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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 07/09/2026.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15, and 17-20 are amended.
Claims 4, 10, and 16 are cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15, and 17-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received 07/27/2026 has been reviewed and considered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15, and 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Taking amended claim 1 as a representative claim, the claims as amended incorporate the allowable subject matter of cancelled claim 4, and are found to overcome the prior art rejection for the reasons set forth below. The closest prior art was found to be as follows:
Linden (US 2016/0171588 A1) discloses displaying, by the terminal device, a content sharing page, wherein the content sharing page comprises at least one display area, wherein the at least one display area is configured to display a piece of assessment information, the assessment information is configured to recommend an object, the assessment information comprises a first image and a first text, and the at least one display area comprises an image display area and a text display area (See ¶ [0150] personalized product page including comments, ratings, and product image”; FIG. 7); displaying, by the terminal device, the first image in the image display area (see image beside “Kate Miller” in Fig. 5A-5B; see images in Fig. 7);displaying, by the terminal device, the first text in the text display area (see text in Fig. 5A-5B; Fig. 7); and displaying, by the terminal device, abstract information of the object in the at least one display area in response to a triggering operation performed on the one piece of assessment information (¶ [0107] “In some embodiments, the product presentation manager 118 can update a presentation of product information as additional relevant product information is obtained. For example, the product presentation manager 118 can update a presentation of product information ... based on a user action (e.g., an update request or an access of the presentation) ... and/or upon the occurrence of any other trigger.”; ¶ [0150] “the recommendation summary 506 can provide links (e.g., link 510) to additional material;, such as product ratings and/or reviews ... each product name can include a link to a product page associated with the product”), wherein the abstract information comprises a second image and a second text (¶ [0150] “For example, each product name can include a link to a product page associated with the product and that, in some embodiments, is personalized for the user as described in more detail above. For instance, a personalized product page can include comments, ratings, and reviews from co-users as well as product information such as the product name, price, and image”).
However, Linden does not disclose or render obvious: wherein the displaying the abstract information of the object in the at least one display area comprises: replacing the first image displayed in the image display area with the second image, and replacing the first text displayed in the text display area with the second text.
Zaman et al. (US 2014/0082552 A1) discloses replacing a first image displayed in an image display area with a second image; and replacing the first text displayed in the text display area with the second text (¶ [0080] “consider an updated version of tile 602 shown in FIG. 13 as updated tile 1302”; Fig. 13, tile 1302 and Fig. 12, tile 602). However, Zaman does not disclose or render obvious wherein the displaying the abstract information of the object in the at least one display area comprises replacing the first image displayed in the image display area (of the assessment information) with the second image, and replacing the first text displayed in the text display area (of the assessment information) with the second text.
Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the features of the claims exist individually, the combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of the evidence obtained to reach the combination of features as claimed would require substantial reconstruction of Applicant' s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C. § 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, 5-9, 11-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility (SME) analysis described in MPEP 2106.03, the instant claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention identified by 35 U.S.C. 101. In the instant case, claims 1-9 and 13 are directed to a method, claims 11 and 14-20 are directed to systems, and claim 12 is directed to a manufacture. Claims 1, 11, and 12 are parallel in nature, therefore, the analysis will use claim 1 as the representative claim.
In Step 2A Prong One, it must be considered whether the claims recite a judicial exception. Claim 1, as exemplary of the independent claims, recites abstract concepts including: displaying ... a content sharing page, wherein the content sharing page comprises at least one display area, wherein the at least one display area is configured to display a piece of assessment information, the assessment information is configured to recommending an object, the assessment information comprises a first image and a first text and the display area comprises an image display area and a text display area; displaying ... the first image in the display area; displaying ... the first text in the text display area; and displaying ... abstract information of the object in the at least one display area in response to a triggering operation performed on the piece of assessment information, wherein the abstract information comprises a second image and a second text, wherein the displaying the abstract information of the object in the at least one display area comprises: replacing the first image displayed in the image display area with the second image, and replacing the first text displayed in the text display area with the second text.
These identified limitations recite the abstract idea of “display object assessment and abstract information”, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas as sets forth and describes commercial interactions of sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, claims 1 and 11-12 recite an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04.
In Step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Instant claims 1 and 11-12 recite additional elements including: a terminal device; an interaction apparatus; an electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; and a storage apparatus configured to store one or more programs; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The apparatus, electronic device, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium are each recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing generic computer functions of transmitting and receiving information) such that it amounts to no more than “apply it” or mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instruction to apply an exception with a generic computer. Accordingly, even in combination, 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. See MPEP 2106.05. Claims 1 and 10-12 are thus directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the SME analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) individually and in combination are merely being used to apply the abstract idea to a general computer components. For the same reason, the elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea with a generic computer does not add significantly more in Step 2B. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in ordered combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus claims 1 and 10-12 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-3, 5-7, 9, 13-15, and 18-20 do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claims. These claims merely further define the abstract idea without reciting any further additional elements. Thus, dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, 9, 13-15, and 18-20 are also ineligible.
Dependent claim 8 recites additional elements including: the experience assessment information comprises a link; and showing a detail page of the target object corresponding to the selected link. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. implementation on the Internet). Accordingly, claim(s) 8, considered both individually and as a combination, is/are ineligible.
Claim 17 recites additional elements including: a first terminal and a second terminal. Similar to the additional elements identified above, the first and second terminals are described in ordinary terms and merely used as a tool in performance of the abstract idea. Furthermore, transmitting data (i.e. providing a picture”) has been repeatedly considered a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer activity by the Courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, claim(s) 17, considered both individually and as a combination, is/are ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/09/2026, with respect to 35 USC § 101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to claim 1, the applicant argues “none of the limitations is a sales activity and behavior” and thus “claim 1 does not recite a certain method of organizing human activity under Step 2A Prong One”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is essential that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim be established prior to examining a claim for eligibility. The BRI sets the boundaries of the coverage sought by the claim and will influence whether the claim seeks to cover subject matter that is beyond the four statutory categories or encompasses subject matter that falls within the exceptions. See MyMail, Ltd. v. ooVoo, LLC, 934 F.3d 1373, 1379, 2019 USPQ2d 305789 (Fed. Cir. 2019). In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. See MPEP 2106.04(a).
The amended claims set forth and describe recommending an object using assessment information, presenting abstract information about that object in response to a triggering operation, and replacing a first image and text associated with the object with a second image and text. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “object” consistent with the Specification includes “a commodity” (see background ¶ [0003] and ¶ [0025]). Accordingly, the BRI of claim 1 includes presenting a recommendation and further details of a recommended commodity, which is a sales, advertising, and marketing activity under the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping.
On page 11 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that “claim 1, as amended, is directed to ‘improving display of information on a terminal device’” and recites “a specific solution implemented by the terminal device to provide more information with a consistent display style for improving display of information”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a) and 2106.05(f).
Although the claimed method is drafted as being performed “by the terminal device”, none of the recited steps require a computer. A person can show assessment information recommending an item on a physical page with an image and text area and, in response to a “triggering operation” like a user pointing to or touching the assessment information, replace the image and text with another image and another text in the same displayed area. The terminal device is only described generically and the claims do not identify any specific technical mechanisms for “displaying” the abstract information or “replacing” displaying information. The alleged improvement of “providing more information with a consistent display style” is an improvement to the content and presented object information which is the abstract idea itself. The additional elements such as the terminal device and displaying steps amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Accordingly, the Examiner maintains the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
For at least these reasons, claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15, and 17-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
S. Karpischek and F. Michahelles (NPL Reference U) describes the development of an application for reading and sharing comments and ratings on retail products.
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 KENNEDY A GIBSON-WYNN whose telephone number is (571)272-8305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 PM.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764 and Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/K.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights