DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claims 2-21 have been examined.
Statement Regarding IDS
The documents listed on the Information Disclosure Statement of January 27, 2025 has been considered, with certain exception. The first listed U.S. Patent, to Potter, U.S. Patent 715,508, could not be found by reasonable effort, and has not been considered. The first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and ninth listed foreign patent documents could not be found by reasonable effort, and have not been considered. The eighth and ninth listed non-patent literature items, the “International Preliminary Report on Patentability received for PCT/US07/16976”, and the “International Search Report and Written Opinion received for PCT/US07/16976”, could not be found by reasonable effort, and have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-21 are objected to because of the following informalities: In the eleventh and twelfth lines of claim 12, “determine … a plurality of user devices is presenting” should be “determine … that a plurality of user devices are presenting”. In the sixteenth line of claim 12, “the application” lacks antecedent basis, and should be either deleted or replaced by “an application”. For purposes of examination, claim 12 will be treated as reciting “an application”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
First, it is determined that the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. See MPEP 2106.03 (II). In the instant case, claims 2-11 are directed to a method, in the statutory category of process. Claims 12-21 are directed to a system comprising a display and processing circuitry, and therefore fall within the statutory category of machine. Therefore, claims 2-21 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test. (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04. The claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One) 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 (Step 2A, Prong Two). See MPEP 2106.04.
Beginning with Step 2A, Prong One, claim 2 recites a content item that comprises “a selectable purchase option”, and then recites, “displaying a discount based on the selectable purchase option.” Claim 2 and its dependents are therefore directed to an abstract idea in the category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). Claim 12 recites parallel language; therefore, claim 12 and its dependents are also directed to an abstract idea in the field of commercial interactions. (Step 2A, Prong One, for claims 2-21: YES)
Proceeding to Step 2A, Prong Two, representative claim 2 recites, with technical features bolded:
A method comprising:
generating using an application comprising computer readable instructions for presenting media content when processed by processing circuitry of an end user device, a matrix on a display of the end user device, wherein the matrix is comprised of a plurality of media content items organized by a plurality of categories based on a query;
determining, using the processing circuitry and information accessible via the application, a media content item of the plurality of media content items that comprises a selectable purchase option;
determining, using the processing circuitry and the information accessible via the application, that a plurality of end user devices are presenting a plurality of respective matrices including the media content item of the plurality of media content items that comprises the selectable purchase option; and
causing, in response to determining that the plurality of end user devices are presenting the plurality of respective matrices, the processing circuitry to:
modify content displayed via the application; and
display a discount based on the selectable purchase option.
Claim 2 does not recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or in any other technology or technical field, and does not recite any limitation that triggers another specific test for integration into a practical application. The claims depending from claim 2 do not do so either. Furthermore, claim 2 and its dependents do not otherwise apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. The same applies to claim 12, which is largely parallel to claim 2, and to the claims depending from claim 12. (Step 2A, Prong Two, for claims 2-21: NO)
Next, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claims are analyzed to determine whether there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. Analysis under Step 2B is largely parallel to the analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two, and leads to the same conclusion of a lack of integration into a practical application. However, there is an additional consideration: whether the claims add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. Referring first to independent claim 2, the generating step is not specifically technological given the particular technological environment. Claim 2 recites using an application comprising computer readable instructions. Meijer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0028223) discloses (paragraph 19, emphasis added), “In the illustrated embodiment, application environment 100 executes applications that include compiler 110 and database application 150. As is conventional, each of the applications may consist of a group of computer-executable instructions stored on a computer-readable medium. The application environment 100 may execute these instructions to perform functions of the application.” Hence, an application comprising computer readable instructions for presenting media content need involve only well-understood, routine, and conventional technology.
Further with regard to claim 2, Touma et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0092133) discloses (paragraph 56, emphasis added), “In one embodiment, the hand-held pointing device 402 also includes a controller 421 based around a micro-controller and digital signal processor, a field-programmable gate array, programmable logic devices, and other related control circuitry well understood by anyone skilled in the art.” Hence, processing circuitry of an end user device need involve only well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. The two determining steps of claim 2 are likewise not specifically technological given the particular technological environment, nor is causing, in response to making a determination, the processing circuitry to perform operations. Finally, the operations of modifying content displayed via the application, and displaying a discount based on the selectable purchase option are not specifically technological. The limitations of claim 2, whether considered separately or in combination with each other, do not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Independent claim 12 is largely parallel to claim 2, but while it omits specifying “an application comprising computer readable instructions for presenting media content”, claim 12 recites, “a display configured to present an interactive interface comprising a matrix presenting a plurality of media content items”. Larson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0215991) discloses (paragraph 50, emphasis added), “Preferably, video recorder can present the viewer with an interactive input interface, whereby a menu of choices and additional information is displayed on display 110, and viewer selections [are echoed - apparently extraneous] received via input device 111 are echoed to display 110, as is well-known in the art.” Hence, a display configured to present an interactive interface, as recited, need involve only well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. The generating operation, the two determining operations, and the operations of modifying content displayed via [an] application, and displaying a discount based on the selectable purchase option are not specifically technological. The limitations of claim 2, whether considered separately or in combination with each other, do not raise the claimed method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claims 3, 4, and 5, together with parallel claims 13, 14, 15, also do not recite technology that is not well-understood, routine, and conventional. Claims 3 and 13 are not specifically technological at all. Claims 4 and 14 recite “inputs comprising additions and removals of information from one or more end user devices,” implying receiving data from one or more end user devices; claims 5 and 15, which depend from claims 4 and 14, respectively, recite modifying display of the matrix in response to receiving the inputs from one or more end user devices”. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090,1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Hence, the receiving implied in claims 4 and 14 and recited in claims 5 and 15 requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. The limitations of claims 4 and 5 and parallel claims 14 and 15, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claims 2 and 12, do not raise the recited method and system to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 6 and 16 also do not recite technology that is not well-understood, routine, and conventional. Claims 6 and 16 are not specifically technological at all.
Claims 7 and 17 also do not recite technology that is not well-understood, routine, and conventional. Claim 7 recites the method of claim 2, further comprising: “transmitting the query to a plurality of information services; and parsing information received from the plurality of information services for presentation via the matrix based on at least one category from the plurality of categories” Claim 17 is parallel. The parsing step is not significantly technological. The step of transmitting the query, based on judicial precedents, as cited above with respect to claims 4, 5, 14, and 15, requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. The limitations of claims 7 and 17, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claims 2 and 12, do not raise the recited method and system to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 also do not recite technology that is not well-understood, routine, and conventional. Claim 8 recites the method of claim 2, further comprising: “receiving, at the end user device, a preference; and storing a preferred version of the matrix that is reformatted from an original version of the matrix based at least in part on the preference.” Claim 18 is parallel. The receiving step, based on judicial precedents, as cited above with respect to claims 4, 5, 14, and 15, requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology.
The courts have recognized storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions, in Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d at 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, the storing step of claim 8, and the parallel operation in claim 18, require only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. Hence, the limitations of claim 8 and parallel claim 18, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claims 2 and 12, do not raise the recited method and system to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 9, which depends from claim 8, recites the method of claim 8, further comprising: “receiving, at the end user device, log in information corresponding to the preference; and in response to receiving the log in information, causing the processing circuitry to modify the application to display the preferred version of the matrix on the end user device.” Claim 19 is parallel. The “causing to modify” step is not significantly technological, and the receiving step based on judicial precedents, as cited above with respect to claims 4, 5, 14, and 15, requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. Hence, the limitations of claim 9 and parallel claim 19, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claims 2 and 8 or 12 and 18, do not raise the recited method and system to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claims 10 and 20 also do not recite technology that is not well-understood, routine, and conventional. Claim 10 recites, “The method of claim 2, wherein the matrix comprises a plurality of respective links for accessing respective media content items of the plurality of media content items or for accessing respective information characterizing the respective media content items.” Claim 20 is parallel. Although it might be questioned whether the links are actual technology, Konno (U.S. Patent 6,333,787) discloses (column 1, lines 56-59, emphasis added), “In conventional methods of accessing linked Web page contents, a pointing device or the like is used to designate a link (tagged link information) of contents linked to other Web page contents.” Hence, the plurality of respective links for accessing respective media content items or accessing other respective information require only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. The limitations of claims 10 and 20, whether considered separately or in combination with the respective limitations of claims 2 and 12, do not raise the recited method and system to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claims 11 and 21 also do not recite technology that is not well-understood, routine, and conventional. Claims 11 and 21, which depend from claims 2 and 12, respectively, recite displaying an indicator that updated information characterizing at least one media content item of the plurality of media content items is accessible via the matrix. This is not in itself technological. (Step 2B, for claims 2-21: NO)
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 8, 10, 12, 18, and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bonabeau et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0010117) in view of Lisa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0233692), and Pallakoff (U.S. Patent 6,269,343). As per claim 2, Bonabeau discloses generating a matrix on a display of responses to a first query (see Figures 2, 3a, and 3c), and Bonabeau states (paragraph 35, emphasis added), “For example, all or a portion of the information relating to the search results may be provided as one or more audible or visible indications. With respect to visible indications, as indicated in block 205 of FIG. 2, all or a portion of the information may be displayed textually and/or graphically, including graphic displays of a plurality of images or diagrams representing respective items of information (e.g., individual items in the search results). In one exemplary implementation discussed further below, respective items in the search results may be graphically displayed to the user as a two dimensional grid of images or diagrams representing the items.” Bonabeau discloses use of a user device for the display (paragraph 11, emphasis added), “A user interface (e.g., including a conventional computer display and selection device such as a mouse or keyboard) may be configured to display to the user a grid of images representing an initial selection of gift items, generated either randomly or pursuant some previous query executed by a search component.” Bonabeau further discloses (paragraph 55, emphasis added), “FIG. 3a shows a set of items as a 4x3 grid, although other configurations are possible. The initial set of items may be generated by an initial search query.”
Bonabeau further discloses an application program and computer-readable instructions (paragraph 74, emphasis added), “As used herein, an ‘application programming interface’ or ‘API’ is a set of one or more one or more computer-readable instructions that provide access to one or more other sets of computer-readable instructions that define functions, so that such functions can be configured to be executed on a computer in conjunction with an application program, in some instances to communicate various data, parameters, and general information between two programs.” Bonabeau further discloses an integrated circuit or circuits (paragraph 75, emphasis added), “The various methods, acts thereof, and various embodiments and variations of these methods and acts, individually or in combination, may be defined by computer-readable signals tangibly embodied on one or more computer-readable media, for example, non-volatile recording media, integrated circuit memory elements, or a combination thereof. Such signals may define instructions, for example, as part of one or more programs, that, as a result of being executed by a computer, instruct the computer to perform one or more of the methods and acts described herein”. Hence, using an application comprising computer-readable instructions for presenting media content when processed by processing circuitry of an end user device would have been at least obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority, for the obvious advantage of causing the generating of the matrix, and/or other operations, to be performed as desired.
Bonabeau further discloses selectable purchase options (paragraph 11, emphasis added), “Based on the foregoing general process, it should be readily apparent that a user may similarly search for items other than gifts, some examples of which include, but are not limited to, a variety of goods and services for purchase, a venue for a vacation, a parcel of real estate, an image from an image library, a filter and its parameter settings to produce an artistic modification of an image, and other items.” Bonabeau likewise discloses (paragraph 31, emphasis added), “In this embodiment, a user 105 wishes to purchase a gift 110, but does not have a specific gift in mind.” This is followed by a description of procedures for finding a desired gift. Hence, determining a media content item of the plurality of media conte items that comprises a selectable purchase option would have been at least obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority.
Bonabeau does not disclose that the matrix is comprised of a plurality of media content items organized by a plurality of categories based on a query, but does disclose or make obvious a plurality of media content items, e.g., by the “user interface . . . configured to display to the user a grid of images representing an initial selection of gift items” (paragraph 11, quoted from above; the rest of paragraph 11; and Figures 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d). Lisa teaches categorizing received information; Lisa teaches (paragraph 6, emphasis added), “Grokker relies on search engines to do the crawling, but lists the results differently: according to subject, so that, for example, a search for Paris gives the user a single page with several categories titled ‘history,’ ‘museums,’ ‘universities,’ ‘hotels’ and so on.” Lisa further teaches (paragraph 7, emphasis added), “(2) The Content Analytics Layer: once results are retrieved, Grokker analyzes metadata, document contents, and other information to organize results into categories; (3) The Data Filtering Layer: Grokker also normalizes data from disparate sources with uniform attribute tagging so that the end user can understand the relationships among results and more efficiently explore and understand returned results and documents”. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority for the matrix to be comprised of a plurality of media content items organized by a plurality of categories based on a query, for at least the obvious advantage, as per Lisa, of organizing information objects for easy exploration by the user.
Bonabeau does not disclose determining, using the processing circuitry and the information accessible via the application, that a plurality of end user devices are presenting a plurality of respective matrices including the media content item of the plurality of media content items comprising the selectable purchase option; and causing, in response to determining that the plurality of end user devices are presenting the plurality of respective matrices. Pallakoff teaches potential buyers entering a web site and seeing one or more offers (Figure 6, box 61). See Figures 5 and 6 of Pallakoff. Specifically, Pallakoff teaches offers and discounts depending on the number of potential buyers and thus their devices which are already involved (column 6, lines 48-66, emphasis added), “In the preferred embodiment, the system 13 presents offers on one or more webs sites as in accordance with the program flow diagram shown in FIG. 5. For each offer presented, the system will display the following information as entered by the seller or as calculated by the system controller 13: the offered product’s description (block 51); the Demand Thresholds and associated Prices (block 52) and the Maximum Available Amount (if one was specified by the seller; the Aggregate Demand so far (block 53) – i.e. the total amount that potential buyers have expressed an interest in buying (in aggregate) since the start of the offer; and optionally, the number of buyers in the Buying Group so far (block 53); the data and time limit for the offer (block 54) as entered by the seller (46); an optional status message (block 55) (e.g. ‘Just 2 days left! We need to sell twelve more units to get the best discount price!’); and a ‘Join Buy Team’ button (block 56) that potential buyers can click if they are interested in joining the buying group for this offer.”
Pallakoff also teaches (column 1, lines 56-67, emphasis added), “The conditions include prices that depend on the amount of goods or services that buyers collectively agree to purchase by a given time and date. The invention facilitates ‘demand aggregation’, that is, aggregating demand by potential buyers (who may or may not know each other), for products that are offered by sellers. This invention allows sellers to conveniently offer ‘Demand-Based Pricing’, that is, prices which go down as the volume of units sold in any given offer goes up. A seller can therefor offer volume discounts to buyers acting as a group, even when the buyers may not have any formal relationship with one another.” The system and method are further set forth in columns 7 and 8 of Pallakoff (and throughout the Pallakoff patent). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority to determine that a plurality of end user devices are presenting a plurality of respective matrices including the media content items comprising the selectable purchase option; and to cause, in response to determining that the plurality of end user devices are presenting the plurality of respective matrices, the processing circuitry to: modify content displayed via the application; and display a discount based on the selectable purchase option, for at least the obvious advantage, as in Pallakoff, of encouraging participation in demand aggregation, in which discounts are offered for larger total purchases.
As per claim 12, this is essentially parallel to claim 2, but explicitly recites “a display configured to present an interactive interface comprising a matrix presenting a plurality of media content items”. Bonabeau discloses (paragraph 11, emphasis added), “A user interface (e.g., including a conventional computer display and selection device such as a mouse and keyboard) may be configured to display to the user a grid of images representing an initial selection of gift items, generated either randomly or pursuant to some previous query executed by a search component. Bonabeau further discloses (paragraph 35, emphasis added), “In one exemplary implementation discussed further below, respective items in the search results may be graphically displayed to the user in a two dimensional grid of images or diagrams representing the items.” Further see Figures 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d.
As per claim 8 and parallel claim 18, Bonabeau discloses receiving at least one preference from at least one user device, reformatting the matrix display in accordance with the received preference, and at least temporarily storing a version of the matrix display (paragraph 55, emphasis added), “In FIG. 3c, the user 105 can select, or click on, an [sic] particular item in order to change its evaluation between neutral (no border), positive (grey border), or negative (crossed out). FIG. 3d illustrates the results of a subsequent search query pursuant to the interactive search process 120, which may include the items selected by the user or similar items, but not include items indicated with a negative feedback by the user or similar items. The new search results also may include other random items the user has not seen, and/or other items similar to those the user has already seen but not evaluated. For example, in FIG. 3c, the user had given positive feedback to a watch and a camcorder, and negative feedback to an electronic keyboard and a set of dishes. The next selection in FIG. 3d includes additional watches and cameras, and additional items.” See also paragraphs 53 and 54 for background, and see Figures 3c and 3d.
As per claim 10 and parallel claim 20, Bonabeau discloses URL links in search result items (paragraph 39, emphasis added), “Examples of such characteristics associated with a given item in the search results may include, but are not limited to, one or more tags (which may include one or more keywords, comments, URL links, and/or XML information), one or more classification-oriented identifiers, one or more categorization-oriented identifiers, and one or more semantic web-based identifiers.” Lisa further teaches the use of hyperlinks to access websites associated with search results (paragraph 90, emphasis added), “If desired, the user may also click on the hyperlink typically contained in search results to preview or review the actual associated website in a separately launched window, or in a pop-up menu within the active document.” Lisa further teaches (paragraph 101, emphasis added), “Furthermore, it is contemplated that the receiving user can right click his mouse on a previously searched word or phrase in this example, to display a popup menu having hyperlinks to web pages which were found during the sending user’s search. The user can then click one of the links and be taken to the webpage so linked without ever having performed a search of his own.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority for the matrix to comprise a plurality of respective links for accessing respective media content items of the plurality of media content items of for accessing respective information characterizing the respective media content items, for at least the obvious advantage of enabling users and potential buyers to learn more about the respective media content items, and, for example, determine which content items are likely to be worth buying.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bonabeau, Lisa, and Pallakoff as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, and further in view of the anonymous article “IM2, Inc. Secures $8 Million Investment from Redpoint Ventures and Lightspeed Venture Partners”, hereinafter “IM2”. “IM2” teaches searching across multiple online information sources, and receiving information from the multiple information sources (see especially the paragraph beginning, “With the preview version of FatLens,” et subseq. through the paragraph beginning, “Integral to the rich user experience”). Specifically, the paragraph beginning, “With the preview version of FatLens,” teaches “searching across the largest possible inventory available from the hundreds of online ticket sites”, and the paragraph beginning, “The preview version of FatLens,” teaches, “The preview version of FatLens instantaneously delivers the most comprehensive, unbiased search results for event tickets by crawling hundreds of e-commerce, marketplace, and classified sites all across the web, including TicketMaster, eBay, Craigslist, Yahoo, Razorgator, TicketsNow, Stubhub, and many box-office, broker, team and sports league sites” (emphasis added). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority for the information accessible to the application to be received from a plurality of information sources, for the obvious advantage, as per “IM2”, of obtaining comprehensive, unbiased search results, to benefit a user seeking the most options and the best tickets or other products available on the web.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bonabeau, Lisa, and Pallakoff as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, respectively, and further in view of Rothschild (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0259930). Rothschild teaches a query comprising a request for information pertaining to media content (paragraph 15, emphasis added), “In a still further aspect, a server for providing information on media content over a network includes a database including at least one table including a plurality of data fields relating to at least one media content; a processor configured to receive a request for information relating to the at least one media content, to query the database with the request and retrieve information associated with the at least one media content from the database and to transmit the retrieved information to a user.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority for the query to comprise a request for information related to at least one media content item of the plurality of media content items, for at least the obvious advantage of gratifying a user’s desire for relevant information concerning the at least one media content item.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bonabeau, Lisa, and Pallakoff as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, respectively, and further in view of Kutay et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0026441). Bonabeau does not disclose transmitting the query to a plurality of information services, but Kutay teaches transmitting a query to a plurality of information services/sources, first teaching the plurality of sources (paragraph 65, emphasis added), “In one embodiment, data source 710 is a relational database located at the manufacturer level in the manufacturer/supplier chain.” Also: (paragraph 66, emphasis added), “Data sources 720 and 730 are situated at the supplier levels within the manufacturer/supplier chain. In one embodiment, each data source 720 and 730 stores multiple data items, for example data related top each end product, such as names and images of parts or components manufactured for the end product, as well as a description of each component.” Kutay then discloses (paragraph 74, emphasis added), “In one embodiment, if user 205 wants to access product information, he selects a particular product by clicking on a product category within structure window 750. The request is transmitted to server 104. Runtime query 412 retrieves data structures 721 and 731 from module 430 and queries the respective data source fields 510 to return current data from data sources 720 and/or 730. Runtime query then returns data to client 102 for display.” Kutay further discloses (paragraph 79, emphasis added), “If a frame 762 is accessed, for example with a conventional mouse click, the request is transmitted to server 104. Runtime query 412 retrieves a data structure 721 or 731 from module 430 and queries the respective data source field 510 to return current data from the data source 720 or 730. At the same time, runtime query 412 retrieves the data structure 711 from module 430 and queries the respective data source field 510 to return current data from data source 710. In one embodiment, after data is returned from all data sources 710-730, the runtime query 412 retrieves the compound structure 735 to link and match the returned data into a composite item. In one embodiment, each product and price from the data storage 710 [presumably an error for “data source 710”] is matched with the corresponding name, image, and description from storage device 720 or 730 [presumably an error for “data source 720 or 730”] and with any other information available.” See also paragraph 80, and Figure 7A. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority to transmit the query to a plurality of information services, for at least the obvious advantage, as in Kutay, of obtaining different items or sets of relevant information available from different information services or sources.
Lisa teaches categorizing received information; Lisa teaches (paragraph 6, emphasis added), “Grokker relies on search engines to do the crawling, but lists the results differently: according to subject, so that, for example, a search for Paris gives the user a single page with several categories titled ‘history,’ ‘museums,’ ‘universities,’ ‘hotels’ and so on.” Lisa further teaches (paragraph 7, emphasis added), “(2) The Content Analytics Layer: once results are retrieved, Grokker analyzes metadata, document contents, and other information to organize results into categories; (3) The Data Filtering Layer: Grokker also normalizes data from disparate sources with uniform attribute tagging so that the end user can understand the relationships among results and more efficiently explore and understand returned results and documents”. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority to parse information received from the plurality of information services for presentation via the matrix based on at least one category of the plurality of categories, for at least the obvious advantage, as per Lisa, of organizing information objects for easy exploration by the user.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bonabeau, Lisa, and Pallakoff as applied to claims 8 and 18 above, respectively, and further in view of Jackson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0027811). Jackson teaches (paragraph 42, emphasis added), “In the exemplary embodiment, this entails a user directing a browser in an [sic] client access device to internet-protocol (IP) address for an online information-retrieval system, such as the Westlaw system and then logging in to the system … Successful login results in a web-based search interface, such as interface 138 in FIG. 3 (or one or more portions thereof) being output from server 120, stored in memory 132, and displayed by client access device 130.” See also Figures 1, 2, and 3 of Jackson. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority to receive log in information corresponding to the preference; and in response to receiving the login information, cause the processing circuitry to modify the application to display the preferred version of the matrix on the end user device, for such obvious advantages as providing access to users who have paid for access, or are otherwise authorized or qualified for access; and displaying the version of the matrix most convenient for placing purchase orders (leading to profit), or otherwise most satisfactory to the user, whom it may be wise to keep happy.
Claims 11 and 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bonabeau, Lisa, and Pallakoff as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, respectively, and further in view of Maloney et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0069672). Maloney teaches updating a query, and indicating updated results (Abstract, emphasis added), “Items that are out-of-date have unreliable indexes that should be updated.” Maloney teaches (paragraph 31, emphasis added), “As the batch results are received, the display on the user interface (if applicable) is updated to indicate the additionally indexed items.” Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventor’s earliest priority to display an indicator that updated information characterizing at least one media content item of the plurality of media content items is accessible via the matrix, for at least the obvious advantage of notifying a user that updated information, which is often more useful than obsolete information, can be viewed.
Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and are objected to as depending from a claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, but recite non-obvious subject matter.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, objected to as depending from a claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, and objected to for informalities, but recite non-obvious subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of non-obvious subject matter: As set forth above, Bonabeau et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0010117) discloses limitations of claim 2 and parallel claim 12, with further limitations being obvious in view of Lisa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0233692) and Pallakoff (U.S. Patent 6,269,343). However, Bonabeau does not disclose that the matrix is updated based on inputs comprising additions and removals of information, and no other prior art of record sufficiently discloses, teaches, or reasonably suggests this.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lin-Hendel (U.S. Patent 8,042,063) discloses dynamic array presentation and multiple selection of digitally stored objects and corresponding kink tokens for simultaneous presentation. Haberman (U.S. Patent 12,147,478) has been considered for possible double patenting (rejections not made).
Schiff et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0022978) disclose systems and methods of displaying cruise line pricing data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS D ROSEN, whose telephone number is (571)272-6762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM-5:30 PM, M-F. Non-official/draft communications may be faxed to the examiner at 571-273-6762, or emailed to Nicholas.Rosen@uspto.gov (in the body of an email, please, not as an attachment).
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.
/NICHOLAS D ROSEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 July 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights