DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 25, 2026, has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the reply filed June 25, 2026.
Claims 1, 8, 14-15, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, and 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
The previous rejection under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn for the reasons explained in the Non-Obvious Subject Matter section below.
Applicant’s arguments filed June 25, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following arguments:
As amended, claim 1 does not recite the alleged abstract idea, but instead recites features necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in graphical user interfaces. Traditional systems for providing content via shipping labels only provide static or generic content that is not dependent on or associated with the user receiving the package. See, Specification, para. [0001]. The claimed system recites features necessarily rooted in computer technologies that provide improved graphical user interfaces. As amended, claim 1 includes using a machine learning model to generate initial customized content predicted to be of interest to a user, and further using the machine learning model to generate updates to rules used for generating pieces of content that may be of interest to the user. Claim 1 further recites receiving credentials associated with a user responsive to the user scanning a QR code linked to the customized content, and scoring each of a plurality of pieces of content based on a shopping history associated with the user credentials. Claim 1 further recites generating dynamically updated content based on the piece of content with the highest score, and outputting the dynamically updated content on the device used to scan the QR code.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The identified improvements of providing customized content argued by Applicant are really, at best, improvements to the performance of the abstract idea itself (e.g. improvements made in the underlying business method) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology. For example, in Trading Tech, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Similar to Trading Tech the role of the interface is providing information. The selection of which information to provide is not an improvement to the functioning of the interface but instead is improvement to the underlying abstract idea.
Machine learning is discussed in the specification at [0086]-[0088] at a high level of generality without discussing any specific of how machine learning functions. The instant claims do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to predict content of interest to a user and updating rules are not improvements to the machine learning models to be applied. See Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025) (slip op. at 18) ("[P]atents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101.")
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following arguments:
Here, as stated above, the problem is that traditional systems only provide static or generic content on shipping labels that are not dependent on or associated with the user receiving the package. See, Specification, paras. [0002]-[0003]. Applicant contends that the features above do not fall into the methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Indeed, the claimed features related to generating initial content and updating rule-based parameters using a machine learning model, and generating dynamically updated content based on user credentials received from scanning a QR code do not fall into the interactions associated with methods of organizing human activity. As amended, the claim does not merely recite scanning a QR code to link to content. Instead, claim 1 now recites receiving user credential data responsive to scanning a QR code to identify a user associated with the scanning, and using the received credential data to generate dynamically updated content based on a shopping history associated with the user credentials. This receiving of credential information responsive to the scan addresses a problem necessarily rooted in computer technology, which is that prior systems would not be able to identify a user associated with a scanning of a QR code.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the claims recited an attention manager for acquiring content from an information source, controlling the timing of the display of acquired content, displaying the content, and acquiring an updated version of the previously-acquired content when the information source updates its content. 896 F.3d at 1339-40, 127 USPQ2d at 1555. Similarly, the updating content in the instant claims is a part of the identified method of organizing human activity.
The identified improvements of providing customized content argued by Applicant are really, at best, improvements to the performance of the abstract idea itself (e.g. improvements made in the underlying business method) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology. For example, in Trading Tech, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following arguments:
As noted in the application, traditional systems only provide static or generic content on shipping labels that are not dependent on or associated with the user receiving the package. See, Specification, paras. [0002]-[0003]. The practical application of the claimed invention relates to providing real-time, user-specific content for a user scanning a QR code. As amended, Applicant submits that the claimed invention is firmly and specifically integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). The claim now recites features related to using a machine learning model for generating initial content, and further receiving credential information associated with a user scanning a QR code to generate a dynamically updated piece of content dependent on the scan. Accordingly, the amendments firmly link the claimed invention to a practical application of generating real-time customized content custom to a user that scans a QR code.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc., 931 F.3d 1161, 2019 USPQ2d 281076 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the claims were to methods for electronically processing paper checks, all of which contained limitations setting forth receiving merchant transaction data from a merchant, crediting a merchant’s account, and receiving and scanning paper checks after the merchant’s account is credited. In particular, the court determined that the claims "did not improve the technical capture of information from a check to create a digital file or the technical step of electronically crediting a bank account" nor did the claims "improve how a check is scanned." Id. Similarly, the instant claims do not improve the technical capture of a QR Code and therefore the claimed scanning a QR code is not a practical application.
Machine learning is discussed in the specification at [0086]-[0088] at a high level of generality without discussing any specific of how machine learning functions. The instant claims do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to predict content of interest to a user and updating rules are not improvements to the machine learning models to be applied. See Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025) (slip op. at 18) ("[P]atents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101.")
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following arguments:
Further, Applicant submits that the claimed invention provides improvement into the technical field of real-time, customized content generation. For example, claim 1 now recites receiving credential information for a user responsive to the user scanning a QR code, and generating updated customized content in real-time based on a shopping history associated with the received user credentials. As previously noted in the application, traditional systems only provide generic, non-customizable pieces of content. See, Specification, paras. [0002]-[0003]. Thus, the claimed invention provides significant improvements to the technical field by generating content specific to the user scanning the QR code.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Performance of the identified abstract idea in real time does not make the identified abstract idea any less abstract. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1368-69 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Indeed, the budgeting calculations at issue here are unpatentable because they could still be made using a pencil and paper with a simple notification device, even in real time as expenditures were being made.”).
The identified improvements of providing customized content argued by Applicant are really, at best, improvements to the performance of the abstract idea itself (e.g. improvements made in the underlying business method) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology. For example, in Trading Tech, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Similar to Trading Tech the role of the interface is providing information. The selection of which information to provide is not an improvement to the functioning of the interface but instead is improvement to the underlying abstract idea.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following arguments:
As amended, Claim 1 recites using a machine learning model to generate initial customized content predicted to be of interest to a user, and further using the machine learning model to generate updates to rules used for generating pieces of content that may be of interest to the user. Claim 1 further recites receiving credentials associated with a user from scanning a QR code linked to the customized content, and scoring each of a plurality of pieces of content based on a shopping history associated with the user credentials. Claim 1 further recites generating dynamically updated content based on the piece of content with the highest score, and outputting the dynamically updated content on the device used to scan the QR code. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that, pursuant to MPEP 2106.05(e), claim 1 adds additional elements that amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.
Additionally, MPEP 2106.05(a) states that analysis related to improvements to the technical field are relevant to the eligibility analysis in both step 2A prong 2 and in step 2B. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the same analysis presented in Section 2A Prong 2 above related to improvement in the technical field pursuant to MPEP 2106.05(a) can be applied in the 2B analysis to further support that claim 1 includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc., 931 F.3d 1161, 2019 USPQ2d 281076 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the claims were to methods for electronically processing paper checks, all of which contained limitations setting forth receiving merchant transaction data from a merchant, crediting a merchant’s account, and receiving and scanning paper checks after the merchant’s account is credited. In particular, the court determined that the claims "did not improve the technical capture of information from a check to create a digital file or the technical step of electronically crediting a bank account" nor did the claims "improve how a check is scanned." Id. Similarly, the instant claims do not improve the technical capture of a QR Code and therefore the claimed scanning a QR code is not a practical application.
Machine learning is discussed in the specification at [0086]-[0088] at a high level of generality without discussing any specific of how machine learning functions. The instant claims do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to predict content of interest to a user and updating rules are not improvements to the machine learning models to be applied. See Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025) (slip op. at 18) ("[P]atents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101.")
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 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 1:
Claims 1-5 and 7 recite a combination of devices and therefore recite a machine.
Claims 8-12 and 14 recite a series of steps and therefore recite a process.
Claims 15-18 and 20 recite a tangible article given properties through artificial means and therefore recite a manufacture.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 1:
Claims 1, 8, and 15, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea of targeting custom content to the recipient of a package based upon the information about the package, which is a method of organizing human activity. The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is a fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) by reciting using shipping labels to convey information about a package. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is a commercial or legal interaction (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors) by reciting providing customized content to a recipient based upon their package related data. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). The method of organizing human activity of “targeting custom content to the recipient of a package based upon the information about the package,” is recited by claiming the following limitations: obtaining package related data, applying a set of rules, generating customized content, selecting initial customized content, generating updates to rules, identifying space on a shipping label, generating a QR code, printing the QR code on the label, receiving scan data, determining ambient data, scoring pieces of content, generating updated customized content, and outputting the content. The mere nominal recitation of a processor, a computer readable medium, a computer storage device, a computer, a user device, machine learning, and scanning a QR code to link to content does not take the claim of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With regards to Claims 3-5, 9-12, 14, 16-18, and 20, the claims further recite the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) by reciting the following limitations: receiving event data, updating customized content based on the event data, outputting customized content, predicting content of interest, selecting customized content, authenticating a user, and providing access to the customized content based on authentication.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 2:
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the additional elements: a processor, a computer readable medium, a computer storage device, a computer, a user device, machine learning, and scanning a QR code to link to content. These processor, computer readable medium, computer storage device, computer, user device, machine learning, and scanning a QR code limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The scanning a QR code to link to content step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding claim 2 scanning a QR code to link to a website limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Taken individually 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.
Considering the limitations containing the judicial exception as well as the additional elements in the claim besides the judicial exception does not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve other technology or improve a technical field. The claim as a whole is not implemented with a particular machine. The claim as a whole does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state. The claim as a whole is not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of cross selling products in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing advertising process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2B:
Claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite a generic computer performing generic computer function by reciting a processor, a computer readable medium, a computer storage device, a user device, and a computer. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (describing a “processor” as a generic computer component); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347–48 (discussing the same with respect to “data” and “memory”). The claims recite the following computer functions recognized by the courts as generic computer functions by reciting receiving information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec; TLI Communications LLC; OIP Techs.; buySAFE, Inc.), processing information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) performing repetitive calculations, Flook; Bancorp Services), presenting information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g) presenting offers gathering statistics, OIP Technologies), and updating information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp.; Ultramercial). The specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the following additional elements because they are described in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a): a processor (Specification [0030]), a computer readable medium (Specification [0031]-[0032]), a computer storage device (Specification [0031]), a computer (Specification [0029]), machine learning (Specification [0086]-[0087]), and scanning a QR code to link to content (Specification [0043]). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). The claims add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by a processor, a computer readable medium, a computer storage device, a computer, machine learning, and scanning a QR code to link to a website. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recite insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e. mere data gathering and selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated) by reciting shipping labels, QR codes, and scanning QR codes. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims limit the field of use by reciting the shipping field. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements alone, and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
With regards to Claims 2, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claim 2, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the following additional elements because they are described in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a): scanning a QR code to link to a website (Specification [0043]). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). Claim 2 adds the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by reciting scanning a QR code to link to a website. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Remaining Claims:
With regards to Claims 7, these claims merely add a degree of particularity to the limitations discussed above rather than adding additional elements capable of transforming the nature of the claimed subject matter. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Non-Obvious Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art already made of record is Gillen et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2015/0066798 A1), Otto et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2009/0132344 A1), Gavriliu et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2017/0372362 A1), Pacey (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2014/0324589 A1), Chennavasin et al. (U.S. 10,832,290 B1), and Ivester et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2019/0130352 A1).
Applicant’s remarks submitted June 25, 2026, on p. 16 that the closest prior art already made of record does not teach or suggest the receiving credentials responsive to QR code scanning. Examiner notes that, Otto does teach a modification of rules for identifying content.
In addition to the closest prior art already of record Morel et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2015/0006672 A1) is made of record.
Morel discloses identifying a user who is scanning a QR code (Morel Abstract, [0052], [0068]).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the closest prior art of already of record with Morel to teach or suggest the claimed combination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Morel et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2015/0006672 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT M TUNGATE whose telephone number is (571)431-0763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 - 4:30 EST.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/SCOTT M TUNGATE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights