DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the claims integrate any such idea into a practical application” and “directed to improvements in the display of information on devices having limited display capability” because “the number of products to display is determined "based on the available display area of the UI of the certain user device," and the number of groups is determined "based on the certain number," citing Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, 880 F.3d 1356, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
However, this improvement is extremely similar to the ones argued in both International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc., (Fed. Cir. No. 2021-2350, Oct. 17, 2022) (responding to a user's selection of a portion of a displayed map by simultaneously updating the map and a co-displayed list of items on the map held ineligible) and Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (displaying a second set of data without interfering with a first set of data held ineligible).
The Remarks do not set forth any similar technical aspects of the claimed invention that overcome problems with previous interfaces. It is not clear how in any way the claims are improving on conventional user interfaces. They merely apply the conventional ability to display data in the context of an abstract scheme for displaying information to the user.
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (a judicial exception without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 2-21 each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 2 recites a method. Claim 10 recites a system. Claim 16 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 2 recites the abstract idea of selecting products for display to a user. This idea is described by the following steps:
A method comprising:
accessing a plurality of downloadable products that are available for downloading, wherein the plurality of downloadable products are categorized into two or more categories;
determining a plurality of groups for grouping the plurality of downloadable products;
associating, based on the two or more categories, the plurality of downloadable products into respective groups of the plurality of groups; and
selecting a certain group of the plurality of groups to provide to a certain user.
Claims 10 and 16 recite equivalent limitations.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that they recite selecting products for a user, i.e., commercial interactions.
Step 2A, prong 2: Claims 10 and 16 recite additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Claims 10 and 16 recite a processor and non-transitory memory storing instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the computing system to perform operations. However, these elements are generic computing components (see at least paragraphs 057-059) that are simply used to perform operations that would otherwise be abstract (see MPEP2106.05(f)).
Claims 2, 10 and 16 also recites that the “selecting” is based on and available display area of a certain user device. However, these limitations are considered insignificant extra solution activity as they amount to necessary data gathering and outputting, wherein all uses of the recited abstract idea require such data gathering (i.e. selecting products) and data output (i.e. displaying said products) (see2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: Claims 2, 10 and 16 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept.
For the reasons identified with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, claims 2, 10 and 16 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For example, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claims 2, 10 and 16 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 2, 10 and 16 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. See MPEP 2106.05.
With respect to the limitations determined to be insignificant extra solution activity, these elements are similar to at least the following concepts determined by the courts to be insignificant extra solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information). For example, at least paragraph 31 describes a network system that facilitates a request for services received from a user including a selection of a merchant.
Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. For example, at least paragraph 107describes presenting an offer for an add-on order to be added to a primary order.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea identified at step 2A—Prong One, without changing the analysis already presented. Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims identified at step 2A—Prong Two.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. These do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known components for the same reasons presented with respect to the elements in the independent claims above.
Thus, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, the claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-21 remain allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of:
accessing a plurality of downloadable products that are available for downloading from a server to one or more user devices, wherein the plurality of downloadable products are categorized into two or more categories; determining a plurality of groups for grouping the plurality of downloadable products, wherein one or more of the plurality of groups are for displaying on user interfaces (UIs) of the one or more user devices; associating, based on the two or more categories, the plurality of downloadable products into respective groups of the plurality of groups; and selecting, based on an available display area of a UI of a certain user device, a certain group of the plurality of groups to provide to the certain user device for displaying on the UI of the certain user device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILA AIRAPETIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3202. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/MILA AIRAPETIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights