DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
• The following is an office action in response to the communication filed 06/16/2026.
• Claims 1-12 and 14-21 have been amended.
• Claim 13 has been canceled.
• Claims 1-12 and 14-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of Application No. CN 202211384494.9, filed on 11/07/2022 has been received.
The examiner acknowledges that the instant application is a national stage entry of PCT/CN2023/129995, filed 11/06/2023.
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 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 1-12 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. See MPEP 2106.03(II). In the instant case, claims 1-12 are directed to a process, claims 14 and 16-21 are directed to a machine, and claim 15 is directed to a manufacture. Therefore, claims 1-12 and 14-21 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong 1 of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong 2 of Step 2A). See MPEP 2106.04.
Taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
in response to an object sending request, determining an object and a receiving account, and
displaying a configuration, wherein the configuration comprises a plurality of selectable candidate elements corresponding to the object, and wherein the plurality of selectable candidate elements comprise at least one first element corresponding to at least one candidate display manner and at least one second element corresponding piece of candidate display content, wherein the at least one candidate display manner comprises one or more of a display, a message display, or a display;
in response to a configuration operation triggered for the configuration, determining a display configuration item, wherein the display configuration item comprises a display manner selected from the at least one candidate display manner and display content selected from the at least one piece of candidate display content; and
sending the display configuration item to the receiving account, to display the display content on the receiving account in the display manner.
The above limitations recite the concept of sending content related to an object to a recipient. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Specifically, the sending of content relating to the object to a receiving account is management of an interaction between people. Further, these limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Specifically, the determinations are observations, evaluations, and judgements. These limitations are similar to the mental process of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. Independent claims 14-15 recite similar limitations as claim 1 and as such, claims 14-15 fall within the same identified grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1 and 14-15 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the MPEP, claims 1 and 14-15 recite additional elements, such as a configuration interface; selectable candidate user interface elements; one first user interface element; one second user interface element; a feed display; a link display; an electronic device, comprising: a processor and a memory, wherein the memory is configured to store instructions or a computer program; and the processor is configured to execute the instructions or computer program stored in the memory to cause the electronic device to; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium, storing instructions or a computer program, wherein when the instructions or the computer program is run on a device, the device is caused to. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. As such, these computer-related limitations are not found to be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Although these additional computer-related elements are recited, claims 1 and 14-15 merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Similar to the limitations of Alice, claims 1 and 14-15 merely recite a commonplace business method (i.e., sending content related to an object to a recipient) being applied on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, claims 1 and 14-15 generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The courts have identified various examples of limitations as merely indicating a field of use/technological environment in which to apply the abstract idea, such as specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer (see FairWarning v. Iatric Sys.). Likewise, claims 1 and 14-15 specifying that the abstract idea of sending content related to a gift to a recipient is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the MPEP, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1 and 14-15 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Since claims 1 and 14-15 recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 1 and 14-15 are “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Next, under Step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. The instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for at least the following reasons.
Returning to independent claims 1 and 14-15, these claims recite additional elements, such as a configuration interface; selectable candidate user interface elements; one first user interface element; one second user interface element; a feed display; a link display; an electronic device, comprising: a processor and a memory, wherein the memory is configured to store instructions or a computer program; and the processor is configured to execute the instructions or computer program stored in the memory to cause the electronic device to; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium, storing instructions or a computer program, wherein when the instructions or the computer program is run on a device, the device is caused to. As discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although additional computer-related elements are recited, the claims merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Moreover, the limitations of claims 1 and 14-15 are manual processes, e.g., receiving information, analyzing information, etc. The courts have indicated that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)). Furthermore, as discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, claims 1 and 14-15 merely recite the additional elements in order to further define the field of use of the abstract idea, therein attempting to generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such as the Internet or computing networks (see Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC. (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bilski v. Kappos (2010); MPEP 2106.05(h)). Similar to FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., claims specifying that the abstract idea of sending content related to an object to a recipient is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claim to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. In Alice Corp., the Court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘[a]dd nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’ and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Id. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, viewed as a whole, claims 1 and 14-15 simply convey the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1 and 14-15 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-12 and 16-21, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite an abstract idea, are not integrated into a practical application, and do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claims 2-12 and 16-21 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they further recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. These claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, further fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Dependent claims 2-12 and 16-21 further identify additional elements, such as a display feed, video data; a video recording control; a video recording page; an account configuration page; a sending confirmation page; a chat page; a push time configuration page; a sending result prompt interface; a chat display page; a video display page; a logistics information display page; a verification page; a gift object aggregation page; and an order display page. Similar to discussion above the with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although additional computer-related elements are recited, the claims merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such, under Step 2A, dependent claims 2-12 and 16-21 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claims 1 and 14-15, dependent claims 2-12 and 16-21 analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and merely indicate a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Accordingly, under the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1-12 and 14-21 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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. 102 that forms the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 9-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over previously cited Glass et al. (US 20160350842 A1), hereafter Glass.
In regards to claim 1, Glass discloses a method for improving display of objects in user accounts, comprising (Glass: [abstract]; [0005]; [0036]):
in response to an object sending request, determining an object and a receiving account (Glass: [0064] and Fig. 3 – “user may arrive at the system interface via an HTML link or other suitable entry point, such as through a mobile app executed on a portable computing device. The user typically initiates the online personalized gifting transaction by requesting a URL of the server 102 through a browser or by launching the mobile app”; [0067-0068] and Fig. 3 – “the e-gift ordering application 104 receives information associated with a recipient. For example, the e-gift ordering application 104 generates a recipient information screen (FIG. 7) to receive one or more identifying elements of the recipient from the user….e-gift ordering application 104 obtains personal information of the recipient using one or more social network sites, such as FACEBOOK… the e-gift ordering application 104 receives e-gift information from the computing device 108 and facilitates activation of the e-gift. For example, the e-gift ordering application 104 may present a merchant selection screen (FIG. 9) for entry of a particular merchant of the e-gift, which upon selection by the user, then displays an e-gift selection screen (FIG. 10) and an e-gift customization screen (FIG. 11), which in this particular example is configured to provide for selection and customization of a gift card of the selected merchant. The e-gift selection screen also provides for selection of a monetary value to be associated with the e-gift”), and
displaying a configuration interface, wherein the configuration interface comprises a plurality of selectable candidate user interface elements corresponding to the object, and wherein the plurality of selectable candidate user interface elements comprise at least one first user interface element corresponding to at least one candidate display manner and at least one second user interface element corresponding to at least one piece of candidate display content, wherein the at least one candidate display manner comprises one or more of a feed display, a message display, or a link display (Glass: [0069-0070] and Figs. 3 & 12-14 – “e-gift ordering application 104 presents an occasion screen (FIG. 12) for entry of a particular occasion by a user of the computing device 108. As another example, the e-gift ordering application 104 presents a reveal video template selection screen (FIG. 13) for selection of a particular reveal template to be customized. For a particular example in which the selected occasion is Christmas, the e-gift ordering application 104 presents multiple reveal video templates associated with the Christmas season, such as a manger scene, a Christmas tree, three wise men, and the like. The e-gift ordering application 104 receives a selected occasion from the computing device 108 of the user for further customization… the application 104 presents a reveal video customization screen (FIG. 14) to manage the entry of reveal video information by the user. For example, the interactive screen includes a ‘Record User-Supplied Content’ button that when selected, allows the user to enter user-supplied content, such as textual, audio, photographic, and/or video content to be included in the reveal video. As another example, the interactive screen includes a ‘Select Prerecorded Content’ button that when selected, allows the user to select from among multiple instances of prerecorded content”; the examiner notes the video feed in which the video is displayed is interpreted to be the feed, consistent with [0103] of the Specification);
in response to a configuration operation triggered for the configuration interface, determining a display configuration item, wherein the display configuration item comprises a display manner selected from the at least one candidate display manner and display content selected from the at least one piece of candidate display content (Glass: [0069-0071] and Figs. 3 & 12-14 – “e-gift ordering application 104 presents an occasion screen (FIG. 12) for entry of a particular occasion by a user of the computing device 108. As another example, the e-gift ordering application 104 presents a reveal video template selection screen (FIG. 13) for selection of a particular reveal template to be customized. For a particular example in which the selected occasion is Christmas, the e-gift ordering application 104 presents multiple reveal video templates associated with the Christmas season, such as a manger scene, a Christmas tree, three wise men, and the like. The e-gift ordering application 104 receives a selected occasion from the computing device 108 of the user for further customization… the application 104 presents a reveal video customization screen (FIG. 14) to manage the entry of reveal video information by the user. For example, the interactive screen includes a ‘Record User-Supplied Content’ button that when selected, allows the user to enter user-supplied content, such as textual, audio, photographic, and/or video content to be included in the reveal video. As another example, the interactive screen includes a ‘Select Prerecorded Content’ button that when selected, allows the user to select from among multiple instances of prerecorded content… The e-gift ordering application 104 also displays a reveal video preview screen (FIG. 15) that displays a preview of the customized reveal video so that the user may view the reveal video. The e-gift ordering application 104 generates a reveal video in accordance with information provided by the user of the computing device at 302 through 310”); and
sending the display configuration item to the receiving account, to display the display content on the receiving account in the display manner (Glass: [0071] and Fig. 3 – “At 316, the e-gift ordering application 104 transmits the reveal video/e-gift combination to the recipient. The e-gift ordering application 104 transmits the reveal video/e-gift combination to the user via any suitable digital format, such as via an e-mail message, via a short message service (SMS) message, or via a social media account”; [0074] and Fig. 4 – “At 402, the user application 152 displays the reveal video on the GUI 148 of the computing device 114”; [0045] – “The e-gift ordering application 104 then generates a digital reveal video 110/e-gift 112 combination that is digitally transmitted to the recipient using an e-mail message, a short message service (SMS), via a social media account, or other suitable digital communication medium”).
Examiner note: The limitations beginning “in response to a gifting operation request” and “in response to a configuration operation triggered” and all the steps dependent on these limitations are conditional and accordingly are granted little to no patentable weight. Nonetheless, the limitations have been fully examined. This applies for only the method claims.
In regards to claim 2, Glass discloses the method of claim 1. Glass further discloses
wherein the display manner is: adding the display content to a to-be-played information display feed corresponding to the receiving account, the display content corresponding to a preset arrangement position in the to-be-played information display feed (Glass: [0071] and Fig. 3 – “At 316, the e-gift ordering application 104 transmits the reveal video/e-gift combination to the recipient. The e-gift ordering application 104 transmits the reveal video/e-gift combination to the user via any suitable digital format, such as via an e-mail message, via a short message service (SMS) message, or via a social media account”; [0074] and Fig. 4 – “At 402, the user application 152 displays the reveal video on the GUI 148 of the computing device 114”; [0045] – “The e-gift ordering application 104 then generates a digital reveal video 110/e-gift 112 combination that is digitally transmitted to the recipient using an e-mail message, a short message service (SMS), via a social media account, or other suitable digital communication medium”; the examiner notes the video feed in which the video is displayed is interpreted to be the feed, consistent with [0103] of the Specification; see also [0069-0071] and Figs. 3 & 12-14).
In regards to claim 3, Glass discloses the method of claim 1. Glass further discloses
wherein the at least one piece of candidate display content comprises a plurality of pieces of candidate video data; and wherein a determination process of the display content comprises: in response to a selection operation for the video data of the plurality of candidate video data, determining the display content based on video data (Glass: [0069-0071] and Figs. 3 & 12-14 – “the application 104 presents a reveal video customization screen (FIG. 14) to manage the entry of reveal video information by the user. For example, the interactive screen includes a ‘Record User-Supplied Content’ button that when selected, allows the user to enter user-supplied content, such as textual, audio, photographic, and/or video content to be included in the reveal video. As another example, the interactive screen includes a ‘Select Prerecorded Content’ button that when selected, allows the user to select from among multiple instances of prerecorded content… The e-gift ordering application 104 also displays a reveal video preview screen (FIG. 15) that displays a preview of the customized reveal video so that the user may view the reveal video. The e-gift ordering application 104 generates a reveal video in accordance with information provided by the user of the computing device at 302 through 310”).
In regards to claim 4, Glass discloses the method of claim 3. Glass further discloses
wherein the plurality of pieces of candidate video data are determined based on at least one of a type of the object, a delivery time of the object, and an associated account corresponding to the object, the associated account satisfying a preset association relationship with the object (Glass: [0080] and Figs. 24-26 – “the user application 152 displays an image of the e-gift for the recipient. For example, an image of the e-gift may be displayed as a box that is revealed when the wrapping paper is tore away as shown in FIG. 18. As another example, an image of the e-gift may be displayed as a stored value card (e.g., a gift card) that is revealed when the candle is blown out as shown in FIG. 21, or when the confetti is shaken from the GUI 148 as shown in FIG. 26”; [0102] and Figs. 34A-D – “In FIG. 34A, the application 104 initially displays a glass 3402 that is mostly full of a beverage 3404. In FIG. 34B, the application 104 is responsive to a tilting motion of the recipient computing device 114 to display the beverage 3404 being poured from the glass 3402. As the recipient computing device 114 is tilted to the horizontal orientation, the application 104 may display the glass 3402 as being completely emptied as shown in FIG. 34C. Thereafter in FIG. 34D, when the recipient computing device 114 is tilted back to the vertical orientation, the e-voucher 3202 may be revealed to show the recipient has been given an e-voucher to a beverage”; [0054] – “receives other information from the computing device 108 of the user for customizing the reveal video, which may include, for example, selection of a particular color scheme to be associated with the reveal video, entry of user-supplied content, and/or selection of one or more pre-recorded content to be included with the reveal video. For example, the reveal video customization module 208 receives user selection of a holder type including a particular design associated with a special occasion, which is, for example, a birthday, wedding, or a holiday, such as Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving”; the examiner notes at least one of the items on the list are affirmatively recited so only one need be taught or disclosed).
In regards to claim 5, Glass discloses the method of claim 1. Glass further discloses
wherein the configuration interface further comprises a video recording control; wherein a determination process of the display content comprises: in response to a trigger operation for the video recording control, displaying a video recording page; and in response to a video recording operation triggered for the video recording page, generating video data to be used, and determining the display content based on the video data to be used (Glass: [0070] and Fig. 14 – “For example, the application 104 presents a reveal video customization screen (FIG. 14) to manage the entry of reveal video information by the user. For example, the interactive screen includes a “Record User-Supplied Content” button that when selected, allows the user to enter user-supplied content, such as textual, audio, photographic, and/or video content to be included in the reveal video”; [0053-0055] – “user interface module 206 facilitates the receipt of data and/or other communications from the computing device 108 of the user. In one example, the user interface module 206 communicates with the computing device 108 using a web browser executed on the computing device 108 to provide one or more selectable fields, editing screens, and the like for receiving content…to be included in the reveal video 110…provide one or more selectable fields, editing screens, and the like for receiving content…to receive user-supplied content to be included on the reveal video and/or the gift card… The user-supplied content may include…recorded video content”).
Examiner note: The limitations beginning “in response to a trigger operation” and “in response to a video recording operation triggered” and all the steps dependent on these limitations are conditional and accordingly are granted little to no patentable weight. Nonetheless, the limitations have been fully examined. This applies for only the method claims.
In regards to claim 6, Glass discloses the method of claim 1. Glass further discloses
wherein the configuration interface further displays an account configuration trigger control; wherein the method further comprises: in response to a trigger operation for the account configuration trigger control, displaying an account configuration page (Glass: [0064] and Fig. 3 – “user may arrive at the system interface via an HTML link or other suitable entry point, such as through a mobile app executed on a portable computing device. The user typically initiates the online personalized gifting transaction by requesting a URL of the server 102 through a browser or by launching the mobile app”; [0067-0068] and Figs. 3 and 6-7 – “the e-gift ordering application 104 receives information associated with a recipient. For example, the e-gift ordering application 104 generates a recipient information screen (FIG. 7) to receive one or more identifying elements of the recipient from the user….e-gift ordering application 104 obtains personal information of the recipient using one or more social network sites, such as FACEBOOK”); and
in response to an account configuration operation triggered for the account configuration page, determining a content display account corresponding to the gift receiving account and displaying a sending confirmation page (Glass: [0064] and Fig. 3 – “user may arrive at the system interface via an HTML link or other suitable entry point, such as through a mobile app executed on a portable computing device. The user typically initiates the online personalized gifting transaction by requesting a URL of the server 102 through a browser or by launching the mobile app”; [0067-0068] and Fig. 3 – “the e-gift ordering application 104 receives information associated with a recipient. For example, the e-gift ordering application 104 generates a recipient information screen (FIG. 7) to receive one or more identifying elements of the recipient from the user….e-gift ordering application 104 obtains personal information of the recipient using one or more social network sites, such as FACEBOOK”; Glass: [0070-0071] and Figs. 3 & 14-15 – “For example, the application 104 presents a reveal video customization screen (FIG. 14) to manage the entry of reveal video information by the user. For example, the interactive screen includes a “Record User-Supplied Content” button that when selected, allows the user to enter user-supplied content, such as textual, audio, photographic, and/or video content to be included in the reveal video…The e-gift ordering application 104 also displays a reveal video preview screen (FIG. 15) that displays a preview of the customized reveal video so that the user may view the reveal video…At 314, the e-gift ordering application 104 generates a reveal video in accordance with information provided by the user of the computing device at 302 through 310. At 316, the e-gift ordering application 104 transmits the reveal video/e-gift combination to the recipient”); and
wherein the sending the display configuration item to the receiving account, to display the display content on the receiving account in the display manner comprises: in response to a sending confirmation operation triggered for the sending confirmation page, sending the display configuration item to the content display account to display the display content on the content display account in the display manner (Glass: [0070-0071] and Figs. 3 & 14-15 – “For example, the application 104 presents a reveal video customization screen (FIG. 14) to manage the entry of reveal video information by the user. For example, the interactive screen includes a “Record User-Supplied Content” button that when selected, allows the user to enter user-supplied content, such as textual, audio, photographic, and/or video content to be included in the reveal video…The e-gift ordering application 104 also displays a reveal video preview screen (FIG. 15) that displays a preview of the customized reveal video so that the user may view the reveal video…At 314, the e-gift ordering application 104 generates a reveal video in accordance with information provided by the user of the computing device at 302 through 310. At 316, the e-gift ordering application 104 transmits the reveal video/e-gift combination to the recipient”; [0053-0055] – “user interface module 206 facilitates the receipt of data and/or other communications from the computing device 108 of the user. In one example, the user interface module 206 communicates with the computing device 108 using a web browser executed on the computing device 108 to provide one or more selectable fields, editing screens, and the like for receiving content…to be included in the reveal video 110…provide one or more selectable fields, editing screens, and the like for receiving content…to receive user-supplied content to be included on the reveal video and/or the gift card… The user-supplied content may include…recorded video content”; the examiner notes the interfaces display “continue” buttons, interpreted to be triggers).
Examiner note: The limitations beginning “in response to a trigger operation”; “in response to an account configuration operation triggered” and “in response to a sending confirmation operation triggered” and all the steps dependent on these limitations are conditional and accordingly are granted little to no patentable weight. Nonetheless, the limitations have been fully examined. This applies for only the method claims.
In regards to claim 9, Glass discloses the method of claim 6. Glass further discloses
wherein the displaying a sending confirmation page comprises: displaying the sending confirmation page within a first region of the configuration interface, wherein first prompt content is displayed in a second region of the configuration interface, and there is no overlap between the second region and the first region (Glass: [0069] and Figs. 3 and 13 – “At 310, the e-gift ordering application 104 receives reveal video information from the computing device 108. For example, the e-gift ordering application 104 presents an occasion screen (FIG. 12) for entry of a particular occasion by a user of the computing device 108. As another example, the e-gift ordering application 104 presents a reveal video template selection screen (FIG. 13) for selection of a particular reveal template to be customized.”; the examiner notes Fig. 13 displays reveal videos (interpreted to be sending confirmation page) in a first region and the continue button in a second non-overlapping region); and
wherein the method further comprises: in response to a sending confirmation operation triggered for the sending confirmation page, switching the first prompt content displayed in the second region to a second prompt content, and switching the sending confirmation page to a sending result prompt interface (Glass: [0070] and Figs. 3 and 14 – “At 312, the e-gift ordering application 104 customizes the reveal video according to reveal information provided by the user. For example, the application 104 presents a reveal video customization screen (FIG. 14) to manage the entry of reveal video information by the user. For example, the interactive screen includes a “Record User-Supplied Content” button that when selected, allows the user to enter user-supplied content, such as textual, audio, photographic, and/or video content to be included in the reveal video. As another example, the interactive screen includes a “Select Prerecorded Content” button that when selected, allows the user to select from among multiple instances of prerecorded content stored in the data source”; the examiner notes the interface content of Fig. 14 is changed);
in response to a trigger operation for the sending result prompt interface, displaying a chat display page and displaying a message corresponding to the object in the chat display page; and in response to a trigger action for the message, displaying the display content corresponding to the object (Glass: [0070-0071] and Figs. 3 & 15 – “The e-gift ordering application 104 also displays a reveal video preview screen (FIG. 15) that displays a preview of the customized reveal video so that the user may view the reveal video. At 314, the e-gift ordering application 104 generates a reveal video in accordance with information provided by the user of the computing device at 302 through 310”; the examiner notes Fig. 15 displays a play button to preview the reveal video, interpreted to be a trigger action).
Examiner note: The limitations beginning “in response to a sending confirmation operation triggered”; “in response to a trigger operation”; and “in response to a trigger action for the message” and all the steps dependent on these limitations are conditional and accordingly are granted little to no patentable weight. Nonetheless, the limitations have been fully examined. This applies for only the method claims.
In regards to claim 10, Glass discloses the method of claim 9. Glass further discloses
wherein the display content comprises video data and logistics state description information; wherein the method further comprises: in response to a trigger operation for the video data, displaying a video display page corresponding to the video data (Glass: [0070-0071] and Figs. 3 & 15 – “The e-gift ordering application 104 also displays a reveal video preview screen (FIG. 15) that displays a preview of the customized reveal video so that the user may view the reveal video. At 314, the e-gift ordering application 104 generates a reveal video in accordance with information provided by the user of the computing device at 302 through 310”; the examiner notes Fig. 15 displays a play button to preview the reveal video, interpreted to be a trigger action); or
in response to a trigger operation for the logistics state description information, displaying a logistics information display page corresponding to the object (Glass: [0070] and Figs. 3 and 14-15 – “At 312, the e-gift ordering application 104 customizes the reveal video according to reveal information provided by the user. For example, the application 104 presents a reveal video customization screen (FIG. 14) to manage the entry of reveal video information by the user. For example, the interactive screen includes a “Record User-Supplied Content” button that when selected, allows the user to enter user-supplied content, such as textual, audio, photographic, and/or video content to be included in the reveal video. As another example, the interactive screen includes a “Select Prerecorded Content” button that when selected, allows the user to select from among multiple instances of prerecorded content stored in the data source”; the examiner notes that Fig. 14, interpreted to be a logistics display information page, may be triggered by the back button in Fig. 15); and/or
wherein the method further comprises: adjusting the account configuration trigger control from a non-triggerable state to a triggerable state after the display content is determined (Glass: [0070-0071] and Figs. 3 and 7-15 – “The e-gift ordering application 104 also displays a reveal video preview screen (FIG. 15) that displays a preview of the customized reveal video so that the user may view the reveal video. At 314, the e-gift ordering application 104 generates a reveal video in accordance with information provided by the user of the computing device at 302 through 310”; the examiner notes Fig. 15 displays a back button which may be pressed through the interfaces to arrive back at Fig. 7 and make the trigger control triggerable).
Examiner note: The limitations beginning “in response to a trigger operation” and “in response to a trigger operation for the logistics state description information” and all the steps dependent on these limitations are conditional and accordingly are granted little to no patentable weight. Nonetheless, the limitations have been fully examined. This applies for only the method claims. The examiner further notes that the steps are listed in the alternate and accordingly only one step need be taught or disclosed.
In regards to claim 11, Glass discloses the method of claim 6. Glass further discloses
wherein in response to determining that there is no preset matching relationship between the content display account and the receiving account, the display content comprises a verification page and object configuration display content; the verification page is configured to receive verification information entered using the content display account; and the object configuration display content is configured to display on the content display account in the display manner in response to determining that that the verification information matches verification content corresponding to the receiving account (Glass: [0066-0067] and Figs. 3 & 5-9 – “For example, the e-gift ordering application 104 generates a splash screen (FIG. 4) on the computing device from which a sign-in screen (FIG. 5) is accessed by the computing device. In the event that the user has not yet established an account, the e-gift ordering application 104 generates a registration screen (FIG. 6) on the computing device for registration of the user. In other embodiments, information associated with the user without the splash screen, sign-in screen, and registration screen as shown in FIGS. 4-6, respectively if registration of the user is not needed or desired. It is important to note that the screens of FIGS. 5-24 of the present disclosure may refer to screens generated by a mobile app on a computing device, such as smartphone as well as screens generated by a web browser on a computing device, such as a home computing system. At 306, the e-gift ordering application 104 receives information associated with a recipient. For example, the e-gift ordering application 104 generates a recipient information screen (FIG. 7) to receive one or more identifying elements of the recipient from the user. The e-gift ordering application 104 also generates a second recipient information screen (FIG. 8) to receive one or more other elements of information of the recipient, such as a location where the recipient resides, an age of the recipient, and any interests of the recipient”).
Examiner note: The limitations beginning “in response to determining that there is no preset matching relationship between the content display account and the gift receiving account” and “in response to determining that that the verification information matches target verification content corresponding to the gift receiving account” and all the steps dependent on these limitations are conditional and accordingly are granted little to no patentable weight. Nonetheless, the limitations have been fully examined. This applies for only the method claims.
In regards to claim 12, Glass discloses the method of claim 1. Glass further discloses
in response to a preset operation, displaying a gift object aggregation page; wherein the in response to an object sending request, determining an object and a receiving account comprises: in response to a gift object order operation triggered for the gift object aggregation page, determining the object, and displaying an order display page (Glass: [0066-0068] and Figs. 3 & 5-11 – “For example, the e-gift ordering application 104 generates a splash screen (FIG. 4) on the computing device from which a sign-in screen (FIG. 5) is accessed by the computing device. In the event that the user has not yet established an account, the e-gift ordering application 104 generates a registration screen (FIG. 6) on the computing device for registration of the user. In other embodiments, information associated with the user without the splash screen, sign-in screen, and registration screen as shown in FIGS. 4-6, respectively if registration of the user is not needed or desired. It is important to note that the screens of FIGS. 5-24 of the present disclosure may refer to screens generated by a mobile app on a computing device, such as smartphone as well as screens generated by a web browser on a computing device, such as a home computing system. At 306, the e-gift ordering application 104 receives information associated with a recipient. For example, the e-gift ordering application 104 generates a recipient information screen (FIG. 7) to receive one or more identifying elements of the recipient from the user. The e-gift ordering application 104 also generates a second recipient information screen (FIG. 8) to receive one or more other elements of information of the recipient, such as a location where the recipient resides, an age of the recipient, and any interests of the recipient… the e-gift ordering application 104 may present a merchant selection screen (FIG. 9) for entry of a particular merchant of the e-gift, which upon selection by the user, then displays an e-gift selection screen (FIG. 10) and an e-gift customization screen (FIG. 11), which in this particular example is configured to provide for selection and customization of a gift card of the selected merchant. The e-gift selection screen also provides for selection of a monetary value to be associated with the e-gift”); and
in response to a gift receiving information input operation triggered for the order display page, determining the receiving account (Glass: [0066-0068] and Figs. 3 & 5-11 – “For example, the e-gift ordering application 104 generates a splash screen (FIG. 4) on the computing device from which a sign-in screen (FIG. 5) is accessed by the computing device. In the event that the user has not yet established an account, the e-gift ordering application 104 generates a registration screen (FIG. 6) on the computing device for registration of the user. In other embodiments, information associated with the user without the splash screen, sign-in screen, and registration screen as shown in FIGS. 4-6, respectively if registration of the user is not needed or desired. It is important to note that the screens of FIGS. 5-24 of the present disclosure may refer to screens generated by a mobile app on a computing device, such as smartphone as well as screens generated by a web browser on a computing device, such as a home computing system. At 306, the e-gift ordering application 104 receives information associated with a recipient. For example, the e-gift ordering application 104 generates a recipient information screen (FIG. 7) to receive one or more identifying elements of the recipient from the user. The e-gift ordering application 104 also generates a second recipient information screen (FIG. 8) to receive one or more other elements of information of the recipient, such as a location where the recipient resides, an age of the recipient, and any interests of the recipient); and
wherein the displaying a configuration interface comprises: in response to a resource value payment operation triggered for the order display page, displaying the configuration interface (Glass: [0068-0069] and Figs. 3 & 11-12 – “For example, the e-gift ordering application 104 may present a merchant selection screen (FIG. 9) for entry of a particular merchant of the e-gift, which upon selection by the user, then displays an e-gift selection screen (FIG. 10) and an e-gift customization screen (FIG. 11), which in this particular example is configured to provide for selection and customization of a gift card of the selected merchant. The e-gift selection screen also provides for selection of a monetary value to be associated with the e-gift. Although the present example describes an e-gift in the form of a gift card, it should be understood that the e-gift may be any type that facilitates an item of value or facilitates a financial transaction for the recipient, such as a transaction card, a stored value card, an electronic ticket, or a stored value card, a subscription, a coupon, an e-book, a group coupon e.g., GROUPON™), and the like. At 310, the e-gift ordering application 104 receives reveal video information from the computing device 108. For example, the e-gift ordering application 104 presents an occasion screen (FIG. 12) for entry of a particular occasion by a user of the computing device 108”).
Examiner note: The limitations beginning “in response to a preset operation”; “in response to an object sending request”; “in response to a gift object order operation triggered”; “in response to a gift receiving information input operation”; and “in response to a resource value payment operation” and all the steps dependent on these limitations are conditional and accordingly are granted little to no patentable weight. Nonetheless, the limitations have been fully examined. This applies for only the method claims.
In regards to claim 14, claim 14 is directed to a device. Claim 14 recites limitations that are substantially parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a method. The method of Glass teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Glass further discloses an electronic device, comprising: a processor and a memory, wherein the memory is configured to store instructions or a computer program; and the processor is configured to execute the instructions or computer program stored in the memory to cause the electronic device to (Glass: [0050-0052]). Claim 14 is therefore rejected for the reasons set forth above in claim 1 and in this paragraph.
In regards to claim 15, claim 15 is directed to a medium. Claim 15 recites limitations that are substantially parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a method. The method of Glass teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Glass further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium, storing instructions or a computer program, wherein when the instructions or the computer program is run on a device, the device is caused to (Glass: [0050-0052]). Claim 15 is therefore rejected for the reasons set forth above in claim 1 and in this paragraph.
In regards to claims 16-20, all the limitations in device claim 16-20 are closely parallel to the limitations of method claims 2-6 analyzed above and rejected on the same bases.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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
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.
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7-8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glass, in view of previously cited Kuhlmann et al. (US 20220122089 A1), hereinafter Kuhlmann.
In regards to claim 7, Glass discloses the method of claim 6. Glass further discloses wherein a determination process of the display manner comprises: in response to the sending confirmation operation triggered for the sending confirmation page, determining both a feed display manner and a message display manner as the display manner; the feed display manner is: adding the display content to a to-be-played information display feed corresponding to the content display account, and the message display manner is: adding a message corresponding to the display content to a chat page corresponding to the content display account; determining the message display manner as the display manner (Glass: [0070-0071] and Figs. 3 & 14-15 – “For example, the application 104 presents a reveal video customization screen (FIG. 14) to manage the entry of reveal video information by the user. For example, the interactive screen includes a “Record User-Supplied Content” button that when selected, allows the user to enter user-supplied content, such as textual, audio, photographic, and/or video content to be included in the reveal video…The e-gift ordering application 104 also displays a reveal video preview screen (FIG. 15) that displays a preview of the customized reveal video so that the user may view the reveal video…At 314, the e-gift ordering application 104 generates a reveal video in accordance with information provided by the user of the computing device at 302 through 310. At 316, the e-gift ordering application 104 transmits the reveal video/e-gift combination to the recipient. The e-gift ordering application 104 transmits the reveal video/e-gift combination to the user via any suitable digital format, such as via an e-mail message, via a short message service (SMS) message, or via a social media account”; [0074] and Fig. 4 – “At 402, the user application 152 displays the reveal video on the GUI 148 of the computing device 114”; [0045] – “The e-gift ordering application 104 then generates a digital reveal video 110/e-gift 112 combination that is digitally transmitted to the recipient using an e-mail message, a short message service (SMS), via a social media account, or other suitable digital communication medium”; [0053-0055] – “user interface module 206 facilitates the receipt of data and/or other communications from the computing device 108 of the user. In one example, the user interface module 206 communicates with the computing device 108 using a web browser executed on the computing device 108 to provide one or more selectable fields, editing screens, and the like for receiving content…to be included in the reveal video 110…provide one or more selectable fields, editing screens, and the like for receiving content…to receive user-supplied content to be included on the reveal video and/or the gift card… The user-supplied content may include…recorded video content”),
yet Glass does not explicitly disclose in response to determining that the content display account satisfies a preset account condition, determining both a feed display manner and a message display manner; and in response to determining that the content display account does not satisfy a preset account condition, determining the message display manner.
However, Kuhlmann teaches a similar gifting method (Kuhlmann: [abstract]), including
in response to determining that the content display account satisfies a preset account condition, determining both a feed display manner and a message display manner; and in response to determining that the content display account does not satisfy a preset account condition, determining the message display manner (Kuhlmann: [0015] – “The app may include a social media component in which a feed displays posts, including a post indicating that the sender sent the gift to the recipient”; [0021] – “The recipient may receive a notification message that the sender has sent the recipient a gift entitlement. If the recipient does not have an app installed, the notification message may provide information (e.g., a link or the like) on how to download and install the app. After installing and opening the app, the app may display the gift entitlement, the sender, and enable the recipient to playback the sender's message (e.g., video, audio, text, or any combination thereof). . If the recipient already has the app installed on a device (e.g., phone, tablet, or other computing device) before the recipient receives the notification message, then receiving the notification message may cause the device to automatically (e.g., without human interaction) open the app and display the notification message, including the name of the sender, a description of the gift entitlement (e.g., one latte at Coffee & More, a medium 3-topping pizza at Mario's Pizza, or the like), and enable playback of the sender's message”; [0042] – “the recipient message 226 may be posted on the feed of the app 204(1)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included the conditions of Kuhlmann in the method of Glass because Glass already discloses different ways to message and Kuhlmann is merely demonstrating how the analysis may occur based on conditions. Additionally, it would have been obvious to have included in response to determining that the content display account satisfies a preset account condition, determining both a feed display manner and a message display manner; and in response to determining that the content display account does not satisfy a preset account condition, determining the message display manner as taught by Kuhlmann because conditions are well-known and the use of it in a gifting method would have reduced fraud (Kuhlmann: [0024]).
Examiner note: The limitations beginning “in response to a the sending confirmation operation triggered”; “in response to determining that the content display account satisifies a preset account condition” and “in response in response to determining that the content display account does not satisfy a preset account condition” and all the steps dependent on these limitations are conditional and accordingly are granted little to no patentable weight. Nonetheless, the limitations have been fully examined. This applies for only the method claims.
In regards to claim 8, Glass/Kuhlmann teaches the method of claim 7. Glass does not explicitly disclose wherein the method further comprises: in response to determining that the content display account satisfies a preset account condition, displaying a push time configuration page; and in response to a push time configuration operation triggered for the push time configuration page, determining a push time for the display content; and wherein the feed display manner is specifically: adding the display content to the to-be-played information display feed corresponding to the content display account based on the push time.
However, Kuhlmann teaches a similar gifting method (Kuhlmann: [abstract]), including
wherein the method further comprises: in response to determining that the content display account satisfies a preset account condition, displaying a push time configuration page; and in response to a push time configuration operation triggered for the push time configuration page, determining a push time for the display content (Kuhlmann: [0064-0066] and Fig. 6 – “In some cases, the merchant may be determined based at least in part on a wish list created by the recipient. For example, in FIG. 6, the sender may open the app 204(1) to access the gifting platform 134 and send the select recipient message 210 to select a particular recipient. If the recipient is one of the members 132, then the sender may select one of the members 132. If the recipient is not one of the members 132, then the sender may enable the app 204(1) to access contact information associated with the recipient that is stored on the user device 202(1) in a contacts file. The contact information may include a name of the recipient, a location of the recipient (e.g., city, zip code, or the like), and contact information, such as, a phone number (e.g., for a mobile device) of the recipient, an email address of the recipient, or both. If the recipient is a member of the gifting platform 134, then the sender may select a particular one of the members 132. If the recipient is one of the members 132 and has created a wish list, such as the wish list 216, then the sender may browse the wish list and select a particular item from the wish list. If the recipient is not one of the members 132 or is one of the members 132 but has not created a wish list, then the gifting platform 134 may automatically display merchant accounts in a particular proximity (e.g., within a predetermined distance) from the recipient…The sender may use the user device 202(1) to instruct the gifting platform 134 to send the selected gifts and the gift a message 218 to the recipient and to post gift info 230 that includes information about the gift and the gift message 218, on to the social media sites 220. At 616, the user device associated with the recipient may receive a notification message regarding the one or more gifts and the message from the recipient. In some cases, the notification message may include a link to a social media site where a post describes the gift that was sent”; [0041] – “a date and/or time when a gift notification 224 was sent to the user device 202(R) of the recipient”; the examiner interprets the pages regarding purchasing to be a push time configuration page and sending to be determining a push time); and
wherein the feed display manner is specifically: adding the display content to the to-be-played information display feed corresponding to the content display account based on the push time (Kuhlmann: [0065-0066] and Fig. 6 – “The sender may use the user device 202(1) to instruct the gifting platform 134 to send the selected gifts and the gift a message 218 to the recipient and to post gift info 230 that includes information about the gift and the gift message 218, on to the social media sites 220. At 616, the user device associated with the recipient may receive a notification message regarding the one or more gifts and the message from the recipient. In some cases, the notification message may include a link to a social media site where a post describes the gift that was sent”; [0041] – “The gifting platform 134 may automatically post gift information 230 on one or more social media sites 220. For example, the gift information 230 may include a name of the recipient, a name of the sender, the gift description 228, the gift message 218, a date and/or time when a gift notification 224 was sent to the user device 202(R) of the recipient”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kuhlmann with Glass for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 7.
Examiner note: The limitations beginning “in response to determining that the content display account satisfies a preset account condition” and “in response to a push time configuration operation triggered” and all the steps dependent on these limitations are conditional and accordingly are granted little to no patentable weight. Nonetheless, the limitations have been fully examined. This applies for only the method claims.
In regards to claim 21, all the limitations in device claim 21 are closely parallel to the limitations of method claim 7 analyzed above and rejected on the same bases.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/16/2026, have been fully considered.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because “the Office has incorrectly characterized the claimed subject matter as a ‘certain method of organizing human activity’…[a] human cannot practically, in his mind or using pen and paper, display a configuration interface that includes a plurality of selectable user interface elements. Nor…send a display configuration item to an account for display of content on the account ”. Remarks pages 10-11. The examiner disagrees. As shown in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 above, the limitations directed to the abstract idea are directly quoted and concepts within the identified as belonging to the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes groupings of abstract ideas. With respect to the instant claims, a configuration interface; selectable candidate user interface elements; one first user interface element; one second user interface element; a feed display; a link display; an electronic device, comprising: a processor and a memory, wherein the memory is configured to store instructions or a computer program; and the processor is configured to execute the instructions or computer program stored in the memory to cause the electronic device to; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium, storing instructions or a computer program, wherein when the instructions or the computer program is run on a device, the device is caused to have been analyzed as additional elements and accordingly are not analyzed under Step 2A, Prong 1. The claims further recite sending content related to an object to a recipient. These claims fall into the Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping, which includes activity that falls within the enumerated sub-grouping of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Specifically, configuring and sending a configured item to a receiving account represents managing interactions between people. These claims further fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Specifically, the determinations are observations, evaluations, and judgements. These limitations are similar to the mental process of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. It is noted that a human, using pen and paper, may display configuration information that includes a plurality of selectable elements and send a display configuration item to an account for display of content on an account. Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant argues the claims are patent eligible because the claims “improv[e] display of objects on user accounts” (Remarks pages 10-12). The examiner disagrees. The MPEP provides guidance on how to evaluate whether claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For example, the MPEP states “the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.” The MPEP further states that “[t]he specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art,” and that, “conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner…the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology” (see MPEP 2106.04). That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. Looking to the specification is a standard that the courts have employed when analyzing claims as it relates to improvements in technology. For example, in Enfish, the specification provided teaching that the claimed invention achieves benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, in Core Wireless the specification noted deficiencies in prior art interfaces relating to efficient functioning of the computer. Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs. Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed Cir. 2018). With respect to McRO, the claimed improvement, as confirmed by the originally filed specification, was “…allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters…’” and it was “…the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks”. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016).
While the examiner acknowledges that improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field may constitute integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), the instant claims do not provide a technical improvement. Rather, the claims provide an improvement to the abstract idea of sending content related to an object to a recipient. While the Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s arguments regarding an improved display, the Examiner notes that the interface and interface elements are merely recited at a high level and are thus insufficient to show a technological improvement.
Although the claims include computer technology such as a configuration interface; selectable candidate user interface elements; one first user interface element; one second user interface element; a feed display; a link display; an electronic device, comprising: a processor and a memory, wherein the memory is configured to store instructions or a computer program; and the processor is configured to execute the instructions or computer program stored in the memory to cause the electronic device to; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium, storing instructions or a computer program, wherein when the instructions or the computer program is run on a device, the device is caused to, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. Put another way, these additional elements are merely used to apply the abstract idea of sending content related to an object to a recipient in a technological environment without effectuating any improvement or change to the functioning of the additional elements or other technology. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the courts in cases such as Enfish, Core Wireless, and McRO. Unlike precedential cases, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement to computer capabilities. The instant claims are not directed to technological improvements but are directed to improving the business method of sending content related to an object to a recipient. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in a better process for sending content to a recipient, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving the server and/or computer components that operate the system. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing data sets related to configurations while still employing the same server and/or computer components used in conventional systems to improve sending content related to an object to a recipient, e.g. a business method, and therefore is merely applying the abstract idea using generic computing components. As such, the claims are not integrated into practical application.
35 U.S.C. § 102
Applicant argues the claims are allowable because Glass does not disclose “at least one first user interface element corresponding to at least one candidate display manner” (Remarks page 14). The examiner disagrees. Glass discloses this limitation in [0069-0070] and Fig. 14, which displays and discusses a reveal video customization screen which includes a ‘Record User-Supplied Content’ button that when selected, allows the user to enter user-supplied content, such as textual, audio, photographic, and/or video content to be included in the reveal video. As another example, the interactive screen includes a ‘Select Prerecorded Content’ button that when selected, allows the user to select from among multiple instances of prerecorded content. These buttons are interpreted to be at least one first user interface element corresponding to at least one candidate display manner. The candidate display is the video/message display and the buttons correspond to it. Thus, this limitation is disclosed by the cited art.
Applicant argues the claims are allowable because Glass does not disclose “that such candidate display manners comprise one or more of a feed display, a message display, or a link display” (Remarks page 15). The examiner disagrees. Glass discloses this limitation in [0069-0070] and Fig. 14, which displays and discusses a reveal video customization screen which includes a ‘Record User-Supplied Content’ button that when selected, allows the user to enter user-supplied content, such as textual, audio, photographic, and/or video content to be included in the reveal video. As another example, the interactive screen includes a ‘Select Prerecorded Content’ button that when selected, allows the user to select from among multiple instances of prerecorded content. The candidate display manner is the video feed/message display. Thus, this limitation is disclosed by the cited art.
Applicant argues the claims are allowable because Glass does not disclose “a display manner selected from the at least one candidate display manner” (Remarks page 15). The examiner disagrees. Glass discloses this limitation in [0069-0070] and Fig. 14, which displays and discusses a reveal video customization screen which includes a ‘Record User-Supplied Content’ button that when selected, allows the user to enter user-supplied content, such as textual, audio, photographic, and/or video content to be included in the reveal video. As another example, the interactive screen includes a ‘Select Prerecorded Content’ button that when selected, allows the user to select from among multiple instances of prerecorded content. These buttons are the selections where the video feed/message display is selected. The video feed/message display is interpreted to be the display manner. Thus, this limitation is disclosed by the cited art.
Applicant argues claims 14-15 and the dependent claims are allowable for the same reasons as claim 1 (Remarks pages 15-16). The examiner disagrees. The rejection of claim 1 has been maintained the rejections of claims 14-15 and the dependent claims are maintained for the same, and additional, reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NPL Reference U, initially cited in the Office action dated 03/24/2026,a teaches a video gifting method. A gifting marketplace is provided with many gifting interfaces. Users may provide video messages along with the gift.
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 ANNA MAE MITROS whose telephone number is (571)272-3969. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30-6.
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. 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.
/ANNA MAE MITROS/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights