DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant claims priority to provisional U.S. Patent Application No. 63/595,837, filed 11/3/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
No IDS has been submitted.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amended claims, filed 7/8/2026, have been entered. Claims 1 and 14 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application and have been examined.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the method, as claimed in claims 1-13, are directed to a process and the system, as claimed in claims 14-20, are directed to a machine (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A (prong 1):
Claim 1 recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
receiving a set of product data defining more than one product;
wherein in the set of product data, a set of elements associated with the product provide,
a product depiction associated with the product;
two metadata values, wherein the first metadata value comprises one of a value associated with a product taxonomy, a product characteristic, a combination of the product taxonomy and the product characteristic associated with the product, and wherein the second metadata value comprises one of a value associated with a product taxonomy, a product characteristic, a combination of the product taxonomy and the product characteristic associated with the product;
associating the first metadata value associated with the product of a first category and a second metadata value associated with the product of a second category;
categorizing a first grouping of products, represented by product depictions, associated with the first category, and a second grouping of products, represented by product depictions, associated with the second category wherein the first grouping is associated with one or more sets of first axis logic associated with the first category and the second grouping is associated with one or more set of second axis logic associated with the second category;
receiving a context input;
receiving a focal product represented by a product depiction;
calculating, based on one or more of the focal product, the context input, the first grouping of products and the second grouping of products, an initial subset of product depictions to display on a first axis and a second axis wherein the focal product is associated with the first axis logic and the second axis logic;
displaying, on a visual display a subset of product depictions in the first grouping of products along the first axis, wherein the focal product is represented by a product depiction in the first axis, and wherein another portion comprises a subset of product depictions in the second grouping of products along the second axis wherein the subset of product depictions in the second grouping are associated with the initial focal product, wherein each product depiction of the subset of product depictions in the first grouping of products have the second metadata value of the focal product and have a different first metadata value than the first metadata value of the focal product, and wherein each product depiction of the subset of product depictions in the second grouping of products have the first metadata value of the focal product and have a different second metadata value than the second metadata value of the focal product;
transmitting control to perform measurements;
receiving input data that comprises data characterizing a user gesture from the measurements;
evaluating the input data characterizing the user gesture in relationship to the first axis logic and the second axis logic;
selectively and automatically updating, at the visual display based on the input data characterizing the user gesture, wherein selectively and automatically updating includes one of updating a product depiction representing the focal product to a next focal product depiction and updating one or more of the subset of product depictions in the first grouping along the first axis, the subset of product depictions in the second grouping along the second axis, both the subset of product depictions in the first grouping along the first axis and the subset of product depictions in the second grouping along the second axis, updating the subset of product depictions in the second grouping along the second axis.
Claim 14 recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
transmit a product depiction representation;
storing a product model;
wherein in the product model comprises a set of product data with elements associated with a product comprising:
a product depiction associated with the product;
two metadata values wherein the first metadata value comprises one of a value associated with a product taxonomy, a product characteristic, a combination of product taxonomy and product characteristic associated with the product and the second metadata value comprises one of a value associated with a product taxonomy, a product characteristic, a combination of product taxonomy and product characteristic associated with the product;
an association between the first metadata value associated with a product with a first category and a second metadata value associated with the product with a second category;
a logical association between the first category and the second category;
generating visual elements of a product dimension navigation representation of a visual display:
transmits control to perform measurements;
receives input data that comprises data characterizing a user gesture;
generates the product dimension navigation representation based at least in part on the input data characterizing the user gesture and product dimensions, wherein the product dimension navigation representation comprises a subset of product depictions in the first category along the first axis and a subset of product depictions in the second category along the second axis, wherein each product depiction of the subset of product depictions in the first category have the second metadata value and have a different first metadata value than the first metadata value, and wherein each product depiction of the subset of product depictions in the second category have the first metadata value and have a different second metadata value than the second metadata value;
receive the product dimension navigation representation; and activate, trigger, or present the product dimension navigation representation.
These limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity, such as performing commercial interactions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined by MPEP 2106.04 as including “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” In this case, the abstract ideas recited in claims 1 and 14 are certain methods of organizing human activity because displaying and updating product descriptions including a focal product in response to user selections (i.e., recommending products) is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations. Thus, claims 1 and 14 recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception (see MPEP 2106.04). As stated in the MPEP, when “an additional element merely recites the words ‘apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
In this case, claim 1 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A computer implemented method for selectively updating a visual display and providing output instructions for product navigation in response to one or more user gestures, the method comprising:
receiving, using at least one hardware processor, a set of product data defining more than one product;
wherein in the set of product data, a set of elements associated with the product provide,
a product depiction associated with the product;
two metadata values, wherein the first metadata value comprises one of a value associated with a product taxonomy, a product characteristic, a combination of the product taxonomy and the product characteristic associated with the product, and wherein the second metadata value comprises one of a value associated with a product taxonomy, a product characteristic, a combination of the product taxonomy and the product characteristic associated with the product;
associating, using at least one hardware processor, the first metadata value associated with the product of a first category and a second metadata value associated with the product of a second category;
categorizing, using at least one hardware processor, a first grouping of products, represented by product depictions, associated with the first category, and a second grouping of products, represented by product depictions, associated with the second category wherein the first grouping is associated with one or more sets of first axis logic associated with the first category and the second grouping is associated with one or more set of second axis logic associated with the second category;
receiving, using at least one hardware processor, a context input;
receiving, using at least one hardware processor a focal product represented by a product depiction;
calculating, based on one or more of the focal product, the context input, the first grouping of products and the second grouping of products, using at least one hardware processor, an initial subset of product depictions to display on a first axis and a second axis wherein the focal product is associated with the first axis logic and the second axis logic;
displaying, on a visual display of a user device, a user interface wherein a portion of the user interface comprises a subset of product depictions in the first grouping of products along the first axis, wherein the focal product is represented by a product depiction in the first axis, and wherein another portion of the user interface comprises a subset of product depictions in the second grouping of products along the second axis wherein the subset of product depictions in the second grouping are associated with the initial focal product, wherein each product depiction of the subset of product depictions in the first grouping of products have the second metadata value of the focal product and have a different first metadata value than the first metadata value of the focal product, and wherein each product depiction of the subset of product depictions in the second grouping of products have the first metadata value of the focal product and have a different second metadata value than the second metadata value of the focal product;
transmitting control signals to one or more sensors to perform measurements;
receiving, using the at least one hardware processor and the one or more sensors, input data that comprises data characterizing a user gesture from the measurements;
evaluating, using the at least one hardware processor, the input data characterizing the user gesture in relationship to the first axis logic and the second axis logic;
selectively and automatically updating, at the visual display of the user device, the user interface, based on the input data characterizing the user gesture, wherein selectively and automatically updating includes one of updating in the user interface a product depiction representing the focal product to a next focal product depiction and updating one or more of the subset of product depictions in the first grouping along the first axis, the subset of product depictions in the second grouping along the second axis, both the subset of product depictions in the first grouping along the first axis and the subset of product depictions in the second grouping along the second axis, updating the subset of product depictions in the second grouping along the second axis.
In this case, claim 14 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A processing system for selectively updating a visual display, the processing system having one or more processors and one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors, the processing system configured to cause a visual display to provide visual elements for a retail navigation environment at a user interface of the visual display, wherein a focal product and associated groups of product depictions at the visual display selectively and automatically update in response to one or more user gestures, the system comprising:
a communication interface to transmit a product depiction graphic user interface representation;
one or more non-transitory memory storing a product model;
wherein in the product model comprises a set of product data with elements associated with a product comprising:
a product depiction associated with the product;
two metadata values wherein the first metadata value comprises one of a value associated with a product taxonomy, a product characteristic, a combination of product taxonomy and product characteristic associated with the product and the second metadata value comprises one of a value associated with a product taxonomy, a product characteristic, a combination of product taxonomy and product characteristic associated with the product;
an association between the first metadata value associated with a product with a first category and a second metadata value associated with the product with a second category;
a logical association between the first category and the second category;
a hardware processor programmed with executable instructions for generating visual elements of a product dimension navigation representation for a user interface of a visual display, wherein the hardware processor:
transmits control signals to one or more sensors to perform measurements;
receives from the one or more sensors input data that comprises data characterizing a user gesture;
generates the product dimension navigation representation based at least in part on the input data characterizing the user gesture and product dimensions, wherein the product dimension navigation representation comprises a subset of product depictions in the first category along the first axis and a subset of product depictions in the second category along the second axis, wherein each product depiction of the subset of product depictions in the first category have the second metadata value and have a different first metadata value than the first metadata value, and wherein each product depiction of the subset of product depictions in the second category have the first metadata value and have a different second metadata value than the second metadata value;
a user device comprising a hardware processor, a visual display and an interface to receive the product dimension navigation representation; and activate, trigger, or present the product dimension navigation representation at the visual display or a user device output.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment (“computer” implemented, “using at least one hardware processor”, “display of a user device”, “a user interface”, “transmitting signals”, “one or more sensors”, “automatically” updating, “one or more processors and one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors”, “a communication interface”, “graphic user interface”, “one or more non-transitory memory”, “a hardware processor programmed with executable instructions”, “a user device comprising a hardware processor, a visual display and an interface”, “a user device output”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (receiving information, displaying information, transmitting information, storing information). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. This is because the additional elements of claims 1 and 14 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea) (see paragraphs [0020]-[0021], [0030]-[0031], [0033], [0048], [0140], [0143]-[0154], [0158], [0160]-[0161], [0165]-[0167], [0322], etc.). The specification indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. The description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered pair, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional elements are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not transform or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technology environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
In addition to the above, the recited receiving, displaying, transmitting, storing steps (even assuming arguendo they do not form part of the abstract idea, which the Examiner does not acquiesce), are at best little more than extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering, presentation of data) that contributes nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed system (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 1 and 14 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claims 1 and 14, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 1 and 14 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claims 1 and 14 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
presenting offers
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claims 1 and 14 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claims 1 and 14 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 2-5, 8, 10-12, 15, and 18
Dependent claim(s) 2-5, 8, 10-12, 15, and 18, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claim(s) 2-5, 8, 10-12, 15, and 18 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim(s) 1 and 14 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claim claim(s) 1 and 14.
Claims 2-5, 8, 10-12, 15, and 18 set forth:
depicting the first axis vertically and depicting the second axis horizontally.
receiving a third metadata value, third category, a third grouping, and a subset of products associated with the third grouping and displaying and updating a third axis.
wherein the first axis logic is associated with a first dimension representing a logical association between the focal product and the first category, and wherein the second axis logic is associated with a second dimension representing a logical association between the focal product and the second category.
wherein the logical association is one of a category match, contrasting category or complimentary category.
modifying the second category logic based on the metadata associated with the first and/or next focal product.
wherein receiving using at least one hardware processor the focal product represented by the product depiction further comprises receiving instructions to determine a focal product based on at least one of a product promotion rating, the navigational context associated with a user, a random selection, a random selection within a search, a closest match selection within a search, a random selection within a category, a closest match selection within a category, a random selection within a product category or a closest match selection within a product category.
wherein the first category is associated with a product designed for covering a first portion of a wearer’s body and the second category is associated with a product designed for a second portion of a wearer’s body, wherein the first category is a first apparel category and wherein the second category is a second apparel category, and/or wherein the first and/or second category is associated with a color logic.
using a model layout to display a multi-dimensional depiction of the product depiction representing the focal product and the subset of the product depictions as an outfit or arrangement.
wherein the product dimension navigation representation comprises horizontal and vertical grids grouping products depictions based on axis logic and the product dimensions.
further comprising the one or more sensors to perform measurements to receive the input data.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of displaying and updating product descriptions including a focal product in response to user selections (i.e., recommending products). The claims do not set forth any further additional limitations, and therefore such abstract embellishments are applied to the additional limitations recited in claim(s) 1 and 14, which do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim(s) 1 and 14.
Thus, dependent claims 2-5, 8, 10-12, 15, and 18 are ineligible.
Regarding claim 6, 7, 9, 13, 16, 17, 19, and 20
Dependent claim(s) 6, 7, 9, 13, 16, 17, 19, and 20 set forth:
calculating, based on the context input, first grouping of products and second grouping of products using at least one hardware processor an initial focal product represented by a product depiction; wherein the product depiction is one or more of a photograph, rendering, video clip, simulation, preview, thumbnails, audio file, interactive media, AI generated media, and/or a combination, and wherein the product depiction is represented by an identifier, link, or combination.
wherein the one or more sensors to perform measurements comprise a touch screen.
wherein the user interface is one of a Graphical User Interface (GUI), Tangible User Interface (TUI) Natural User Interface (NUI), Augmented Reality (AR), Virtual Reality (VR), Mixed Reality, or combination.
updating the visual display by visually highlighting the focal product over the non-focal products through one or more of the location in user interface, size, outline, visual indicators, color and/or color intensity, background color, visual flags or usage of a depiction format such as video or live photo.
wherein the user device is one or more of a smart mirror, smart phone, computer, tablet, touchscreen kiosk, smart exercise device, fitness tracker, connected fitness system.
wherein the one or more sensors to perform measurements comprise a touch screen, a body motion detection sensor, a hand motion detection sensor, an arm motion detection sensor, a component within a connected smart exercise system, a computer, a tablet, a smart phone, a smart mirror, a smart mat, a smart watch, a smart sensor, a virtual reality headset, an augmented reality headset, a haptic glove, a haptic garment, a game controller, a hologram projection system, an autostereoscopic projection system, mixed reality devices, virtual reality devices, an augmented reality device, a metaverse headset, which may or may not be integrated in other devices.
wherein the one or more of the sensors is one or more of a resistive touchscreen, a capacitive touchscreen. a SAW (Surface Acoustic Wave) touchscreen, an infrared touchscreen, an optical imaging touchscreen, an Acoustic Pulse Recognition touchscreen.
further comprising a machine learning component with one or more machine learning models and/or an artificial intelligence component with one or more artificial intelligence models.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of displaying and updating product descriptions including a focal product in response to user selections (i.e., recommending products). While the claim(s) do set forth the additional elements of “video clip, simulation, audio file, interactive media, AI generated media”, “link”, “touch screen”, “a Graphical User Interface (GUI), Tangible User Interface (TUI) Natural User Interface (NUI), Augmented Reality (AR), Virtual Reality (VR), Mixed Reality,” “video or live photo”, “a smart mirror, smart phone, computer, tablet, touchscreen kiosk, smart exercise device, fitness tracker, connected fitness system”, “a touch screen, a body motion detection sensor, a hand motion detection sensor, an arm motion detection sensor, a component within a connected smart exercise system, a computer, a tablet, a smart phone, a smart mirror, a smart mat, a smart watch, a smart sensor, a virtual reality headset, an augmented reality headset, a haptic glove, a haptic garment, a game controller, a hologram projection system, an autostereoscopic projection system, mixed reality devices, virtual reality devices, an augmented reality device, a metaverse headset”, “a resistive touchscreen, a capacitive touchscreen. a SAW (Surface Acoustic Wave) touchscreen, an infrared touchscreen, an optical imaging touchscreen, an Acoustic Pulse Recognition touchscreen”, “a machine learning component with one or more machine learning models and/or an artificial intelligence component with one or more artificial intelligence models”, these recitations are similar to the additional limitations in claims 1 and 14, as they do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is these additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment. The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraph [0020]-[0021], [0030]-[0031], [0033], [0048], [0140], [0143]-[0154], [0158], [0160]-[0161], [0165]-[0167], [0322], etc. indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and thus do not act to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thus, dependent claims 6, 7, 9, 13, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are also 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 (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.
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form 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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Melcher et al. (US 2010/0217760 A1 [previously recited]).
Regarding claim 1, Melcher et al., hereinafter Melcher, discloses a computer implemented method for selectively updating a visual display and providing output instructions for product navigation in response to one or more user gestures (abstract), the method comprising:
receiving, using at least one hardware processor, a set of product data defining more than one product (Figs. 1-2 and 9; ¶0022, ¶0028, ¶¶0033-0034, ¶0043 in view of ¶¶0071-0079);
wherein in the set of product data, a set of elements associated with the product provide,
a product depiction associated with the product (Figs. 1-2; ¶0022, ¶0028, ¶¶0033-0034, ¶0043);
two metadata values, wherein the first metadata value comprises one of a value associated with a product taxonomy, a product characteristic, a combination of the product taxonomy and the product characteristic associated with the product, and wherein the second metadata value comprises one of a value associated with a product taxonomy, a product characteristic, a combination of the product taxonomy and the product characteristic associated with the product (Figs. 1-2; ¶0022, ¶0028, ¶¶0033-0034, ¶0043);
associating, using at least one hardware processor, the first metadata value associated with the product of a first category and a second metadata value associated with the product of a second category (Figs. 1-2 and 9; Figs. 1-2; ¶¶0043-0044, ¶0022, ¶0028, ¶¶0033-0034 in view of ¶¶0071-0079);
categorizing, using at least one hardware processor, a first grouping of products, represented by product depictions, associated with the first category, and a second grouping of products, represented by product depictions, associated with the second category (Figs. 1-2 and 9; Figs. 1-2; ¶¶0043-0044, ¶0022, ¶0028, ¶¶0033-0034 in view of ¶¶0071-0079) wherein the first grouping is associated with one or more sets of first axis logic associated with the first category and the second grouping is associated with one or more set of second axis logic associated with the second category (Figs. 5-7; ¶0017, ¶¶0041-0044, ¶¶0053-0060; examiner notes primary result is comparable to a first category and peripheral result is comparable to second category);
receiving, using at least one hardware processor, a context input (Figs. 1, 3, 5-7, 9; ¶0032, ¶¶0040-0044, ¶¶0053-0060 in view of ¶¶0071-0079);
receiving, using at least one hardware processor a focal product represented by a product depiction (Figs. 1, 3, 5-7, 9; ¶0032, ¶¶0040-0044, ¶¶0053-0060 in view of ¶¶0071-0079);
calculating, based on one or more of the focal product, the context input, the first grouping of products and the second grouping of products, using at least one hardware processor, an initial subset of product depictions to display on a first axis and a second axis wherein the focal product is associated with the first axis logic and the second axis logic (Figs. 1, 3, 5-7, 9; ¶0032, ¶¶0040-0044, ¶¶0053-0060 in view of ¶¶0071-0079);
displaying, on a visual display of a user device, a user interface wherein a portion of the user interface comprises a subset of product depictions in the first grouping of products along the first axis, wherein the focal product is represented by a product depiction in the first axis, and wherein another portion of the user interface comprises a subset of product depictions in the second grouping of products along the second axis wherein the subset of product depictions in the second grouping are associated with the initial focal product (Figs. 1, 3, 5-9; ¶0017, ¶0032, ¶¶0040-0047, ¶¶0049-0070 in view of ¶¶0071-0079), wherein each product depiction of the subset of product depictions in the first grouping of products have the second metadata value of the focal product and have a different first metadata value than the first metadata value of the focal product, and wherein each product depiction of the subset of product depictions in the second grouping of products have the first metadata value of the focal product and have a different second metadata value than the second metadata value of the focal product (Figs. 1, 3, 5-9; ¶0017, ¶0032, ¶0037, ¶¶0040-0047, ¶¶0049-0070 in view of ¶¶0071-0079);
transmitting control signals to one or more sensors to perform measurements (Figs. 1, 3-9; ¶0017, ¶0032, ¶¶0040-0047, ¶¶0049-0070 in view of ¶¶0071-0079);
receiving, using the at least one hardware processor and the one or more sensors, input data that comprises data characterizing a user gesture from the measurements (Figs. 1, 3-9; ¶0032, ¶0042, ¶0045, ¶¶0049-0051, ¶¶0057-0058, ¶¶0062-0070 in view of ¶¶0071-0079);
evaluating, using the at least one hardware processor, the input data characterizing the user gesture in relationship to the first axis logic and the second axis logic (Figs. 1, 3, 5-9; ¶0032, ¶0042, ¶0045, ¶¶0049-0051, ¶¶0057-0058, ¶¶0062-0070 in view of ¶¶0071-0079);
selectively and automatically updating, at the visual display of the user device, the user interface, based on the input data characterizing the user gesture, wherein selectively and automatically updating includes one of updating in the user interface a product depiction representing the focal product to a next focal product depiction and updating one or more of the subset of product depictions in the first grouping along the first axis, the subset of product depictions in the second grouping along the second axis, both the subset of product depictions in the first grouping along the first axis and the subset of product depictions in the second grouping along the second axis, updating the subset of product depictions in the second grouping along the second axis (Figs. 1, 3, 5-9; ¶0045 in view of ¶0032, ¶0042, ¶¶0049-0051, ¶¶0057-0058, ¶¶0062-0079).
Regarding claim 2, Melcher discloses the method of claim 1, Melcher further discloses comprising depicting the first axis vertically and depicting the second axis horizontally (Fig. 8; ¶0017, ¶0040, ¶¶0046-0051 and ¶¶0061-0069).
Regarding claim 3, Melcher discloses the method of claim 1, Melcher further discloses further comprising receiving a third metadata value, third category, a third grouping, and a subset of products associated with the third grouping and displaying and updating a third axis (Figs. 1-2, 8; ¶0017, ¶0022, ¶0028, ¶¶0033-0034, ¶0040, ¶0043, ¶¶0046-0051, ¶¶0061-0069).
Regarding claim 4, Melcher discloses the method of claim 1 or 3, Melcher further discloses wherein the first axis logic is associated with a first dimension representing a logical association between the focal product and the first category, and wherein the second axis logic is associated with a second dimension representing a logical association between the focal product and the second category (Figs. 1-8; ¶¶0046-0051 and ¶¶0061-0069, in view of ¶0017, ¶0022, ¶0028, ¶¶0033-0034, ¶0040, ¶0043, ¶0062).
Regarding claim 5, Melcher discloses the method of claim 4, Melcher further discloses wherein the logical association is one of a category match, contrasting category or complimentary category (¶0044).
Regarding claim 6, Melcher discloses the method of claim 1, Melcher further discloses further comprising calculating, based on the context input, first grouping of products and second grouping of products using at least one hardware processor an initial focal product represented by a product depiction (Figs. 1, 3, 5-7, 9; ¶0032, ¶¶0040-0044, ¶¶0053-0060 in view of ¶¶0071-0079);
wherein the product depiction is one or more of a photograph, rendering, video clip, simulation, preview, thumbnails, audio file, interactive media, AI generated media, and/or a combination, and wherein the product depiction is represented by an identifier, link, or combination (Figs. 1-9; ¶¶0040-0043, ¶¶0046-0068).
Regarding claim 7, Melcher discloses the method of claim 1, Melcher further discloses wherein the one or more sensors to perform measurements comprise a touch screen (Figs. 8-9; ¶0040, ¶0057).
Regarding claim 8, Melcher discloses the method of claim 1, Melcher further discloses further comprising modifying the second category logic based on the metadata associated with the first and/or next focal product (Figs. 1, 3, 5-9; ¶0045 in view of ¶0032, ¶0042, ¶¶0049-0051, ¶¶0057-0058, ¶¶0062-0079).
Regarding claim 9, Melcher discloses the method of claim 1, Melcher further discloses wherein the user interface is one of a Graphical User Interface (GUI) (Fig. 8; ¶0050, ¶0056, ¶0070, ¶0076), Tangible User Interface (TUI) Natural User Interface (NUI), Augmented Reality (AR), Virtual Reality (VR), Mixed Reality, or combination.
Regarding claim 10, Melcher discloses the method of claim 1, Melcher further discloses wherein receiving using at least one hardware processor the focal product represented by the product depiction further comprises receiving instructions to determine a focal product based on at least one of a product promotion rating, the navigational context associated with a user, a random selection, a random selection within a search, a closest match selection within a search, a random selection within a category, a closest match selection within a category, a random selection within a product category or a closest match selection within a product category (Figs. 1, 3, 5-7, 9; ¶0032, ¶¶0040-0044, ¶¶0053-0060 in view of ¶¶0071-0079).
Regarding claim 12, Melcher discloses the method of claim 1, Melcher further discloses further comprising, using a model layout to display a multi-dimensional depiction of the product depiction representing the focal product and the subset of the product depictions as an outfit or arrangement (Figs. 4 and 8; ¶¶0046-0051, ¶¶0061-0068).
Regarding claim 13, Melcher discloses the method of claim 1, Melcher further discloses comprising updating the visual display by visually highlighting the focal product over the non-focal products through one or more of the location in user interface, size, outline, visual indicators, color and/or color intensity, background color, visual flags or usage of a depiction format such as video or live photo (Fig. 7; ¶0049, ¶0061, ¶0065, ¶0069).
Regarding claim 14, Melcher discloses a processing system for selectively updating a visual display, the processing system having one or more processors and one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors (Figs. 1-2, 9; ¶0045, ¶¶0071-0079), the processing system configured to cause a visual display to provide visual elements for a retail navigation environment at a user interface of the visual display, wherein a focal product and associated groups of product depictions at the visual display selectively and automatically update in response to one or more user gestures (Figs. 1, 3, 5-9; ¶0045 in view of ¶0032, ¶0042, ¶¶0049-0051, ¶¶0057-0058, ¶¶0062-0079), the system comprising:
a communication interface to transmit a product depiction graphic user interface representation (Figs. 1, 3, 5-9; ¶0017, ¶0032, ¶¶0040-0047, ¶¶0049-0070 in view of ¶¶0071-0079);
one or more non-transitory memory storing a product model (¶0043);
wherein in the product model comprises a set of product data with elements associated with a product (¶0043) comprising:
a product depiction associated with the product (Figs. 1-2; ¶0022, ¶0028, ¶¶0033-0034, ¶0043);
two metadata values wherein the first metadata value comprises one of a value associated with a product taxonomy, a product characteristic, a combination of product taxonomy and product characteristic associated with the product and the second metadata value comprises one of a value associated with a product taxonomy, a product characteristic, a combination of product taxonomy and product characteristic associated with the product (Figs. 1-2; ¶0022, ¶0028, ¶¶0033-0034, ¶0043);
an association between the first metadata value associated with a product with a first category and a second metadata value associated with the product with a second category (Figs. 1-2 and 9; Figs. 1-2; ¶¶0043-0044, ¶0022, ¶0028, ¶¶0033-0034 in view of ¶¶0071-0079);
a logical association between the first category and the second category (Figs. 5-7; ¶0017, ¶¶0041-0044, ¶¶0053-0060; examiner notes primary result is comparable to a first category and peripheral result is comparable to second category);
a hardware processor programmed with executable instructions for generating visual elements of a product dimension navigation representation for a user interface of a visual display (Figs. 1, 3, 5-9; ¶0017, ¶0032, ¶¶0040-0047, ¶¶0049-0070 in view of ¶¶0071-0079), wherein the hardware processor:
transmits control signals to one or more sensors to perform measurements (Figs. 1, 3-9; ¶0017, ¶0032, ¶¶0040-0047, ¶¶0049-0070 in view of ¶¶0071-0079);
receives from the one or more sensors input data that comprises data characterizing a user gesture (Figs. 1, 3-9; ¶0032, ¶0042, ¶0045, ¶¶0049-0051, ¶¶0057-0058, ¶¶0062-0070 in view of ¶¶0071-0079);
generates the product dimension navigation representation based at least in part on the input data characterizing the user gesture and product dimensions (Figs. 1, 3, 5-9; ¶0045 in view of ¶0032, ¶0042, ¶¶0049-0051, ¶¶0057-0058, ¶¶0062-0079), wherein each product depiction of the subset of product depictions in the first category have the second metadata value and have a different first metadata value than the first metadata value, and wherein each product depiction of the subset of product depictions in the second category have the first metadata value and have a different second metadata value than the second metadata value (Figs. 1, 3, 5-9; ¶0017, ¶0032, ¶0037, ¶¶0040-0047, ¶¶0049-0070 in view of ¶¶0071-0079);
a user device comprising a hardware processor, a visual display and an interface to receive the product dimension navigation representation (Figs. 1, 3, 5-9; ¶0045 in view of ¶0032, ¶0042, ¶¶0049-0051, ¶¶0057-0058, ¶¶0062-0079); and activate, trigger, or present the product dimension navigation representation at the visual display or a user device output (Figs. 1, 3, 5-9; ¶0045 in view of ¶0032, ¶0042, ¶¶0049-0051, ¶¶0057-0058, ¶¶0062-0079).
Regarding claim 15, Melcher discloses the computer system of claim 14, Melcher further discloses wherein the product dimension navigation representation comprises horizontal and vertical grids grouping products depictions based on axis logic and the product dimensions (Fig. 8; ¶0017, ¶0040, ¶¶0046-0051 and ¶¶0061-0069).
Regarding claim 16, Melcher discloses the computer system of claim 14, Melcher further discloses wherein the user device is one or more of a smart mirror, smart phone, computer, tablet, touchscreen kiosk, smart exercise device, fitness tracker, connected fitness system (Figs. 1, 8, 9; ¶0018, ¶0057, ¶0075).
Regarding claim 17, Melcher discloses the computer system of claim 14, Melcher further discloses wherein the one or more sensors to perform measurements comprise a touch screen, a body motion detection sensor, a hand motion detection sensor, an arm motion detection sensor, a component within a connected smart exercise system, a computer, a tablet, a smart phone, a smart mirror, a smart mat, a smart watch, a smart sensor, a virtual reality headset, an augmented reality headset, a haptic glove, a haptic garment, a game controller, a hologram projection system, an autostereoscopic projection system, mixed reality devices, virtual reality devices, an augmented reality device, a metaverse headset, which may or may not be integrated in other devices (Figs. 1, 8, 9; ¶0018, ¶0057, ¶0075).
Regarding claim 18, Melcher discloses the computer system of claim 14, Melcher further discloses further comprising the one or more sensors to perform measurements to receive the input data (Figs. 1, 8-9; ¶0018, ¶0040, ¶0057, ¶0075).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claim(s) 11, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melcher in view of Zielnicki (US 11,232,506 B1 [previously recited]).
Regarding claim 11, Melcher discloses the method of claim 1. While Melcher further discloses wherein the first category is associated with a product (¶0044) and the second category is associated with a product (¶0044), wherein the first category is a first category and wherein the second category is a second category (¶¶0042-0045), and/or wherein the first and/or second category is associated with a logic (¶¶0042-0045), Melcher does not explicitly disclose wherein the first category is associated with a product designed for covering a first portion of a wearer’s body and the second category is associated with a product designed for a second portion of a wearer’s body, wherein the first category is a first apparel category and wherein the second category is a second apparel category, and/or wherein the first and/or second category is associated with a color logic. However, in the field of automatically evaluating and choosing a list of candidate items for an end user (abstract), Zielnicki teaches a first category of items is associated with a product designed for covering a first portion of a wearer’s body and a second category is associated with a product designed for a second portion of a wearer’s body, wherein the first category is a first apparel category and wherein the second category is a second apparel category, and/or wherein the first and/or second category is associated with a color logic (Fig. 5, 6A-6B; col. 23, lines 14-53, col. 12, lines 5-35, and col. 5, line 60 to col. 6, line 17, col. 18, lines 30-45). The step of Zielnicki is applicable to the method of Melcher as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing users recommended items. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the item type and categories as taught by Melcher with the specific apparel categories as taught by Zielnicki. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the method of Melcher in order for the recommended items to include clothing items (col. 7, lines 19-36).
Regarding claim 19, Melcher discloses the computer system of claim 14. While Melcher discloses wherein the one or more of the sensors is one or more of a touchscreen (Figs. 8-9; ¶0040, ¶0057), Melcher does not explicitly disclose the one or more of the sensors is one or more of a resistive touchscreen, a capacitive touchscreen, a SAW (Surface Acoustic Wave) touchscreen, an infrared touchscreen, an optical imaging touchscreen, an Acoustic Pulse Recognition touchscreen. However, in the field of automatically evaluating and choosing a list of candidate items for an end user (abstract), Zielnicki teaches a device with a touchscreen can be a capacitive touch sensitive screen that supports gesture interpretation (col. 10, lines 27-49). The device of Zielnicki is applicable to the computer system of Melcher as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing users recommended items. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the touchscreen as taught by Melcher with the capacitive touch sensitive screen as taught by Zielnicki. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the system of Melcher in order for the device interface for interacting with the touchscreen be a screen that supports gesture interpretation such as a capacitive touch sensitive screen (col. 10, lines 27-49).
Regarding claim 20, Melcher discloses the computer system of claim 14. While Melcher discloses further comprising models (Figs. 4 and 8; ¶¶0044-0051, ¶¶0058-0068), Melcher does not explicitly disclose a machine learning component with one or more machine learning models and/or an artificial intelligence component with one or more artificial intelligence models. However, in the field of automatically evaluating and choosing a list of candidate items for an end user (abstract), Zielnicki teaches selecting items to recommend to a user using machine learning models (Figs. 1, element 105, 4-5; col. 5, line 60 to col. 6, line 17). The computer system of Zielnicki is applicable to the computer system of Melcher as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing users recommended items. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the item analysis as taught by Melcher with the machine learning item model as taught by Zielnicki. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the system of Melcher in order to score and rank the items using one or more machine learning models to save time and effort (col. 5, line 60 to col. 6, line 17).
Examiner’s Comment
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Reference A of the Notice of References Cited Tiongson et al. (US 2003/0103070 A1) discloses an interactive display allows a user to choose products or elements on one screen axis (Y) and compare their characteristics or attributes on a second screen axis (X), thereby aiding a user to select a product from all available information according to the user's individual requirements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 7-8 of the Remarks filed 7/8/2026, with respect to the previous 35 USC §101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended claims are patent eligible as the amended claims have clarified that the first grouping of products share the same second metadata value and differ in the first metadata value and that the second grouping of products share the same first metadata value and differ in the second metadata value, enabling the user to be able to more readily identify products that they are interested in and visually organizing the product depictions in a more navigable fashion. Examiner respectfully disagrees. These arguments are directed to the abstract idea. Abstract ideas are not patent eligible, therefore these limitations cannot provide integration.
On page 7 of the Remarks, Applicant argues the claims are eligible over Step 2A, prong 1 as the claims, as a whole, do not include any judicial exceptions. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant is reminded that in Prong One examiner evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Despite Applicant’s assertion to the contrary, the Examiner maintains that the claims clearly set forth or describe abstract idea(s) for those reasons set forth previously. The instant claims are unlike the claims in discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)(vi), as the instant claims recite an abstract idea. Further, displaying and updating product descriptions including a focal product in response to user selections (i.e., recommending products) is an abstract idea known from the pre-Internet world and the claimed solution is not necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. Therefore, the instant claims are unlike the claims in MPEP 2106.04(a)(I).
Moreover, Applicant’s own assertion that the claims are directed towards a user being able to “more readily identify products that they are interested in” (page 7 of the Remarks filed 7/8/2026) is itself an abstract idea and underscores the Examiner’s findings under Prong One. Examiner notes the arguments directed to practical applications and computer improvements is analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two and not within Step 2A, Prong One.
Accordingly, Examiner maintains the claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant argues on page 8 that the amended claim integrates any abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A, prong 2). Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the Examiner agrees that the amended limitations including computers/processors/user devices and a user interface do not fall within the abstract idea, the Examiner disagrees that these elements impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception. As claimed, these elements represent the mere use of generic computing components to facility the abstract idea. Notably, the specification provides only a brief description of computing devices/processors and user interfaces (see paragraphs [0020]-[0021], [0030]-[0031], [0033], [0048], [0140], [0143]-[0154], [0158], [0160]-[0161], [0165]-[0167], [0322], etc.).
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional function of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Although the specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary sill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
While Applicant argues paragraph [0267] provides support for an improvement to user interfaces, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0267] recites:
[0267]The user input/gesture 800 will be received by sensor input 406 and using Gesture 75, the hardware processor 13 will identify the user’s interaction with the GUI and generate a response on the PDN UI 700. In the current example, the user has swiped horizontally along the second axis, which would be identified in Gesture 75 to represent an intention to replace the second dimension depiction with a new product. The second dimension depiction is replaced, as seen in FIG 9, with a new dimension of 2-X-C, wherein the second dimension depiction still shares two categories with the focal product but the last product category has been changed to provide a new dimension for the user to engage with. In the current example, the first dimension and focal product depictions remain the same as user input/gesture 800 was directed solely to the second dimension.
Applicant’s specification (including paragraph [0267]) does not provide the requisite detail necessary such that one of ordinary skill in the art could recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Applicant’s specification does not provide sufficient detail with respect to either computing devices/processors and/or a user interface, and is specific only in their use in facilitating the abstract idea of displaying and updating product descriptions including a focal product in response to user selections (i.e., recommending products).
The manner in which the currently pending claims are written is akin to ineligible decisions such as Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2016) (the court relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible), or, Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claims contained no restriction on the manner in which the additional elements perform these claimed functions). The alleged improvement by Applicant is at best a bare assertion of an improvement sans sufficient detail to demonstrate that Applicant has provided the alleged improvement to the technical field.
Applicant further argues the claims are similar to claim 2 of Example 46. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Example 46 and the current application are different with different fact patterns so the analysis does not apply. Specifically, the background specification of Example 46, claim 2 emphasized that “automatically identifying aberrant behavioral patterns and operating farm equipment based on such identification avoids the need for the farmer to evaluate the behavior of each animal in the herd on a continual basis, and then manually take appropriate action for each animal exhibiting aberrant behaviors. Limitation (d) in combination with the feed dispenser enables the control of appropriate farm equipment based on the automatic detection of grass tetany, which goes beyond merely automating the abstract idea.” In finding claim 2 eligible, the analysis noted that claim 2 did recite a judicial exception, but found eligibility in step 2A, prong 2. In the case of Example 46, claim 2, when the wherein clause is considered in view of the specification, it is clear that the wherein clause has patentable weight, in that the claim requires the presence of the feed dispenser, and that the monitoring component is further configured for performing limitation (d). Also, because claim 2 is a system claim, its BRI requires the structure for performing the function of limitation (d) to be present, even though that function (sending a control signal) only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met (i.e., when the analysis results for the animal indicate that the animal is exhibiting an aberrant behavioral pattern indicative of grass tetany).
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s assertion that the claimed invention is similar to Example 46, claim 2.
While Applicant further argues that the instant claims are similar to the eligible claims in Core Wireless, Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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 F3d 1356 (Fed Cir. 2018). Unlike the claims in Core Wireless, the specification as filed does not reveal to one of ordinary skill in the art the Applicant has provided an improvement to technology of user interfaces. Further, the specification as filed does not reveal to one of ordinary skill in the art the Applicant has provided an improvement to computing devices/processors and/or user interfaces. Nor does the specification provide technical detail of how updating/modifying a user interface based on selections differently than from generic devices displaying information via an interface (i.e., the specification merely sets forth at a high level of generality the use of interfaces for displaying information on generic computing devices via a browser).
There is no indication from either the claims or the specification that the invention seeks to modify conventional operation of any such technology. Here again, the Examiner emphasizes the failure of the disclosure to set forth or describe the amended features, or any improvements that are achieved from or made relative to another technology or technical field. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the improvements manifested by the claimed invention are improvements to the abstract idea itself, not the computer or another technology or technical field.
The character of the claims as a whole is not directed to improving computer performance and do not recite any such benefit. The claims of the instant application, however, merely represent the use of generic computing technology used as a tool to perform the abstract idea in an online environment. The claims lack any restriction on the manner in which the computing operations are to be performed. The manner in which the currently pending claims are written is much more akin to the myriad of ineligible court decisions that employed generic computer components at a high-level to achieve improvements in commercial processes.
In review of the claimed invention, and in consideration of the specification as originally filed, the Examiner asserts that:
(i) the claimed invention does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, but instead improves an abstract, commercial process, and,
(ii) the specification, as originally filed, does not provide sufficient discloser or technical explanation such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have determined that the disclosed invention provided an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field.
Even assuming a relationship of the claimed invention to another technology or technical field, if it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological process, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure most provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Even when a specification explicitly asserts an improvement, examiner should not determine a claim improves technology when only a bare assertion of an improvement is present without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
Further, the instant claims are not directed to improving “the existing technological process” requiring the generic components to operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality or requiring the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces to improve a technical process. As currently recited, the instant claims are directed to improving the business task of displaying and updating product descriptions including a focal product in response to user selections (i.e., recommending products) (i.e., the abstract idea).
Therefore, the instant claims are unlike the claims in Core Wireless and the Examiner maintains the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception and maintains the rejection Step 2A, Prong Two.
Applicant argues on page 8 that the amended claims provides an inventive concept under Step 2B. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above in the full rejection of the claims, the claimed additional elements were evaluated individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of the claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment. While the claims may recite a specific manner of obtaining information (e.g., a set of product data, context input, etc.) processing the data (e.g., associating metadata values), and displaying the product depi9ctions to the user (such that the groupings vary in one metadata value from the focal product while remaining the same for another metadata value along an axis), these arguments are directed to improving the business task of displaying and updating product descriptions including a focal product in response to user selections (i.e., recommending products) (i.e., the abstract idea), and do not contain any additional elements, such as hardware, beyond the abstract idea itself. MPEP 2106.04(d) uses the term additional elements to refer to claim features, limitations, and/or steps that are recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception. Abstract ideas are not patent eligible, therefore these limitations cannot provide integration.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually and do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Accordingly, the Examiner maintains the 101 rejection of the claims.
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 8-9 of the Remarks filed 7/8/2026, with respect to the 35 USC §102 and 35 USC §103 rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive and moot in view of the new 35 USC §102 and 35 USC §103 rejections applied to applicant’s amended claims. During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification" (see MPEP 2111). While Applicant argues the claims have been amended to clarify that the first grouping of products share the same second metadata value and differ in the first metadata value and that the second grouping of products share the same first metadata value and differ in the second metadata value, Examiner notes Applicant argues a much more narrow interpretation than claimed. As an example, Examiner notes the independent claims recite “calculating…an initial subset of product depictions to display on a first axis and a second axis…” and “displaying…a user interface wherein a portion of the user interface comprises a subset of product depictions in the first groupings of products along the first axis…” The claims require a subset of product depictions to display on a first axis (and a second axis). The broadest reasonable interpretation of “a portion” and “a subset” can encompass one or more product depictions. Further, the claims do not require each axis to “only” display a subset of product depictions of the respective grouping. Additionally, while each of the two metadata values comprise “one of a value associated with a product taxonomy, a product characteristic, a combination of the product taxonomy and the product characteristic associated with the product”, the “metadata value” limitation is broadly claimed and can encompass a much broader interpretation than Applicant argues. For example, broadly interpreted the first metadata value may be “gaming consoles” and the second metadata value may be “PlayStation 2.” Accordingly, one grouping of products may be a video game for the PlayStation 2 which could have a first metadata value of “games” and a second metadata value of “PlayStation 2” (which would encompass the limitation of “a product depiction of the subset of product depictions in the first category have the second metadata value and have a different first metadata value than the first metadata value”). Further, one grouping of products may be a competitor of PlayStation 2, such as the Nintendo Wii, which could have a first metadata value of “gaming consoles” and the second metadata value may be “Nintendo Wii” (which would encompass the limitation of “a product depiction of the subset of product depictions in the second category have the first metadata value and have a different second metadata value than the second metadata value”).
As noted in the Applicant’s Remarks on page 9, Melcher “is directed to systems and methods for multi-directional visual browsing on an electronic device (Melcher, abstract). Melcher describes positioning the primary result in a predetermined location (e.g., at a center of the display layout) and the peripheral results around the primary result (Melcher, paragraph [0017]). Melcher describes that the peripheral results may have attribute information which is associated with the primary result and goes on to state that if the primary result is a Sony® PlayStation 2, then the peripheral results may include accessories for the Sony® PlayStation 2, other version of the Sony® PlayStation 2, or competitor brands (Melcher, paragraph [0044]). Furthermore, the directional input is used to select one of the peripheral results which may then become the primary result, and the peripheral results can be updated based thereon (Melcher, paragraph [0045]). Melcher does describe positioning of the Sony® PlayStation 2 example to state that the peripheral results can be displayed surrounding the primary result based on attributes associated with the peripheral results and exemplarily states that (at paragraph [0049]):
-game controllers and games (e.g., accessories) may be positioned to the left and right of the console,
-individual models of consoles may be positioned in a drill down from the console category,
-other versions of the Sony® PlayStation 2 may be located diagonally up from the centered primary result, or
-competitor products may be positioned directly above the centered primary result.
Accordingly, given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, Examiner maintains Melcher discloses the amended limitations of claims 1 and 14 for the reasons noted in the full rejection of the claims above.
Therefore, Examiner maintains the 35 USC §102 and 35 USC §103 rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY B SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764 and/or the examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
LINDSEY B. SMITH
Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/LINDSEY B SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/MARISSA THEIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights