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. Applicant's amendment filed 07/09/2026 is entered. Claims1-2, 4-9, 12, 13, 16, 18-20, 22-23 are currently amended. Claims 1-10, 12-13, and 16-23 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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 1-10, 12-13, 16-23 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 1-10 are to a process comprising a series of steps, clams 12, 16-19 to a device, and claims 13, 20-23 to manufacture, which are statutory (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A Analysis:
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 1-10, 12-13, 16-23 recite abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites:
1. (Original) An information display method, comprising:
(i) displaying an information stream page, wherein the information stream page comprises an object display page; the object display page comprises one or more cards respectively corresponding to one or more to-be-displayed objects, each card displaying summary information of a corresponding
(ii) if the one or more to-be-displayed objects comprise a first to-be-displayed object, first summary information of the first to-be-displayed object is different from the summary information of other to-be-displayed objects at least in that the first summary information further comprises one or more pieces of specification attribute information of the first to be-displayed object, wherein the one or more pieces of specification attribute information are configured as selectable controls; and
(iii) displaying, if at least one piece of the specification attribute information is in a selected state, an order confirmation page corresponding to the first to-be-displayed object in response to a determination operation on the first summary information.
The highlighted limitations comprising, “displaying, if at least one piece of the specification attribute information is in a selected state, an order confirmation page corresponding to the first to-be-displayed object in response to a determination operation on the first summary information”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite a commercial process as stated in the Applicant’s Specification, see at least paragraph 0030, “[0030] …………. The specification attribute selection page of commodity A displays all color options of commodity A. The user selects red in the specification attribute selection page of commodity A, and clicks the "Confirm" option to enter an order confirmation page. The user can only complete the whole order placing operation by clicking "Submit Order" on the order confirmation page. “ . Accordingly, the highlighted limitations relate to a sales activity for displaying items for purchase and receiving orders for displayed items/commodities on determining or finding out that the user has made a selection, falling within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Accordingly, claim 1 with its dependent claims 2-10 recite an abstract idea.
Since the other two independent claims 12 and 13 with their dependent claims 16-19 and 20-23 recite similar limitations as claim 1, they are analyzed on the same basis reciting “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Limitations in pending claims 1-10, 12-13, 16-23 recite abstract idea for further analysis (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 1-10, 12-13, 16-23: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the additional limitations of using generic computer components comprising a generic computer implementing the steps : (i) displaying an information stream page, wherein the information stream page comprises an object display page; the object display page comprises one or more cards respectively corresponding to one or more to-be-displayed objects, each card displaying summary information of a corresponding first to-be-displayed object, first summary information of the first to-be-displayed object is different from the summary information of other to-be-displayed objects at least in that the first summary information further comprises one or more pieces of specification attribute information of the first to be-displayed object, wherein the one or more pieces of specification attribute information are configured as selectable controls; and (iii) displaying, if at least one piece of the specification attribute information is in a selected state, an order confirmation page corresponding to the first to-be-displayed object in response to a determination operation on the first summary information." amount to are mere nominal data displaying information, data, or outputting pages and are typically viewed as insignificant post-solution or extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). The computer is recited at a high level of generality and is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of displaying information, data and pages. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed individually, and in combination, these additional elements in claim 1 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 is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Since the other two independent claims 12 and 13 recite similar limitations as claim 1, they are analyzed on the same basis as directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Dependent claims 2-10, 16-19, 20-23 recite limitations which are mere extension of the displaying data recited in the independent claims 1, 12 and 13. Claims 2-4, 5, 16-18, 20-22 merely recite including non-functional descriptive subject matter recited at a high level of generality, and displaying data, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitations in claims 5, 19, and 23“ in response to a selection operation on the at least one piece of the specification attribute information, switching the selected piece of specification attribute information from an unselected state to the selected state; " in claim 8 "switching the pieces of specification attribute information displayed in the information display area in response to a trigger operation on the information display area.”, and in claim 9 , “ displaying a specification attribute selection page in response to a trigger operation on the omit control, wherein the specification attribute selection page comprises all the specification attribute information of the first to-be-displayed object.” , are mere generic computer functions related to displaying/outputting data and information related to displayed objects based upon certain actions and do not recite any specific details reflecting technical improvement over generic displaying functions on generic computers.
Thus, when viewed individually and in combination, the additional elements in the pending claims 1-10, 12-13, 16-23 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 are directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
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 1-10, 12-13, 16--23 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 claims 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 1-10, 12-13, 16--23 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic -computer components implementing generic computer functions, 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.
As per MPEP 2106, a conclusion that an additional element or elements is/are extra-solution activity, or are well-understood, conventional and routine activity in step 2A should be re-evaluated in step 2B. Here the outputting/ displaying steps were considered insignificant extra-solution activity, and thus are re-evaluated in step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. 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 receiving, transmitting, and displaying steps using a generic computer is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). 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)
Accordingly, a conclusion that the transmitting, and displaying steps are well-understood, routine conventional activities are supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
Even when considered in combination, the additional elements in the pending claims 1-10, 12-13, 16--23 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
3.1. Claims 1, 2-5, 7, 10, 12-13, 16-19, 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 113453028 A, hereinafter CN’028, cited in the IDS filed 07/29/2026 and subsequent to mailing of Final Rejection on 04/10/2026.
Regarding claim 1, CN'028 teaches an information display method [See Para 0005 "an application provides an information display method, apparatus, client, and electronic device" and para 0006, " this application provide an information display method "] comprising:
(i) displaying an information stream page, wherein the information stream page comprises an object display page; the object display page comprises one or more cards respectively corresponding to one or more to-be-displayed objects, each card displaying summary information of a corresponding The interactive interface of the live streaming room provides a live streaming area and a first area; …. The first area displays an image related to at least one object associated with the live stream, wherein the image includes object information ", [0061] a video playback area and a first area are provided in the video playback interface; the video screen is displayed in the video playback area; and at least one image related to an object associated with the video is displayed in the first area, wherein the image includes object information. "; " [n0103] ….: Display an image related to at least one object associated with the live stream in the first area. [n0104]..The image may include object information, and the image associated with at least one object includes an image of each object, and the image of each object includes the object information of that object. [ n0106] In this process, the host can pre-publish objects for the live stream through the host's client. The server can provide the host with selection prompts for multiple objects. The host can pre-select at least one object to be explained in the live stream through the host's client, and the server can establish an association between the at least one object and the live stream.
The "object" can refer to products recommended through live streaming, and can be tangible goods or intangible services, such as virtual goods, physical goods, articles, or web pages." [0109] The object information in the image can include descriptive information related to the object. The descriptive information can be set according to the actual application situation. It can refer to the characteristics of the object itself or the selling points that can attract users, such as the price of the object.". The limitations "card displaying information" on a computer screen corresponds to the displayed image displaying information of the object as disclosed in CN'028.
The limitations, "that the one or more to-be-displayed objects comprise a first to-be-displayed object, first summary information of the first to-be-displayed object is different from the summary information of other to-be-displayed objects at least in that the first summary information further comprises one or more pieces of specification attribute information of the first to be-displayed object," are obvious in view of the CN"028 as discussed above, wherein the reference does teach displaying a plurality of objects which could be different objects as such each of the objects would have different summary information displayed in the form of images [corresponding to cards] by representing the process as discussed above. CN'208 further teaches, " wherein the one or more pieces of specification attribute information are configured as selectable controls;", see para 0270, " As shown in Figure 6d, if a second trigger operation is detected for a certain image, a second area can be displayed in the interactive interface, and the corresponding operation control 604 for the product can be displayed in the second area. The second area can be set according to the amount of content of the operation control. The operation controls may include, for example, an attribute selection control 63 that provides options for product attributes (such as color and size),"]; and
(iii) displaying, if at least one piece of the specification attribute information is in a selected state, an order confirmation page corresponding to the first to-be-displayed object in response to a determination operation on the first summary information [See paras 0270, " As shown in Figure 6d, if a second trigger operation is detected for a certain image, a second area can be displayed in the interactive interface, and the corresponding operation control 604 for the product can be displayed in the second area. The second area can be set according to the amount of content of the operation control. The operation controls may include, for example, an attribute selection control 63 that provides options for product attributes (such as color and size)"; and paras 0274 and 0275, ": Display at least one operation control corresponding to each product in the third area; [n0275] S3: In response to a trigger operation on any product's control, perform the corresponding processing on that product.".
CN'028 does not explicitly teach displaying an order confirmation page. Since, CN'208 teaches making selections of an object, its attributes and the option to add to cart along with a transaction control 65, it would be obvious to display a transaction completion/order confirmation page.
Regarding claim 2, CN'028 teaches that the information display method according to The information display method according to wherein the first to-be-displayed object comprises at least one of the following: a to-be-displayed object in a state of being explained, a to-be-displayed object with a display priority meeting a preset display condition, and a to-be-displayed object with a popularity value meeting a preset popularity condition [See paras .027--0130, " When the at least one object includes the target object of the currently playing content in the live stream, the target object being explained by the host is more important to the user. Therefore, in some embodiments, displaying an image related to at least one object associated with the live stream in the first area may include: [n0128] B1: Identify at least one object associated with the live stream room; [n0129] B2: Determine the target object of the currently playing content in the live stream among at least one of the objects; [n0130] B2: Display an image related to at least one object in the first area, and display specific marker information at the display position corresponding to the image of the target object"].
Regarding claim 3, CN’028 teaches and renders obvious the limitations, " the information display method according to Claim 1, wherein, if at least two pieces of the specification attribute information are in the selected state, each piece of the specification attribute information in the selected state corresponds to a different category [See paras 0270 , as cited above] describes that various attribute selections , such as size, color, , etc. on a user interface can be selected , and when they are selected on a display and it would be obvious that they would be in presented in the selected state.
Regarding claim 4, CN'028 that the information display method according to any one of Claim 1, wherein the card displaying the first summary information is displayed object is a first display position in the object display page [See para 0091, " Provide the live streaming area and the first area in the interactive interface of the live streaming room."]
Regarding claim 5, its limitations, “The information display method according to Claim 1 , wherein displaying, if at least one piece of the specification attribute information is in the selected state, the order confirmation page corresponding to the first to-be-displayed object in response to a determination operation on the first summary information, comprises: in response to a selection operation of the at least one piece of the specification attribute information, switching the selected piece of specification attribute information from an unselected state to the selected state; in response to the determination operation on the first summary information displaying the order confirmation page corresponding to the first to-be- displayed object.”, are already covered in the analysis of claim 1 , See paras 0270, 0274-0275.
Regarding claim 7, CN'028 teaches the limitations, “ The information display method according to Claim 1, wherein the summary information comprises at least one of following: image information; if the summary information is the first summary information and at least one piece of the specification attribute information is in the selected state, the image information is image information of the first to-be-displayed object under the specification attribute in the selected state; or label information; if the summary information is the first summary information and at least one piece of the specification attribute information is in the selected state, the label information is label information of the first to-be-displayed object under the specification attribute in the selected state.”, see claim 1 analysis and para 0103 , " Display an image related to at least one object associated with the live stream in the first area.".
Regarding claim 10, its limitations, “The information display method according to claim 1, wherein the information stream page comprises a live room preview stream page or a live room display page ;the to-be-displayed objects comprise commodities; the specification attribute information comprises at least one of the following: size, style, material, and color.”, are already covered in the analysis of claim ad see para 0109, " The object information in the image can include descriptive information related to the object. The descriptive information can be set according to the actual application situation. It can refer to the characteristics of the object itself or the selling points that can attract users, such as the price of the object."]
Regarding claims 12, 16-19, and 13, 20-23, since their limitations are similar to the limitations of claims 1, 2--5, they are analyzed and rejected as being unpatentable over CN’028 based on same rationale.
3.2 Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN’028 in view of JP 2010205072A, hereinafter JP’072
Regarding claim 6, CN’031 teaches and render obvious the limitations of claims 1 and 5, as analyzed above but fail to disclose that at least one of the following is satisfied: a background color of the specification attribute information in the selected state is different from that of the specification attribute information in the unselected state; a text color of the specification attribute information in the selected state is different from that of the specification attribute information in the unselected state; or, a border color of the specification attribute information in the selected state is different from that of the specification attribute information in the unselected state. JP’072, in the same field of online shopping, teaches displaying different attributes of an item with different marked colors, see Abstract, “The online shopping management device includes: a search condition accepting means for accepting a search condition for a product from a user terminal; a search execution means for searching a product information database on the basis of the accepted search condition; a product attribute extracting and clustering means for extracting product attributes from a search result and clusters them; a color information assigning means for assigning color information different by at least cluster to display parts of clustered product attributes; and a search result page generating and transmitting means for generating a search result page on the basis of a color information assignment result and transmitting the search result page to the user terminal” . This excerpt from JP'072 teaches assigning different colors to different clustered product attributes which will include assigning colors to background and text for the products. Therefore, in view of the teachings of JP’072, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined teachings of CN’028 to incorporate the concept of a background color of the specification attribute information in the selected state is different from that of the specification attribute information in the unselected state; a text color of the specification attribute information in the selected state is different from that of the specification attribute information in the unselected state; or, a border color of the specification attribute information in the selected state is different from that of the specification attribute information in the unselected state, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
3.3. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN’031 in view of Jiang and in view of Alba [US 20190180789 A1].
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings of CN’028 teaches and renders obvious the limitations of claim 1, as analyzed above but fails to disclose that wherein the first summary information comprises an information display area, and the specification attribute information is located in the information display area; if the number of pieces of the specification attribute information that can be accommodated in the information display area is less than the number of pieces of the specification attribute information that need to be displayed, the method further comprises: switching the pieces of specification attribute information displayed in the information display area in response to a trigger operation on the information display area. Alba, in the same field of managing data in a specified display area teaches providing a triggering operation by sliding new or additional data in place of existing data, which is operated by a button so that the existing data slides to accommodate new data.”. Therefore, in view of the teachings of Alba, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of CN’028 to incorporate the concept of wherein the summary information comprises an information display area, and the specification attribute information is located in the information display area; if the number of pieces of the specification attribute information that can be accommodated in the information display area is less than the number of pieces of the specification attribute information that need to be displayed, the method further comprises: switching the pieces of specification attribute information displayed in the information display area in response to a trigger operation on the information display area. Alba, in the same field of managing data in a specified display area teaches providing a triggering operation by sliding new or additional data in place of existing data, which is operated by a button so that the existing data slides to accommodate new data, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
3.4. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN’028 in view of Jiang and in view of Khoo [US 20080059571 A1]
Regarding claim 9, CN’028 teaches and renders obvious the limitations of claim 1, as analyzed above, but fails to disclose that wherein the first summary information comprises an information display area, and the specification attribute information is located in the information display area; if the number of pieces of the specification attribute information that can be accommodated in the information display area is less than the number of pieces of the specification attribute information that need to be displayed, a portion of the pieces of the specification attribute information and an omit control are displayed in the information display area; the method further comprises: displaying a specification attribute selection page in response to a trigger operation on the omit control, wherein the specification attribute selection page comprises all the specification attribute information of the target to-be-displayed object. Khoo, in the same field f endeavor of using a switch action to display another web page for displaying content, teaches, see claims 12-14: “12. A method of displaying an intermediate message in an active display area of a network client computer, comprising the steps of: identifying an unused display space within the active display area, …… monitoring the state of the active display area to determine if there is a context switch of the active display area to display new content in the active display area; ….. displaying an intermediate message as a full page display during the idle time if there is a context switch of the active display area; and displaying an intermediate message of appropriate size in the unused display space if there is not a context switch of the active display area. …… 14. The method of claim 12 wherein the context switch is due to one of scrolling entire display area from a first page to a second page, or loading a new web page from a first network address to second network address.”. Therefore, in view of the teachings of Khoo, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of CN’028 to incorporate the concept of wherein the summary information comprises an information display area, and the specification attribute information is located in the information display area; if the number of pieces of the specification attribute information that can be accommodated in the information display area is less than the number of pieces of the specification attribute information that need to be displayed, a portion of the pieces of the specification attribute information and an omit control are displayed in the information display area; the method further comprises: displaying a specification attribute selection page in response to a trigger operation on the omit control, wherein the specification attribute selection page comprises all the specification attribute information of the target to-be-displayed object, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Response to Arguments
4.1 35 USC 101 rejection:
Applicant's arguments filed 07/09/2025, see pages 11-16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Examiner has reviewed and considered the Applicant's arguments on pages 11-13, which are not persuasive, when the claim elements are [claim 1 considered exemplary] are analyzed per Step 2A, Prong One. Step 2A, Prong One 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. The limitations, " displaying, if at least one piece of the specification attribute information is in a selected state, an order confirmation page corresponding to the first to-be-displayed object in response to a determination operation on the first summary information”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, do “set forth” or “described” a commercial comprising a sales activity for displaying items for purchase and receiving orders for displayed items/commodities on determining or finding out that the user has made a selection, falling within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Accordingly, claim 1 with its dependent claims 2-10 recite an abstract idea. Applicant's arguments, that " Claims recite concrete technical features…"; Claims are directed to A specific improvement in GUI Technology", "Para 0030 describes prior art.., " and "The claimed limitations are not recited at a high level of generality", are not persuasive because, as stated above, the limitations comprising displaying an order confirmation page for an object with selected attributes of the object" do describe a commercial related activity.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Examiner has reviewed and considered the Applicant's arguments on pages 13-14, which are not persuasive, when the claim elements are [claim 1 considered exemplary] are analyzed per Step 2A, Prong Two. Step 2A, Prong Two: 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). The claim 1 recites the additional elements comprising, " using generic computer components implementing the steps : displaying an information stream page, ….., and the one or more to-be-displayed objects are objects corresponding to the information stream page; if the one or more to-be-displayed objects comprise a first to-be-displayed object, first summary information of the first to-be-displayed object is different from the summary information of other to-be-displayed objects at least in that the first summary information further comprises one or more pieces of specification attribute information of the first to be-displayed object, wherein the one or more pieces of specification attribute information are configured as selectable controls; and displaying, if at least one piece of the specification attribute information is in a selected state, an order confirmation page ……." , amount to are mere nominal data displaying information, data, or outputting pages and are typically viewed as insignificant post-solution or extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). Therefore, these limitations do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and thus, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As such, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Examiner has reviewed and considered the Applicant's arguments on pages 14-16, which are not persuasive, when the claim elements are [claim 1 considered exemplary] are analyzed per Step 2B. Step 2B 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.
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, all the additional elements were directed to displaying data, streaming pages, objects, summary information, attributes information, etc. which were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as displaying data in a nominal way. 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. 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 receiving, transmitting, and displaying steps using a generic computer is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). 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).
In view of the foregoing, the rejection of claim 1 and the other two independent claims 12 and 13 under 35 USC 101 is sustainable and maintained. Applicant has not filed separate arguments for the dependent claims.
4.2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of pending claims under 35 USC 103, see pages 16-22, have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection including the reference CN 113453028A cited in the IDS filed 07/09/2026 and necessitated due to current amendments to the independent claims 1, 12 and 13.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NPL reference:
(i) Y. Sakurai, T. Kawabe, T. Sakai, K. Takada, S. Tsuruta and M. Yoshiyuki, "A sale-oriented product management method for e-commerce," 2010 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Istanbul, Turkey, 2010, pp. 646-653 retrieved from IP. Com on 04022026 cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 04/10/2026 describes” a sale management web page, the automatic construction and interactive modifications of sale pages as well as the automatic/interactive update of DB for each sale product group can be done simultaneously and dynamically, synchronized with the sales”, such that on these sales web pages information comprising discount rate, point rate, conditions of delivery), etc. and product design templates can be selected. Each of sales products is managed individually and using an interactive function, if necessary, a shortage of stock can be automatically displayed on the sales screen.
Final Rejection:
6. Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 07/06/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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.
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).
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, Maria-Teresa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YOGESH C GARG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights