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 .
1. Continuity: This filed 09/04/2024 is a Continuation of 18090350 , filed 12/28/2022 ,now U.S. Patent # 12106349, 18090350 is a Continuation of 15949914 , filed 04/10/2018 ,now U.S. Patent # 11544757 and 15949914 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 62484120 , filed 04/11/2017 15949914 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 62559219 , filed 09/15/2017.
Election/Restrictions
2. Claims 37-40 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected non-elected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/15/2026..
Applicant’s election of species II in the elected invention in the reply filed on 05/15/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement of the species, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Accordingly, claims 22,28, and 37-40 are withdrawn.
Claims 21, 23-27, 29-36 filed 11/11/2024 are pending for examination. If the claim 21 is found allowable then the withdrawn dependent claims 22 and 28 will be reinstated.
Double Patenting
3. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21, 23-27, 29-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-7, 9-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,106,349, hereinafter Patent” 349 and claims 21, 23-27, 29-31, 33-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-7, 9—14 of the US Patent# 11544757 B2, hereinafter Patent” 757. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite the similar computer implemented steps, see the comparison below, of the underlined limitations of independent claim 21 of the instant Application and the highlighted limitations in italics of the claim 1 of the Patent” 349 and the claim 1 of the Patent’ 757, the only difference is that the term “product” is used in the instant application instead of “jewelry” in the Patent” 349 and “gem/diamond” in the Patent’757. All the functional steps used are same, which do not render them patentably distinct from each other. Such difference in terminology, do not render the claims patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 21 of the instant Application:
21. (Previously Presented) A computer-implemented method of operating a search interface of a product selection system, the method comprising:
generating an interactive search interface for display on a remote portal presented on a display of a client device, the interactive search interface comprising:
selectable graphical representations of a set of product features; and
selectable search categories, each search category having multiple selectable options corresponding to a product feature;
receiving, from the remote portal, a selection of a first product feature of the set of product features;
receiving, from the remote portal, a selection of a first selectable option of a first search category corresponding to the first product feature;
determining a set of search parameters at least partially based on a first jewelry feature and the first selectable option;
retrieving a first set of product listings from a database of the product selection system using the set of search parameters;
generating, for display on the remote portal, a first set of listing cards, each listing card of the first set of listing cards corresponding to a respective product listing of the first set of product listings;
displaying a first listing card of the first set of listing cards on the remote portal, the first listing card corresponding to a first product listing of the first set of product listings and depicting an image of a product and one or more product features of the product;
receiving a directional input over the first listing card, the directional input having an input direction, the input direction indicating a user preference regarding the first product listing;
in accordance with receiving the directional input, incrementing a modification metric in accordance with the user preference; and
in response to the modification metric exceeding a threshold: determining a set of updated search parameters;
automatically obtaining a second set of product listings from the database using the determined set of updated search parameters;
generating, for display on the remote portal, a second set of listing cards,
each listing card of the second set of listing cards corresponding to a respective product listing of the second set of product listings, the second set of listing cards having a presentation order determined in accordance with the determined set of updated search parameters; and
displaying a listing card of the second set of listing cards on the remote portal.
Claim 1 of the Patent’349:
1. A computer-implemented method of operating a search interface of a jewelry selection system, the method comprising:
generating an interactive search interface for display on a remote portal presented on a touchscreen display of a client device, the interactive search interface comprising:
selectable graphical representations of a set of jewelry features; and
selectable search categories, each search category having multiple selectable options corresponding to a jewelry feature;
receiving, from the remote portal, a selection of a first jewelry feature of the set of jewelry features;
receiving, from the remote portal, a selection of a first selectable option of a first search category corresponding to a first jewelry feature;
determining a set of search parameters at least partially based on the first jewelry feature and the first selectable option;
retrieving a first set of jewelry listings from a database of the jewelry selection system using the set of search parameters;
generating, for display on the remote portal, a first set of listing cards, each listing card of the first set of listing cards corresponding to a respective jewelry listing of the first set of jewelry listings;
displaying a first listing card of the first set of listing cards on the remote portal, the first listing card corresponding to a first jewelry listing of the first set of jewelry listings and depicting an image of a jewelry and one or more jewelry features of the jewelry;
receiving a swipe gesture over the first listing card, the swipe gesture having a gesture direction, the gesture direction indicating a user preference regarding the first jewelry listing;
in accordance with receiving the swipe gesture, incrementing a modification metric in accordance with the user preference; and
in response to the modification metric exceeding a threshold:
determining a set of updated search parameters;
automatically obtaining a second set of jewelry listings from the database using the determined set of updated search parameters;
generating, for display on the remote portal, a second set of listing cards, each listing card of the second set of listing cards corresponding to a respective jewelry listing of the second set of jewelry listings, the second set of listing cards having a presentation order determined in accordance with the determined set of updated search parameters; and displaying a listing card of the second set of listing cards on the remote portal.
Claim 1 of the Patent’ 757:
1. A computer-implemented method of operating a diamond search interface of a diamond selection system, the method comprising:
generating an interactive search interface for display on a remote portal presented on a touchscreen display of a client device, the interactive search interface comprising:
selectable graphical representations of a set of diamond shapes; and
selectable search categories, each search category having multiple selectable options corresponding to a diamond feature graded along a scale;
receiving, from the remote portal, a selection of a first shape of the set of diamond shapes;
receiving, from the remote portal, a selection of a first selectable option of a first search category corresponding to a first diamond feature;
determining a set of search parameters at least partially based on the first shape and the first selectable option;
retrieving a first set of diamond listings from a database of the diamond selection system using the set of search parameters;
generating, for display on the remote portal, a first set of diamond listing cards, each diamond listing card of the first set of diamond listing cards corresponding to a respective diamond listing of the first set of diamond listings;
displaying a first diamond listing card of the first set of diamond listing cards on the remote portal, the first diamond listing card corresponding to a first diamond listing of the first set of diamond listings and depicting an image of a diamond and one or more diamond features of the diamond;
receiving a swipe gesture over the first diamond listing card, the swipe gesture having a gesture direction, the gesture direction indicating a user preference regarding the first diamond listing;
in accordance with receiving the swipe gesture, incrementing a modification metric in accordance with the user preference; and
in response to the modification metric exceeding a threshold:
determining a set of updated search parameters;
automatically obtaining a second set of diamond listings from the database using the determined set of updated search parameters;
generating, for display on the remote portal, a second set of diamond listing cards, each diamond listing card of the second set of diamond listing cards corresponding to a respective diamond listing of the second set of diamond listings, the second set of diamond listing cards having a presentation order determined in accordance with the determined set of updated search parameters; and
displaying a diamond listing card of the second set of diamond listing cards on the remote portal.
Limitations of dependent claims 23-27 from claim 21 of the instant application are covered in the limitations 3-7 of the Patent” 349 and claims 3-7 of the Patent’ 757.
Examiner has reviewed Independent claims 29 and 33 of the instant application and their dependent claims 30-32 and 34-36 respectively, and their limitations are similar and covered by the limitations of claims 9-12 and claims 13-16 respectively of the Patent’349.
Similarly, the independent claims 29 and 33 of the instant application and their dependent claims 30-31 and 34-35 respectively, and their limitations are similar and covered by the limitations of claims 9-11 and 12-14 respectively of the Patent” 757, except that the product is described as “ gem/diamond”, but all the functional steps and the apparatus used are same, which do not render them patentably distinct from each other.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4 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 21, 23-27, 29-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, when analyzed as per MPEP 2106.
Step 1 analysis:
Claims 21, 23-27, 29-32 are to a process comprising a series of steps, and clams 33-36 are to a system /apparatus, which are statutory (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A Analysis:
Claim 21 recites:
21. (Previously Presented) A computer-implemented method of operating a search interface of a product selection system, the method comprising:
(i) generating an interactive search interface for display on a remote portal presented on a display of a client device, the interactive search interface comprising selectable graphical representations of a set of product features; and selectable search categories, each search category having multiple
selectable options corresponding to a product feature;
(ii receiving, from the remote portal, a selection of a first product feature of the set of product features;
(iii) receiving, from the remote portal, a selection of a first selectable option of a first search category corresponding to the first product feature;
(iv) determining a set of search parameters at least partially based on a first jewelry feature and the first selectable option;
(v) retrieving a first set of product listings from a database of the product selection system
(vi) using the set of search parameters; generating, for display on the remote portal, a first set of listing cards, each listing card of the first set of listing cards corresponding to a respective product listing of the first set of product listings; displaying a first listing card of the first set of listing cards on the remote portal, the first listing card corresponding to a first product listing of the first set of product listings and depicting an image of a product and one or more product features of the product;
(vii) receiving a directional input over the first listing card, the directional input having an input direction, the input direction indicating a user preference regarding the first product listing;
(viii) in accordance with receiving the directional input, incrementing a modification metric in accordance with the user preference; and in response to the modification metric exceeding a threshold: determining a set of updated search parameters;
(ix) automatically obtaining a second set of product listings from the database using the determined set of updated search parameters;
(x) generating, for display on the remote portal, a second set of listing cards, each listing card of the second set of listing cards corresponding to a respective product listing of the second set of product listings, the second set of listing cards having a presentation order determined in accordance with the determined set of updated search parameters; and
(xi) displaying a listing card of the second set of listing cards on the remote
portal.
Step 2A Prong 1 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claims 21, 23-27, 29-36 recite abstract idea.
The highlighted limitations in claim 21 comprising, “ presented on a display comprising selectable graphical representations of a set of product features, and selectable search categories, each search category having multiple selectable options corresponding to a product feature; receiving, a selection of a first product feature of the set of product features; receiving a selection of a first selectable option of a first search category corresponding to the first product feature; determining a set of search parameters at least partially based on a first jewelry feature and the first selectable option; retrieving a first set of product listings from a database of the product selection using the set of search parameters; display a first set of listing cards, each listing card of the first set of listing cards corresponding to a respective product listing of the first set of product listings; displaying a first listing card of the first set of listing cards, the first listing card corresponding to a first product listing of the first set of product listings and depicting an image of a product and one or more product features of the product; receiving a directional input over the first listing card, the directional input having an input direction, the input direction indicating a user preference regarding the first product listing; in accordance with receiving the directional input, incrementing a modification metric in accordance with the user preference; and in response to the modification metric exceeding a threshold: determining a set of updated search parameters; obtaining a second set of product listings using the determined set of updated search parameters; generating, for display a second set of listing cards, each listing card of the second set of listing cards corresponding to a respective product listing of the second set of product listings, the second set of listing cards having a presentation order determined in accordance with the determined set of updated search parameters; and displaying a listing card of the second set of listing cards”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a process of organizing human activity comprising interactions between humans including displaying graphical representations of diamond products with selectable features, categories, and options for users, in response determine and display first set of listing cards with products, receiving from users’ inputs and based on users’ inputs including their preferences determine and display a different second listing of cards with products, which fall under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
The limitations, “ determining a set of search parameters at least partially based on a first jewelry feature and the first selectable option; in accordance with receiving the directional input, incrementing a modification metric in accordance with the user preference; and in response to the modification metric exceeding a threshold: determining a set of updated search parameters;
in response to the modification metric exceeding a threshold: determining a set of updated search parameters; and the second set of listing cards having a presentation order determined in accordance with the determined set of updated search parameters”, fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. That is, other than reciting “by a computer implemented method” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by the computer system” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at collected/stored parameters/features in a catalog of diamond products, determining search parameters for retrieving and displaying the required products, and in response to the received user’s input incrementing a modification metric as per the user’s preference and based on if modifications exceeded a threshold metric, determine another set of listing card for display would require forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of by a computer does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim 21 recites a mental process.
Accordingly, claim21 and its dependent claims 23-27 recite Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes. ”. If a claim that includes two or more abstract ideas groupings per Step 2A, Prong One , as per MPEP 2106.04, subsection IIB, under such circumstances, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Here the steps of claim 21 fall within Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Since the limitations of the other two independent claims 29 and 33 recite similar limitations as claim 1, they and their dependent claims 30-32, and 34-36 respectively are analyzed on the same basis as reciting an abstract idea.
Thus, pending claims 21, 23-27, 29-36 recite an Abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong 2 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claims 21, 23-27, 29-36: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the following additional limitations of using generic computer components: (i) generating an interactive search interface for display on a remote portal presented on a display of a client device, the interactive search interface comprising: selectable graphical representations of a set of product features; and selectable search categories, each search category having multiple selectable options corresponding to a product feature; (ii) receiving, from the remote portal, a selection of a first product feature of the set of product features; (iii) receiving, from the remote portal, a selection of a first selectable option of a first search category corresponding to the first product feature; (iv)determining a set of search parameters at least partially based on a first jewelry feature and the first selectable option; (v) retrieving a first set of product listings from a database of the product selection system and (vi) using the set of search parameters; generating, for display on the remote portal, a first set of listing cards, each listing card of the first set of listing cards corresponding to a respective product listing of the first set of product listings; displaying a first listing card of the first set of listing cards on the remote portal, the first listing card corresponding to a first product listing of the first set of product listings and depicting an image of a product and one or more product features of the product; (vii) receiving a directional input over the first listing card, the directional input having an input direction, the input direction indicating a user preference regarding the first product listing;(viii) in accordance with receiving the directional input, incrementing a modification metric in accordance with the user preference; and in response to the modification metric exceeding a threshold: determining a set of updated search parameters; (ix) automatically obtaining a second set of product listings from the database using the determined set of updated search parameters; (x) generating, for display on the remote portal, a second set of listing cards, each listing card of the second set of listing cards corresponding to a respective product listing of the second set of product listings, the second set of listing cards having a presentation order determined in accordance with the determined set of updated search parameters; and (xi) displaying a listing card of the second set of listing cards on the remote portal.
The additional elements in steps (ii), (iii), (v), (vii), and (ix) “ (ii)receiving, from the remote portal, a selection of a first product feature of the set of product features; (iii) receiving, from the remote portal, a selection of a first selectable option of a first search category corresponding to the first product feature; (iv)determining a set of search parameters at least partially based on a first jewelry feature and the first selectable option; (v) retrieving a first set of product listings from a database of the product selection system (vii) receiving a directional input over the first listing card, the directional input having an input direction, the input direction indicating a user preference regarding the first product listing;( (ix) automatically obtaining a second set of product listings from the database using the determined set of updated search parameters;”,
are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
The limitations in steps (i), (vi), (x) and (xi) “(i) generating an interactive search interface for display on a remote portal presented on a display of a client device, the interactive search interface comprising: selectable graphical representations of a set of product features; and selectable search categories, each search category having multiple selectable options corresponding to a product feature; vi) using the set of search parameters; generating, for display on the remote portal, a first set of listing cards, each listing card of the first set of listing cards corresponding to a respective product listing of the first set of product listings; displaying a first listing card of the first set of listing cards on the remote portal, the first listing card corresponding to a first product listing of the first set of product listings and depicting an image of a product and one or more product features of the product; (x) generating, for display on the remote portal, a second set of listing cards, each listing card of the second set of listing cards corresponding to a respective product listing of the second set of product listings, the second set of listing cards having a presentation order determined in accordance with the determined set of updated search parameters; and (xi) displaying a listing card of the second set of listing cards on the remote portal.”, are mere data displaying and output on a generic user interface recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering, data displaying, data storing and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
Further, these limitations in steps (i), (ii), (iii), (v), , (vi), (vii)), (ix), (x), and (xi) are recited as being performed by a computer, wherein the computer is recited at a high level of generality and is used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of receiving/gathering and displaying data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In limitations (iv), (viii), and (x), “ (iv) determining a set of search parameters at least partially based on a first jewelry feature and the first selectable option; (viii) in accordance with receiving the directional input, incrementing a modification metric in accordance with the user preference; and in response to the modification metric exceeding a threshold: determining a set of updated search parameters; and (x) the second set of listing cards having a presentation order determined in accordance with the determined set of updated search parameters”, the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed individually and in combination, the additional elements in claim 21 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because they do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.(Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim 21 is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). Step 2A=Yes. Claims 21 is directed to abstract idea. Since the other two independent claims 29 and 33 recite similar limitations as claim 21, they are analyzed on the same basis as directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 23-27, 30-32, and 34-36:
Claims 23, 25, 30 recite displaying data, and claim 27 recite receiving data, which are mere extensions of the limitations discussed for their base claim 21 reciting non-significant extra-solution activity. Claims 26, 32 and 36recite non-functional descriptive subject matter, and claims 24, 27 and 34-35 are a mere extension of the limitations indicating a user’s directional input to move the displayed image in an intended direction and describing the different directions as negative and positive for displaying data, which generic computer functions.
Thus, even when viewed individually and in combination, the additional elements in claims 21, 23-27, 29-36 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because they do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.(Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claims 21, 23-27, 29-36 are directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). Step 2A=Yes. Claims 21, 23-27, 29-36 are directed to abstract idea.
Step 2B analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claims 21, 23-27, 29-36 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since claims are as per Step 2A are directed to an abstract idea, they have to be analyzed per Step 2B, if they recite an inventive step, i.e., the claim recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to “Significantly More” than the judicial exception in the claim.
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims 21, 23-27, 29-36 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using a generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Additional elements comprising receiving/gathering/retrieving/and displaying data were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering/transmitting/outputting /displaying/presenting/storing data . However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). ). The background of the example does not provide any indication that the computer components are anything other than a generic, off the shelf computer component and the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs, Versata court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d) (ii) indicate that mere data gathering/ transmitting/ outputting/displaying/presenting/ data steps using a generic computer are well-understood, routine, conventional function when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving, acquiring, transmitting, and displaying steps are well-understood, routine conventional activities are supported under Berkheimer Option 2. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) 2: Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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 Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Thus, even when considered individually and in combination, the additional elements in claims 21, 23-27, 29-36 represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 21, 23-27, 29-36 are patent ineligible.
5. Prior art discussion:
(i) Martino et al. [US 20130159899 A1; see para 0001 and 0046 and Fig.3B] describes generating user interface for products for improved display of graphical representations, wherein the system allows to receive inputs via swipe gestures on a given display and responsive to the inputs a processor is configured to move a graphical representation on a display in response to receiving a "swipe gesture," or an input similar to the swipe gesture.
(ii) Ramanathan et al. [ US Patent# 10,175,855 B2] wherein the col.3, lines 63-67describes displaying a graphical depiction for a menu item or an object, and the claim 1 describes receiving a swipe touch gesture along the third tier orbit path; in response to receiving the swipe touch gesture along the third tier orbit path initiating further action.
(iii) Watkins et al. [US PUB.NO. 20149952563; cited in the parent Application# 15949914, now US Patent# 11544757 ], hereinafter Watkins. Watkins generally discloses a system which allows users to search inventory pages for diamonds, where the user is able to input criterion by selecting different features of the diamond in order to receive tailored results. Watkins also discloses where users can select categories based on color range and based on the clarity grading. The user may then be presented with search results that meet the criteria provided, where the results may be sorted based on the characteristics that the user has selected. The user may put forth additional search inputs and the results may be provided based on the criteria and sorted information provided. The system may allow for other preferences and matches to occur. The results may be displayed in tabular format via a user interface.
(iv) Popa et al., [US 20180268458 A1; cited in the parent Application# 15949914, now US Patent# 11544757 and cited in the IDS filed 12/05/2024] hereinafter, Popa, discloses a system which generates automated recommendations for retail application based upon user information, in which user feedback is sought out, and used to aid the system in providing quality recommendations. Where a survey may be executed by pulling a combination of face and frame images automatically, where the system can rank the most fitted face/frame combination based on user’s perceptions. The first database obtains users votes through various mechanisms, where the classifications are modified as eyewear frames which may be purchased. The ratings of these images from the survey are stored together with the face and eyewear classifications with the second database from which the most popular combinations can be found. Users can vote on the images; by giving each image a rating to indicate how much they like the visual appeal of the glasses upon a person’s face, the frame recommendation study use the survey votes in order to provide more tailored product recommendations based on the user information and the feedback provided by the user(s).
(v) Bradski et al [US 20190094981 A1 cited in the parent Application 18090350, now US Patent# 12106349 and in the IDS filed ; see paras 1240 and 1288] disclose user performing a swipe gesture which is detected by the AR system and interprets and displays it on the user interface and when the user selects a virtual diamond shaped icon and drags it to his wrist then the other selected icons fade away.
NPL references:
(vi)) Mondera.com brings over a century of jewelry experience to the web. (1999, Aug 10). PR iNewswire Retrieved from Dialog on 01/07/2022; cited in the parent Application# 15949914, now US Patent# 11544757 and cited in the IDS filed 12/052024 discloses that Moderna.com website being debuted 08/16/1999 will be a trusted source for the world’s best selection of diamonds and precious stones, jewelry and other luxury products, empowering consumers worldwide to make educated, confident purchases, at substantial savings because of the reduced cost of distribution via the Internet.
(vii) Article, “ Hover-Over Content For User Interfaces” Publication Date May 14, 2014, in United States in IP.COM Pad ; retrieved from IP. Com on 06232026 describes a computerized method for displaying a graphical user interface including one or more user interface elements each being associated with respective hover content so as to receive, by the computing device, an indication of user input detected at a location of a presence-sensitive screen corresponding to a portion of the graphical user interface and display an indication of the respective hover content associated with at least one of the one or more user interface elements.
Foreign references:
(viii) EP 3118573 A1 [see Fig.4 and its associated text and pages 21-22 describes providing dimensional representations of items via graphical representation and the touchscreen 725 comprises an interface operable for receiving haptic inputs from a user.
(vii) CN 101344949 cited in the Parent Application 15949914, now US Patent# 11544757 and cited in the IDS filed 12/05/2024 discloses, see FIG. 2, a user interface of the interactive search initiation module, allowing a user to visually select a diamond shape including a common shape of diamond, round, princess, emerald, olivary, oval, radiation-shaped, drop-shaped, heart- shaped and pulvilliform in selecting one or more shape they like along with viewing a diamond pattern, a diamond price range input box for the user to input highest price and lowest price of diamond according to his capacity.
However, Watkins, Pope, Martino or Ramanathan nor any of the other cited references teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious al least the limitations of claims 21, 29, 33, as discussed below:
Claims 21, 23-27,
With reference claim 21, the prior art of record, alone or combined, neither teaches nor enders obvious, at least the limitations, as a whole, comprising displaying a first listing card of the first set of listing cards on the remote portal, the first listing card corresponding to a first product listing of the first set of product listings and depicting an image of a product and one or more product features of the product, receiving a directional input over the first listing card, the directional input having an input direction, the input direction indicating a user preference regarding the first product listing, in accordance with receiving the directional input, incrementing a modification metric in accordance with the user preference, and in response to the modification metric exceeding a threshold: determining a set of updated search parameters, automatically obtaining a second set of product listings from the database using the determined set of updated search parameters, generating, for display on the remote portal, a second set of listing cards, each listing card of the second set of listing cards corresponding to a respective product listing of the second set of product listings, the second set of listing cards having a presentation order determined in accordance with the determined set of updated search parameters and displaying a listing card of the second set of listing cards on the remote portal [Claims 23-27 depend from claim 21].
Claims 29-32:
With reference claim 29, the prior art of record, alone or combined, neither teaches nor enders obvious, at least the limitations, as a whole, comprising
receiving, via the client device, a directional input for the first product listing card of the client device, responsive to the directional input having a first input direction:
causing the first product listing card to move off the display in a first direction corresponding to the first input direction, and
incrementing a modification metric corresponding to at least one of the first product feature or the second product feature,
responsive to the directional input having a second input direction, different from the first input direction:
causing the first product listing card to move off the display in a second direction corresponding to the second input direction, and decrementing the modification metric, and in response to the modification metric exceeding a threshold: determining a set of updated search parameters corresponding to the first product feature and the second product feature, automatically obtaining a second set of product listings using the set of updated search parameters, and displaying a second product listing card corresponding to a second product listing of the second set of product listings on the display of the client device, an order of the second set of product listings determined in accordance with the set of updated search parameters [Claims 30-32 depend from claim 29].
Claims 33-36:
With reference claim 33, the prior art of record, alone or combined, neither teaches nor enders obvious, at least the limitations, as a whole, comprising in accordance with receiving, at the device, a directional input on the first product listing card: increment a modification metric corresponding to a search parameter of the search parameters, the directional input indicating a negative preference regarding the first product listing, in response to the modification metric exceeding a threshold: determine a set of updated search parameters; automatically obtain a second set of product listings using the set of updated search parameters, generate, for display on the access portal, a second set of product listing cards corresponding to the second set of product listings, the second set of product listing cards having an order determined in accordance with the set of updated search parameters; and cause the access portal to display a second product listing card of the second set of product listing cards [Claims 34-36 depend from claim 33].
6. Note: If a proper Terminal Disclaimer is filed to overcome the Double patenting rejection, and the independent claims 21, 29 and 33 are amended to overcome 35 USC 101 rejection, pending claims 21-36 can be placed in condition for allowance. Any further amendments will be subject to reconsideration and search.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOGESH C GARG whose telephone number is (571)272-6756. The examiner can normally be reached Max-Flex.
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, Jeffrey A. Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/YOGESH C GARG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights