Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-3, 5-17, 19, 20, and 23 are currently pending and are presented for examination on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5-17, 19, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because they recite non-patentable subject matter under MPEP § 2106, e.g., the 2019 PEG, October update. More particularly, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea, etc.) without practical application or significantly more.
More particularly, 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. 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), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Broad categories of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices, certain methods of organizing human activities, an idea itself, and mathematical relationships/formulas. See, generally, MPEP § 2106; Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. __ (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294, 1297-98 (2012)); Federal Register notice titled 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (79 FR 74618), which is found at: http:// www. gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-16/pdf/2014-29414.pdf; 2015 Update to the Interim Guidance; the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Fed. Reg., Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019; and associated Office memoranda.
Under MPEP § 2106, Step 1, the claimed invention, taking the broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a process (i.e., a method), machine (e.g., apparatus, system, device, etc.), article of manufacture (e.g., a non-transitory computer readable medium) or composition of matter, and as such, is patent eligible.
Under MPEP § 2106, Step 2a-prong 1, Claims 1-3, 5-17, 19, 20, and 23 recite a judicial exception(s), including a method of organizing human activity (e.g. fundamental economic principle). More particularly, the entirety of the method steps is directed towards communicating/displaying in a user interface, subset ofed indicia (e.g., a coupon, recommendation, time limits for purchase, customized content, etc.) based on order information. This is a long-standing commercial practice previously performed by humans and entities, such as online payment platforms, merchants, etc., manually and via generic computing technology. As such, the inventions include an abstract idea under § 2106, and Alice Corporation.
Under step 2a-prong 2, the claims fail to recite a practical application of the exception, because the extraneous limitations (e.g., the structure—electronic device, non-transitory computer-readable medium, etc.) merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g), generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or generally instruct an artisan to apply it (the method) across generic computing technology. A claim does not cease to be abstract for section 101 purposes simply because the claim confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment in order to effectuate a real-world benefit. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 222; BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2018); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2014). That is to say, the claims are not directed to a new software or computer, but rather employs pre-existing software to do what’s been previously done manually, albeit less efficiently or slower. “[I]t is not enough, however, to merely improve a fundamental practice or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool.” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). More particularly, the claims fail to recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology (under MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the use of a particular machine (under § 2106.05(b)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article (§ 2106.05(c)), or apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (§ 2106.05(e)).
Under part 2b, the additional elements offered by the independent/dependent claims either further delineate the abstract idea(s) (Claims 1, 2, 3, 19, 20), add further abstract idea(s) (Claims 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23), adds insignificant extra-solution activity (Claims 14), or further instruct the artisan to apply it (the abstract idea(s)) across generic computing technology (Claims 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20). The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because no one claim effects an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, or move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Under Alice, merely applying or executing the abstract idea on one or more generic computer system (e.g., a computer system comprising a generic database; a generic element (NIC) for providing website access, etc.; a generic element for receiving user input; and a generic display on the computer, in any of their forms) to carry out the abstract idea more efficiently fails to cure patent ineligibility. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347 (claims reciting a “scanner” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Serv. 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).
Courts have recognized the following computer functions to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations, receiving, processing, and storing data, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, electronic recordkeeping, automating mental tasks, and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, MPEP 2106.05(d), wherein the italicized tasks are particularly germane to the instant invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, 11, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being anticipated by US 2019/0108510 to Bhattacharjee et al., in view of US 2015/0294262 to Nelson et al.
With respect to Claims 1, 19, and 20, Bhatt teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium ([0054]), an electronic device, comprising a memory apparatus having a computer program stored thereon, and a processing apparatus for performing (FIG. 1); a method (FIG. 5) for improving display of a user interface (FIG. 4), wherein the method comprises: acquiring order information in response to an order submission operation triggered by a user ([0005];[0021-22]); determining a subset of display components from a plurality of display components ([0006]; FIG. 5, offer database) displayable on the interface, that corresponds to the order information ([0005]); and displaying the subset corresponding to the order information on the interface to improve the display of the interface ([0005];[0027]).
Bhatt fails to expressly teach, but Nelson teaches wherein the order information is associated with a time limit; applying a predetermined rule to the order information; wherein the rule indicates that the subset comprises a time component configured to display the time limit; and wherein the subset comprises the time component. ([0009];” teaching the use of “rules”; [0100], displaying customized delivery times based on items to be delivered; FIGS. 10-20). Nelson discusses the need for customer selected delivery windows and a desire for customers to manage delivery preferences. [0002-03] As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bhatt to teach the invention as amended and taught by Nelson, in order to present time based components corresponding to order information.
With respect to Claim 2, Bhatt teaches wherein the plurality of display components comprise a payment mode component, a subset of information component, the time component, a payment offer component, and a payment amount component (FIG. 4;[0021-22];[0027]).
With respect to Claim 3, Bhatt teaches wherein the subset of display component comprises a payment mode component (FIG. 4; [0027]).
With respect to Claim 5, Bhatt teaches wherein the at least one predetermined rule further indicates one or more of the following: in response to the order information comprising subset of information ([0022], merchant identifier), the subset of display component comprises a subset of information component (coupon valid at specific merchant); in response to the order information satisfying a payment offer, the subset of display component comprises a payment offer component ([0021-22], offer); and in response to the order information comprising a payment amount, the subset of display component comprises a payment amount component (FIG. 4).
With respect to Claim 6, Bhatt teaches wherein the at least one predetermined component rule further indicates one or more of the following: in response to the order information comprising subset of information and conforming to a display condition (“display data”) of subset of information, the subset of display component corresponding to the order information comprises a subset of information component ([0021-22], merchant identifier); in response to the order information comprising the subset of information but not confirming to the display condition of subset of information, the subset of display component corresponding to the order information does not comprise the subset of information component (teaching the positive teaches the negative); in response to the order information being associated with the time limit and conforming to a display condition of time limit, the subset of display component comprises a time component, in response to the order information satisfying a payment offer and conforming to a display condition of payment offer, the subset of display component comprises a payment offer component; in response to the order information satisfying the payment offer but not conforming to the display condition (“display data”) of payment offer, the subset of display component does not comprise the payment offer component ([0025]); in response to the order information comprising a payment amount and conforming to a display condition of payment amount, the subset of display component comprises a payment amount component (FIG. 4); and in response to the order information comprising the payment amount but not conforming to the display condition (“display data”) of payment amount, the subset of display component does not comprise the payment amount component (the term “dynamic” teaches a particular offer not being displayed when not conforming to either identifier, the amount, a preference, etc.).
With respect to Claim 7, Bhatt teaches wherein the method further comprises: setting a priority (“preference”) for each of the plurality of display components ([0025]), and determining the subset of display component from the plurality of display components based on the number of the display components and the priority of the display components ([0025]).
With respect to Claim 10, Bhatt teaches wherein the payment mode component comprises a plurality of payment modes, and the method further comprises: displaying the plurality of payment modes in the interface in a predetermined display order of payment mode. ([0026];[0047])
With respect to Claim 11, Bhatt teaches wherein the predetermined display order of payment mode is determined by: determining a display order of the plurality of payment modes based on frequencies of use of application programs corresponding to the plurality of payment modes; or determining the display order of the plurality of payment modes based on a second predetermined priority of the plurality of payment modes ([0047], “Best wallet”); or determining the display order of the plurality of payment modes based on a historical order of use ([0039]) of the application programs corresponding to the plurality of payment modes; or determining the display order of the plurality of payment modes based on a display order of the plurality of payment modes predetermined by a user.
Claims 8, 9, 14, 16, 17, and 23 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatt, in view of Nelson, and further in view of US 2013/0346302 to Purves et al.
With respect to Claim 8, the combination of Bhatt and Nelson fails to expressly teach, but Purves teaches wherein the method further comprises: acquiring a display position of the subset of display components in the interface, the display position being a position determined based on a first predetermined priority of the subset of display components, or the display position being a position predetermined by the user; the displaying the subset of display component in the interface comprises: displaying the subset of display components in the interface based on the display position. ([0106], display button; [0179]) Purves discusses online payment options being safer than cash. [0101], and improves privacy ([0219]). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bhatt, to include determining the position of the display component to address the disadvantages discussed in Purves, including making the process safer and improving privacy.
With respect to Claim 9, Bhatt fails to expressly teach, but Purves teaches wherein the display position is set by: in response to a component setting instruction triggered by the user, displaying a component setting page (“plurality of parameters”), the component setting page comprising a plurality of predetermined component display templates; determining, from the plurality of component display templates, a subset of display template selected by the user; and taking a position corresponding to the display components in the subset of display template as the display position of the display components ([0281];[0286];[0293-94]). Under the same rationale as Claim 8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bhatt to include this limitation taught by Purves.
With respect to Claim 14, Bhatt fails but Purves teaches wherein the method further comprises: adjusting a display position of the subset of display components in the interface in response to a component position adjustment operation of the user. ([0530]) Under the same rationale as Claim 8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify to include this limitation taught by Purves.
With respect to Claim 16, Bhatt fails but Purves teaches wherein the method further comprises: in response to a trigger operation of the user on the user interface, displaying a floating box containing the order information on the user interface in a floating manner; wherein the trigger operation comprises a predetermined gesture operation or a touch operation on a specified button displayed in the user interface ([0110];[0112], pop-up window). Under the same rationale as Claim 8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bhatt to include this limitation taught by Purves.
With respect to Claim 17, Bhatt fails to expressly teach, but Purves teaches wherein the method further comprises: performing a blurring processing on the user interface. ([0167], highlighting a component or changing its color, teaches not-highlighting or blurring the other component). Under the same rationale as Claim 8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bhatt to include this limitation taught by Purves.
With respect to Claim 23, Bhatt teaches wherein the plurality of display components comprise a payment mode component (FIG. 4), a subset of information (“merchant identifier”) component (FIG. 4), a payment offer component (FIG. 4), and a payment amount component (FIG. 4); but fails to teach a time component. Purves teaches the display of a time display component ([0103]). Under the same rationale as Claim 8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bhatt to include this limitation taught by Purves.
Claims 12, and 13 are rejected under § 103, as being unpatentable over Bhatt, in view of Nelson, and further in view of US 2021/0125262 to Corrieri et al.
With respect to Claim 12, Bhatt teaches wherein the method further comprises: in response to a selection operation of the user for the plurality of payment modes, determining a subset of payment mode selected by the user (FIG. 4,5); but fails to teach in response to a determination that an application program corresponding to the subset of payment mode is installed in a terminal device, highlighting the subset of payment mode. Corrieri teaches highlighting the availability of an application in a display. [0133] Corrieri teaches aggregating codes, coupons and other benefits to consumers transacting with various merchants. [0004-05]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bhatt to further include highlighting a payment mode, so as to further provide benefit to consumers.
With respect to Claim 13, Bhatt fails to expressly teach, but Corrieri teaches wherein the method further comprises: in response to a determination that the application program corresponding to the subset of payment mode is not installed in the terminal device, displaying installation prompt information, the installation prompt information being used for prompting the user to install the application program corresponding to the subset of payment mode ([0117];[0134];[0154]). Under the same rationale as Claim 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bhatt to include this limitation taught by Corrieri.
Response to remarks
Applicant’s remarks submitted on 2/6/2026 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive where objections/rejections are maintained. Applicant provides substantial amendments to the independent claims that primarily raises the time component scope from Claim 5. As per § 101, displaying a subset of display components from a greater set of displayable components on a GUI, wherein the subset includes a time limit fails to offer an innovative concept. Online shopping carts and checkouts have long displayed subsets of components based on the items in the cart and the customer; methods of payment for example are customer specific. Delivery addresses are also customer specific; finally, time to complete the purchase, or available delivery times, both corresponding to the order, are also well-known, routine, and conventional; that is to say, rules have long been applied to determine whether next day delivery and other options are available to the customer, based on the order. See, prior art references of record; and Amazon.com and the like. The amendment fails to recite a practical application of these abstract ideas, and broaden the scope by changing “displaying a payment page” to “improving display of a user interface.” Applicant’s argument that the invention recites an improvement to the functioning of a GUI (to solve the problem of “simple” payment links) is not persuasive, as customizable shopping carts or checkouts have long existed. As per the prior art rejections, the § 102 rejection has been overcome and replaced by a § 103 rejection. Nelson has been added to further teach the limitations added by the amendment. Nelson teaches displaying delivery/shipping components based on the order information, said components being associated with a time limit. The § 103 rejection of Claim 15 has been withdrawn due to hindsight and piecemeal.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-3082. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00, alternating Fri. off.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached on 5712723955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM J JACOB/Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights