for the items, the merchant initiates fulfillment of the purchased items” Col. 1 Ln. 41-44 Examiner notes that the payment is processed based on the price shown in Fig. 6 [i.e. based at least in part on the first item information and the second item information]). This known technique is applicable to the method of the combination of Endresen/Wang/Akhanov as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to using a virtual shopping cart to purchase items online.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of, responsive to receiving an indication of selection of a third selectable control, processing, by the server computing device, a payment for the first item and the second item on behalf of the first merchant and the second merchant based at least in part on the first item information and the second item information, as taught by Bhosle, to the teachings of the combination of Endresen/Wang/Akhanov 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, responsive to receiving an indication of selection of a third selectable control, processing, by the server computing device, a payment for the first item and the second item on behalf of the first merchant and the second merchant based at least in part on the first item information and the second item information, as taught by Bhosle, into the method of the combination of Endresen/Wang/Akhanov would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would enable a user to purchase items from multiple merchants in a single virtual shopping cart (Bhosle, Col. 3 Ln. 7-11).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Endresen/Wang/Akhanov/Bhosle teaches the method of claim 2. Endresen further discloses:
The combination of Endresen/Wang/Akhanov does not teach in response to processing the payment: sending, by the server computing device to a first computing device of the first merchant, a first instruction to facilitate fulfillment of the first item; and sending, by the server computing device to a second computing device of the second merchant, a second instruction to facilitate fulfillment of the second item.
Bhosle further teaches using a virtual shopping cart to purchase items online (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of, in response to processing the payment: sending, by the server computing device to a first computing device of the first merchant, a first instruction to facilitate fulfillment of the first item (Bhosle, see at least: “the checkout process may be hosted by a third party that offers a payment processing system. After a transaction for the items [i.e. in response to processing the payment:], the merchant initiates fulfillment of the purchased items” Col. 1 Ln. 41-44) and “When the user is finished shopping, the user may purchase the items in the cart in a single transaction. A host of the cart may then transmit payment information to the merchants associated with the respective purchased items to initiate fulfillment of the items to the user [i.e. sending, by the server computing device to a first computing device of the first merchant, a first instruction to facilitate fulfillment of the first item]” Col. 3 Ln. 7-11 and Fig. 6 indicates that the universal cart includes items from different merchants); and
the known technique of, in response to processing the payment: sending, by the server computing device to a second computing device of the second merchant, a second instruction to facilitate fulfillment of the second item (Bhosle, see at least: “the checkout process may be hosted by a third party that offers a payment processing system. After a transaction for the items [i.e. in response to processing the payment:], the merchant initiates fulfillment of the purchased items” Col. 1 Ln. 41-44) and “When the user is finished shopping, the user may purchase the items in the cart in a single transaction. A host of the cart may then transmit payment information to the merchants associated with the respective purchased items to initiate fulfillment of the items to the user [i.e. sending, by the server computing device to a second computing device of the second merchant, a second instruction to facilitate fulfillment of the second item]” Col. 3 Ln. 7-11 and Fig. 6 indicates that the universal cart includes items from different merchants [i.e. second merchant]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Endresen/Wang/Akhanov with Bhosle for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 2.
Claims 9-10 recite limitations directed towards a system. The rest of the limitations recited in claims 9-10 are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claims 2-3, respectively, and are therefore rejected for those same reasons set forth above in claims 2-3, respectively.
Claims 16-17 recite limitations directed towards one or more non-transitory computer-readable media. The rest of the limitations recited in claims 16-17 are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claims 2-3, respectively, and are therefore rejected for those same reasons set forth above in claims 2-3, respectively.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endresen, in view of Wang, in further view of Akhanov, in further view of Collins et al. (US 2016/0086257 A1), hereinafter Collins.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Endresen/Wang/Akhanov teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination of Endresen/Wang/Akhanov does not teach identifying, by the server computing device, a third portion of the image including a third item, wherein the server computing device refrains from displaying third item information associated with the third item upon selection of the first selectable control.
Collins, however, teaches facilitating purchase of multiple sale items from within digital media (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of identifying, by the server computing device, a third portion of the image including a third item, wherein the server computing device refrains from displaying third item information associated with the third item upon selection of the first selectable control (Collins, see at least: “If there are multiple sale items 17 on display, a respective number of sale item indicators 17 preferably are displayed [i.e. identifying, by the server computing device, a third portion of the image including a third item] when the indicator element 18 is activated. When a consumer clicks on the “P” icon 18 with a mouse, touchscreen, touchpad or the like, the system 10 displays the sale item indicator 17 next to the helmet 11 which indicates to the consumer that the helmet 11 is purchasable through the interactive digital content 19. While one sales item indicator 17 is preferably associated with a single sales item 11, a single sale item indicator 17 also might be associated with a group or collection of sales items 11 [i.e. upon selection of the first selectable control] being displayed” [0029] and “When the indicator element 18 (FIGS. 1A and 1B) is activated, the digital media application identifies 203 a tag of the interactive digital content 19 [i.e. identifying, by the server computing device, a third portion of the image including a third item]” [0058] and “when the sales item indicator 17 is clicked or otherwise activated, a dynamic interactive digital element 24 is displayed on the GUI 14. The dynamic interactive digital element 24, for example, preferably is displayed in the form of a dynamic lightbox 24 that displays the retrieved sale item information” [0031] and Fig. 1B indicates that only the item data associated with the sale item indicator 17 is displayed in dynamic interactive digital element 24 [i.e. wherein the server computing device refrains from displaying third item information associated with the third item upon selection of the first selectable control]). This known technique is applicable to the method of the combination of Endresen/Wang/Akhanov as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to facilitating purchase of multiple sale items from within digital media.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of identifying, by the server computing device, a third portion of the image including a third item, wherein the server computing device refrains from displaying third item information associated with the third item upon selection of the first selectable control, as taught by Collins, to the teachings of the combination of Endresen/Wang/Akhanov 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 identifying, by the server computing device, a third portion of the image including a third item, wherein the server computing device refrains from displaying third item information associated with the third item upon selection of the first selectable control, as taught by Collins, into the method of the combination of Endresen/Wang/Akhanov would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would improve the display of interactive digital content within digital media (Collins, [0006]).
Claim 14 recites limitations directed towards a system. The rest of the limitations recited in claim 14 are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 7, and are therefore rejected for those same reasons set forth above in claim 7.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endresen, in view of Wang, in further view of Akhanov, in further view of Scoglio et al. (US 2015/0170245 A1), hereinafter Scoglio.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Endresen/Wang/Akhanov teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination of Endresen/Wang/Akhanov does not explicitly teach causing display of (iii) a visual representation of the virtual cart and wherein selection of the second selectable control causes a visual representation of at least one of the first item or the second item added to the virtual cart to be displayed in the visual representation of the virtual cart.
Scoglio, however, teaches providing a representative image corresponding to the scene and item identifiers of at least one item included in the scene that are available for purchase (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of causing display of (iii) a visual representation of the virtual cart and wherein selection of the second selectable control causes a visual representation of at least one of the first item or the second item added to the virtual cart to be displayed in the visual representation of the virtual cart (Scoglio, see at least: “The item information interface element 66 may also include "Add to Cart" button 70 [i.e. wherein selection of the second selectable control] or other widget that provides the user with the opportunity to purchase the item through the inspector application 52” [0045] and “FIG. 2D illustrates an exemplary user interface 50 of the inspector application 52 including a shopping cart feature. As an example, the inspector application 52 may display a shopping cart interface element 78 [i.e. causing display of (iii) a visual representation of the virtual cart] such as a widget, window or panel. Similar to the item widget, the shopping cart widget may be a new screen or window, slide-out panel, image overlay such as that provided by the Lightbox overlay JavaScript distributed by Lokesh Dhakar, or the like. The inspector application 52 may be configured to display the shopping cart interface element 78 responsive to the addition of items to a shopping cart of the user (e.g., through use of the "Add to Cart" button 70 discussed above) [i.e. and wherein selection of the second selectable control causes a visual representation of at least one of the first item or the second item added to the virtual cart to be displayed in the visual representation of the virtual cart]” [0050] and Fig. 2D). This known technique is applicable to the method of the combination of Endresen/Wang/Akhanov as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing a representative image corresponding to the scene and item identifiers of at least one item included in the scene that are available for purchase.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of causing display of (iii) a visual representation of the virtual cart and wherein selection of the second selectable control causes a visual representation of at least one of the first item or the second item added to the virtual cart to be displayed in the visual representation of the virtual cart, as taught by Scoglio, to the teachings of the combination of Endresen/Wang/Akhanov 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 causing display of (iii) a visual representation of the virtual cart and wherein selection of the second selectable control causes a visual representation of at least one of the first item or the second item added to the virtual cart to be displayed in the visual representation of the virtual cart, as taught by Scoglio, into the method of the combination of Endresen/Wang/Akhanov would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method that would allow the user to perform various operations based on the displayed content (Scoglio, [0015]).
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant does not concede that the claims recite an abstract idea, but respectfully submits that even if the claims do recite a qualifying abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two, and thus the claims are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A. Applicant respectfully submits that the instant claims improve the technological field of user interfaces (Remarks, pages 10-11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements 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). Merely reciting that the selectable controls are overlaid onto the image without reciting the technical details of what the selectable controls are and how the selectable controls are overlaid (i.e. embedding data, compressing data, etc.). Accordingly the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant further argues that the recited claims are similar to Core Wireless as the process that amended claim 1 recites allows for the functionality of a user interface to cause the display of an image that depicts two or more items that are available for purchase and a first selectable control overlayed onto the image within a threshold distance of a first and second item for sale. Selection of the selectable control by the user then causes item information relating to the first item and the second item to be displayed and one or more second selectable controls that, when selected, allow the user to add either item or both to a virtual cart. As in Core Wireless, the instant claims recite improved mechanisms for a user to efficiently review selected information. Where Core Wireless presents application summary data and launches an application, the instant claims present selectable controls, overlayed onto specific sellable items, that can be used to receive additional information related to those items as well as select one or both of the items for purchase. In addition, new claim 21 further provides for a visual representation of the virtual cart to be displayed and when one or more of the items are selected via the second selectable controls, the visual representation of the virtual cart will display the visual representation of the selected items (Remarks, pages 11-12).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Core Wireless, the claims were found eligible because the actual interface, which is part of a technological field, is improved. Core Wireless describes that “The asserted claims in this case are directed to an improved user interface for computing devices…Claim 1 of the '476 patent requires “an application summary that can be reached directly from the menu,” specifying a particular manner by which the summary window must be accessed. The claim further requires the application summary window list a limited set of data, “each of the data in the list being selectable to launch the respective application and enable the selected data to be seen within the respective application.” This claim limitation restrains the type of data that can be displayed in the summary window. Finally, the claim recites that the summary window “is displayed while the one or more applications are in an un-launched state,” a requirement that the device applications exist in a particular state. These limitations disclose a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user, rather than using conventional user interface methods to display a generic index on a computer. Like the improved systems claimed in Enfish, Thales, Visual Memory, and Finjan, these claims recite a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices.” In Core Wireless the claims recite specific limitations that improve the interface. Unlike Core Wireless, the current claims merely recite that the selectable controls are overlaid onto the image and that selection causes display of a visual representation of a virtual cart without reciting the technical details of what the selectable controls are, how the selectable controls are overlaid, and how the virtual cart is updated and displayed. Accordingly the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant further cites to Ex Parte Desjardins (Remarks, pages 13-14).
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the case of Ex Parte Desjardins is similar to the current case. In Ex parte Desjardins, the specification identified a technical problem. The solution to this technical problem is reflected in the claims as the claims recite "adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task." Unlike Ex parte Desjardins, the claims do not recite an improvement to the interface. Accordingly the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant further argues that, Under Step 2B and as described above with respect to Step 2A, Applicant's claims do recite additional elements that provide technical improvements (Remarks, pages 14-15).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed in response to the arguments above, the claim fails to reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field. Accordingly the claims do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that, Under Step 2B, additional elements recited in a claim can show that the claim includes "significantly more" than an identified abstract idea if an additional element, or a combination of elements, is not "well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field." See MPEP § 2106.05. The claim elements of the instant claims recite non-conventional activity at least because it is unconventional to modify a user interface by overlaying a first selectable control onto an image that, when selected, provides information associated with items that may be purchased in the image, and further modifies the user interface by overlaying a second selectable control onto the image that allows a user to select one or more of the purchasable items, and add the selected items to a virtual cart for purchase. Each of these non-conventional aspects, taken separately, illustrates that the claims represent an inventive concept. However, Applicant respectfully submits that these features, even if any of them is individually conventional, represent an inventive concept in combination, and therefore the claims represent significantly more than the abstract idea (Remarks, page 15).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements 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) and 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). Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually. Additionally, as is described in the MPEP 2106.05(II) (i.e. “Thus, in Step 2B, examiners should: … Re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant”), step 2B considers whether additional elements concluded to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A are more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Examiner did not identify any of the additional elements as insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A so there weren’t elements to be evaluated in terms of whether they are more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Additionally, the courts consider the determination of whether a claim is eligible (which involves identifying whether an exception such as an abstract idea is being claimed) to be a question of law, not a question of novelty. While the second step of the Alice analysis does consider whether the functions being performed are well-understood, routine, or conventional (and therefore, not considered to amount to significantly more), the question of whether a claim is eligible under 101 is based on determining whether an abstract idea has been claimed, and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually.
Accordingly, the claims are ineligible.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103
Applicant argues that Endresen does not teach or suggest "based at least in part on the inventory data and the image, and using a machine learning (ML) model trained on images of items associated with inventory items of merchants associated with the payment processing service, identifying, by the server computing device, in the image, a first portion of the image including a first item offered for sale by a first merchant and a second portion of the image including a second item offered for sale by a second merchant," as recited in amended claim 1. Wang does not remedy this deficiency of Endresen. Consequently, at least this feature of amended claim 1 would not have been obvious in view of Endresen and Wang (Remarks, pages 16-17).
Applicant’s argument has been considered but is moot because this arguments does not apply to the current combination of references being used to teach this amended feature.
Applicant further argues that Wang does not teach or suggest, "a first selectable control overlayed onto the image within a threshold distance of at least one of the first item and the second item," as recited in amended claim 1. Endresen does not remedy this deficiency of Wang. Consequently, at least this feature of amended claim 1 would not have been obvious in view of Endresen and Wang (Remarks, page 17).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Wang teaches that purchase controls are overlaid near [i.e. overlayed onto the image within a threshold distance] a corresponding segmented part of the image associated with a corresponding item (see Wang, [0089] and Fig. 10). Accordingly, Wang teaches this argued feature.
Applicant further argues that Wang does not teach or suggest, "one or more second selectable controls to be overlayed onto the image in the display," as recited in amended claim 1. Endresen does not remedy this deficiency of Wang. Consequently, at least this feature of amended claim 1 would not have been obvious in view of Endresen and Wang (Remarks, page 17).
Applicant’s argument has been considered but is moot because this arguments does not apply to the current combination of references being used to teach this amended feature.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Forss et al. (US 2017/0270582 A1) teaches identifying and providing user interface features based on a captured image .
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights