DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s representative argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea.
Applicant’s representative then states “the claims are not directed to "settling a transaction." because the claims are directed to presenting information to users, specifically, generating and displaying a personalized feed of product information. This is fundamentally different from the transaction settlement operations found ineligible in cases like Alice Corp. V. CLS Bank.
In response, it has been clearly enumerated that claims directed to an abstract idea are patent-ineligible. Abstract ideas are characterized as concepts identified by the courts which include (1) mathematical concepts, (2) mental processes and (3) certain methods of organizing human activity.
Among those concepts performed as being identified in the category of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” are “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
Here, the claimed concept falls into the category of functions of organizing human activities such as performing mental processes which are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion) because it amounts to the concept of settling a transaction. The claims also fall into the category of organizing human activity such as “a commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
The BRI of the claimed limitations describe functions of searching and generating a feed for a user based on preferences of the user and social information of the user, and transmitting the personalized feed to the user wherein selection of the profile card displays information associated with the user on a user interface and selection of a product tiles causes display of personalization options for a product of a plurality of products.
Therefore the claims recite a commercial or legal interaction as such is an abstract concept.
Each of these independent claims uses generic computer technology (such as processor of an application server and a user interface of a client device) for accessing, searching, generating and transmitting result to the user interface of a client device), as such do not recite an improvement to a particular computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F .3 d 1299, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ( finding claims not abstract because they "focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation").
As such, claims 1, 8 and 15 recite accessing, searching, generating and transmitting data result to the user interface of a client device), as these functions are not a technological implementation or improvement of a technological field.
Applicant is to be reminded that a system, apparatus, machine or method for performing business, however, novel, useful, or commercially successful, is not patentable apart from the means for making the system practically useful or carrying it out. The applicant is making use of generic devices to finally transmit a personalized feed for display on a user interface of a client device, wherein selection of the profile card causes display of information associated with the user on the user interface and selection of the product tiles causes display of personalization options for a product of the plurality of products on the user interface.
Accordingly, the additional elements (such as a processor of an application server and a client device with a use interface) do not improve (1) the processor or database and user interface, or (2) another technology or technical field. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(a)). Rather, the above-noted additional elements merely (1) apply the abstract idea on a computer; (2) include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (computing device or system) ; or (3) use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, the recited additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when reading the claims.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant’s representative then argues that “Additionally, claim 1 does not recite a mental process. The Examiner's assertion that the claims recite "mental processes" is also incorrect. The claimed operations recite searching multiple databases simultaneously, processing large volumes of data from disparate sources, applying filtering algorithms based on multiple criteria, generating interactive user interface elements with dynamic behavior, transmitting data over computer networks, and providing real-time interactive responses to user inputs”.
Applicant’s representative further states none of the steps can be performed in the human mind.
In response the applicant’s arguments are not convincing because the specific functions of accessing, searching, generating and transmitting data result to the user interface of a client device) can be performed in the human mind, or by a human being using a pen and paper without the need of any computer or other machine.
Furthermore, searching a database and providing or transmitting the result to a client device for a business purpose involves a fundamental business practice long prevalent in business systems, like the risk hedging in Bilski (see Bilski v. Kappos, 561 US 593 (2010)), the intermediated settlement in Alice (see Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356-57), verifying credit card transactions in CyberSource (see CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011)), and guaranteeing transactions (see buy SAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Accordingly, aggregating and analyzing insurance related data or attributes similarly to risk hedging and intermediated settlement, is an “abstract idea” beyond the scope of § 101. See Alice 134 S. Ct. at 2356.
Furthermore, the elements of Applicant’s independent claims could be performed manually using, at most, pen and paper to determine the search results. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372-73 (“[A] method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent-eligible under § 101.”); see also In re Comiskey, 554 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[M]ental processes-or processes of human thinking-standing alone are not patentable even if they have practical application.”); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature . . . , mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work” (emphasis added)). Additionally, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper, CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalkv. Benson.”).
Accordingly, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s representative then argues that the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. Applicant’s representative then states:
“The Office's analysis was improper. The Office's analysis for Step 2A Prong Two evaluated only fragments of the claim for practical application, which is incorrect. The Examiner focused narrowly on "searching and generating a feed" while ignoring the specific technical implementation and the claim as a whole. To determine if the claim recites a practical application, the Office must look at the claim as a whole, not just isolated portions of the claim. Therefore, the § 101 rejection is improper.”
Applicant’s representative then cites DDR Holdings, LLC V. Hotels.com, I.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) in support of their arguments.
In response, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claims do not recite functions that a generic computer may achieve and they are also function which the Courts found to be abstract.
The claimed “processor with an application server” and “client device” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions of accessing, searching, generating and transmitting data result to the user interface of a client device) as such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a processor with an application server and a client device to perform an
accessing, searching, generating and transmitting data result to the user interface of a client device functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding DDR Holdings, the claims in DDR Holdings were determined to be "necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks". The instant claims recite a generic processor with an application server and a client device for searching a database and transmitting the results to the client device.
The application of a processor with an application server and a client device for performing routine computer functions for facilitating trades or business functions is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. The instant claims do not appear to improve on any technology. The problem that was solved in DDR was with the architecture of their overall system. The instant claims merely access data, search data, generate data and transmit data. These are routine and generic computer functions for processing or effecting the abstract idea. Hence, there is not a significant improvement of the “client device” or “processor with an application server” .
None of the steps and elements recited in the claims provide, and nowhere in the applicant’s shows any description or explanation as to how the claimed client device and processor with an application server are intended to provide: (1) a “solution . . . necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks,” as explained by the Federal Circuit in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014); (2) “a specific improvement to the way computers operate,” as explained in Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336; or (3) an “unconventional technological solution ... to a technological problem” that “improve[s] the performance of the system itself,” as explained in Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1299-1300 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Specifically, claim 1 is directed to a system. Claims 8 and 15 are directed to a method. Each of the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea).
The claims when the bolded limitations are removed recite the following limitations:
Claim 1 recites:
A system for creating a personalized feed, the system comprising:
a processor of an application server; and
a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the application server to perform operations comprising:
accessing personalization inputs from a user, the personalization inputs comprising user information of a user for generating a personalized feed for the user;
searching a plurality of databases for products based on the personalization inputs to obtain search results;
filtering the search results based on preferences of the user and social information to obtain filtered search results;
generating the personalized feed based on the filtered search results, the personalized feed comprising:
product tiles that relate to a plurality of products from the filtered search results that are of interest to the user where the product tiles are selectable, each product tile providing information about one product from the plurality of products; and
a profile card that includes information associated with the user comprising items purchased by the user and
transmitting the personalized feed for display on a user interface of a client device, selection of the profile card causing display of information associated with the user on the user interface and selection of one product causing display of personalization options for the product of the plurality of products on the user interface.
Claim 2 recites wherein the information associated with the user further comprises
items sold by the user, interests of the user, and a location of the user.
Claim 3 recites: wherein the location is a corridor traveled by the user and the instructions further cause the application server to perform operations comprising: sorting the search results based on a distance to the corridor traveled by the user.
Claim 4 recites: wherein the instructions further cause the application server to perform operations comprising: sorting the search results based on a distance to the location of the user.
Claim 5 recites: wherein the instructions further cause the application server to perform operations comprising:
providing an external toolbar application;
receiving an image from the user via the external toolbar application;
performing image recognition of the image; and
matching the image to one product of the plurality of products based on the image recognition.
Claim 6 recites: wherein the instructions further cause the application server to perform operations comprising:
receiving an input at a product tile of the product tiles; and
providing the personalization options based on the input received at the product tile.
Claim 7 recites: wherein the profile card provides links relating to the user that includes statistics associated with the user, previous products purchased by the user, and previous products sold by the user.
Claim 8 recites: A method for creating a personalized feed, the method comprising:
accessing personalization inputs from a user, the personalization inputs comprising user information of a user for generating a personalized feed for the user;
searching a plurality of databases for products based on the personalization inputs to obtain search results;
filtering the search results based on references of the user and social information to obtain filtered search results;
generating the personalized feed based on the filtered search results, the personalized feed comprising:
product tiles that relate to a plurality of products from the filtered search results that are of interest to the user where the product tiles are selectable, each product file providing information about the product; and
a profile card that includes information associated with the user comprising items purchased by the user; and
transmitting the personalized feed for display on a user interface of a client device, wherein selection of the profile card causes display of information associated with the user on the user interface and selection of the product tiles causes display of personalization options for a product of the plurality of products on the user interface.
Claim 9 recites: wherein the information associated with the user further comprises items sold by the user, interests of the user, and a location of the user.
Claim 10 recites: wherein the location is a corridor traveled by the user and the method further comprises:
sorting the search results based on a distance to the corridor traveled by the user.
Claim 11 recites wherein the method further comprises: sorting the search results based on a distance to the location of the user.
Claim 12 recites:
providing an external toolbar application;
receiving an image from the user via the external toolbar application;
performing image recognition of the image; and
matching the received image to one product of the plurality of products using the image recognition.
Claim 13 recites:
receiving an input at a product tile of the product tiles; and
providing the personalization options based on the input received at the product tile.
Claim 14 recites:
wherein the profile card provides links relating to the user that includes statistics associated with the user, previous products purchased by the user, and previous products sold by the user.
Claim 15 recites: A non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by an application server having a processor, memory and storage, cause the application server processor to perform operations for creating a personalized feed, the operations comprising:
accessing personalization inputs from a user, the personalization inputs comprising user information of a user generating a personalized feed for the user;
searching a plurality of databases for products based on the personalization inputs to obtain search results;
filtering the search results based on references of the user and social information to obtain filtered search results:
generating the personalized feed based on the filtered search results, the personalized feed comprising:
product tiles that relate to a plurality of products from the filtered search results that are of interest to the user where the product tiles are selectable, each product tile providing information about the product; and
a profile card that includes information associated with the user comprising items purchased by the user; and
transmitting the personalized feed for display on a user interface of a client device, wherein selection of the profile card causes display of information associated with the user on the user interface and selection of the product tiles causes display of personalization options for a product of the plurality of products on the user interface.
Claim 16 recites: wherein the information associated with the user further comprises items sold by the user, interests of the user, and a corridor traveled by the user, wherein the operations further comprise:
sorting the search results based on a distance to the corridor traveled by the user.
Claim 17 recites: wherein the operations further comprises: sorting the search results based on a distance to a location of the user.
Claim 18 recites: wherein the operations further comprise:
providing an external toolbar application;
receiving an image from the user via the external toolbar application;
performing image recognition of the image; and
matching the image to one product of the plurality of products based on the image recognition.
Claim 19 recites wherein the operations further comprise:
receiving an input at a product tile of the product tiles; and
providing the personalization options based on the input received at the product tile.
Claim 20 recites: wherein the profile card provides links relating to the user that includes statistics associated with the user, previous products purchased by the user, and previous products sold by the user.
Here, the claimed concept falls into the category of functions of organizing human activities such as performing mental processes which are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion) because it amounts to the concept of settling a transaction. The claims also fall into the category of organizing human activity such as “a commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
The BRI of the claimed limitations describe functions of searching and generating a feed for a user based on preferences of the user and social information of the user, and transmitting the personalized feed to the user wherein selection of the profile card displays information associated with the user on a user interface and selection of a product tiles causes display of personalization options for a product of a plurality of products.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, In particular, the clams recite the above noted bolded limitations understood to be the additional limitations.
The claimed “computing device”, a “processor”, a “database”, “user interface”, “client device”, “application server”, and “external toolbar application” are similarly understood in light of applicant's specification as mere usage of any arrangement of computer software or hardware intermediate components potentially using networks to communicate with instructions are properly understood to be mere instructions to apply the abstraction using a computer or device or computer system.
Performing steps by a generic machine, or server computing device merely limit the abstraction to a computer field by execution by generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05(1).
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to
insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount to generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a practical exception into a practical application.
Functions of accessing data are considered as data gathering functions. Functions of transmitting data are considered as insignificant post solution activities.
Generating data is similar to Alappat, which as noted in MPEP 2106. 05(b)(1) is superseded, and the correct analysis is to look whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims in the instant application are performed by one processor and/or computing device.
Consideration of these steps as a combination does not change the analysis as they do not add anything compared to when the steps are considered separately. The claims recite a particular sequence of functions creating a personalized feed.
Performance of these steps or functions technologically may present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claim does not reasonably integrate the abstraction into a practical application.
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the clams fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis.
Positively reciting a “processor” with “memory“ a “user interface”, “computing device”, a “database”, “application server”, and “external toolbar application” aggregator does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer.
These claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of these additional elements do not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be one or more of a general purpose computer for performing basic or routine computer functions. The claimed processor are noted to a be a generic computer for performing known computer functions therein. These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic computer.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed “processor”, “memory”, “user interface”, “client device”, “database”, “application server”, and “external toolbar application” at a high level of generality such they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Accordingly, the 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.
Accordingly, claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
The prior art taken alone or in combination failed to teach or suggest:
“generating a feed based on the filtered search results, the feed comprising: product tiles that relate to a plurality of products that are of interest to the user where the product tiles are selectable, a profile card that includes profile card indicia selectable to display information associated with the user, and transmitting the feed for display on a user interface of a client device, wherein selection of the profile card causes display of information associated with the user on the user interface and selection of the product tiles causes display of personalization options for a product of the plurality of products on the user interface” as recited in independent claim 1, and as similarly recited in independent claims 8 and 15.
Kar et al (US Pub. No. 2019/0108571) disclose a system, computer-implemented method and computer program product for determining relevant products for display in an online marketplace. The system comprises a stock categorization module to identify products from an inventory database and categorize each of the identified products. The system further comprises a matrix generator to receive a transaction history of the customers and generate a matrix comprising products purchased by the customers from each of the one or more categories. Furthermore, the system comprises a probability calculator configured to convert the generated matrix into a probability matrix and a clustering module to fetch attributes of each of the one or more products and cluster the customers. In addition, the system comprises a customer questions database to receive one or more preferences from the one or more customers for an instant shopping session and a category list generator to display relevant product assortment corresponding to each customer.
Godsey et al (US Patent No. US-12106343-B2) disclose a system and method of assisting in an electronic shopping experience. A request may be received, from a user on a device having a user interface, to search for an item listed for sale in a marketplace. A balance amount of an account associated with or available to the user at the marketplace is displayed in the user interface. The search results are limited to at least one item having a sales price less than the displayed balance amount and the at least one item is displayed in the user interface. The account may be a user account at a payment service provide
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZY POINVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6797. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM to 5:30PM.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/fp/
/FRANTZY POINVIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
February 2, 2026