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 . 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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment and remarks filed June 12, 2026, are responsive to the office action mailed March 13, 2026. Claims 2-21 were previously pending and claims 2-4, 6, 9, 11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20, have been amended. Claims 2-21 are therefore currently pending and considered in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC § 101 in the previous office action
Applicant's arguments filed June 12, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applicant cites the specification in an effort to support the identification of a technical problem, but the specification merely states
“"oftentimes the payment system, the purchasing system, and the advertisement system are all disconnected, causing an inefficient purchasing process for an individual or user" (Application, paragraph [0004]). Users "must search for a marketplace or merchant that sells the product" and go through a "cumbersome process" (Id). Furthermore, "the user may be browsing content and see an image of a product that the user wants to buy ... the user may be unable to identify the product and may have to conduct a search for the product" (Application, paragraph [0005]).” Remarks p.7.
This does not identify a technical problem. The fact that different systems are arranged differently and some of them are less efficient than others is not a technical problem. Applicant then offers a brief characterization of the generally claimed subject matter and declares that it is a technical solution, but persuasively marketing a process for use in commerce does not represent technical subject matter. Applicant’s references to examples 42 and 37 are not helpful because, although applicant does not identify or address the relevant facts in either example, when considered they are so entirely dissimilar from the present case that the examples are more effective in distinguishing the presently recited claims from eligible subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Pertaining to rejection under 35 USC § 103 in the previous office action
Applicant's arguments filed June 12, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris et al. (Paper No. 20260226; Patent No.: US 9,805,124 B2) in view of Cope (Paper No. 20260226; CANADIAN PATENT APPLICATION Pub. CA 2694372 A1).
Applicant does not present substantive argument but merely recites amended language and declares that it is not taught by the prior art. As applicant’s argument relies entirely on the amended recitations, examiner relies on the revised detailed rationale that appears below and addresses all limitations. Examiner's position is that the cited portions disclose the new recitations. Examiner’s position has thus been made clear and applicants have not provided meaningful arguments to the contrary. See e.g., 37 CFR 41.37(c)(1)(iv) …A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.
It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1,215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (step 2A), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (step 2B). Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 189 L. Ed. 2d 296, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4303, 110 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1976, 82 U.S.L.W. 4508, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 870, 2014 WL 2765283 (U.S. 2014); MPEP 2106.
Step 1:
In the instant case claims 2-8 are directed to a machine, claims 9-15 are directed to a process, and claims 16-21 are directed to a manufacture. All claims are therefore within statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03, Eligibility Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
These claims also recite, inter alia,
“in response to detecting a webpage being accessed via a web browser … from an input by a user … without requiring a further input by the user, analyze, by an application associated with the web browser … content included in the webpage rendered by the web browser…; determine that the content includes a representation of a product based on comparing one or more portions of the content against one or more entries in a product database; in response to determining that the content includes the representation of the product, generate, by the application, enriched content associated with the product based on data obtained from a plurality of webpages…, wherein the enriched content comprises presentable information included in the plurality of webpages and links associated with network addresses of the plurality of webpages; present, by the application and on a user interface …, an actuatable element associated with the enriched content; and in response to detecting an interaction with the actuatable element, cause, by the application, a window to be overlaid on top of the first webpage, wherein the window includes the enriched content.” Claim 2.
“in response to detecting a webpage being accessed via a web browser … from an input by a user … without requiring a further input by the user …, analyzing… content included in the webpage rendered by the web browser…, wherein the webpage is associated with an entity; identifying… from a plurality of products, a particular product shown in the webpage based on comparing one or more portions of the content against one or more entries in a database; accessing … additional content associated with the particular product, wherein the additional content comprises presentable data obtained from a plurality of webpages associated with a plurality of entities different from the entity and one or more links associated with network addresses of the plurality of webpages; presenting an actuatable element associated with the additional content on the webpage; and in response to detecting a user interaction with the actuatable element, causing … a user interface to be displayed on top of the first webpage, wherein the user interface includes the additional content.” Claim 9.
“in response to detecting a webpage being accessed via a web application … from an input by a user … without requiring a further input by the user, analyzing, by an application associated with the web application … content included in the webpage presented by the web application …; determining that the content includes a representation of a product based on comparing one or more portions of the content against one or more entries in a product database; generating, by the application, displayable content associated with the product based on data obtained from a plurality of webpages…, wherein the displayable content comprises information included in the plurality of webpages and links associated with network addresses of the plurality of webpages; presenting, by the application and on a user interface of the web application, an actuatable element associated with the displayable content; and in response to detecting an interaction with the actuatable element, displaying, by the application, the displayable content on a user interface….” Claim 16.
With recited additional elements reserved for consideration under step 2A prong two, an analysis of the remaining limitations above, each on its own and all together combined, concludes that each on its own recites an abstract idea and in combination they recite a more detailed abstract idea. The recited abstract idea falls within the grouping of abstract ideas described as certain methods of organizing human activity, for example commercial interactions (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors). See MPEP 2106.04(a); Eligibility Step 2A1. The claims must therefore be analyzed under the second prong of Eligibility Step 2 (Step 2A2; MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
In order to address prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step2A2) we must identify whether there are any additional elements beyond the abstract ideas and determine whether those additional elements (if there are any) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step 2A2. The additional elements in present claims 2-8 are a non-transitory memory storing instructions, one or more hardware processors coupled to the non-transitory memory, a device, a server, and a plurality of servers different from the server. The additional elements in present claims 9-15 are a computer system and a device, and the additional elements in claims 16-20 are a non-transitory machine-readable medium, a computer device, a server, and a plurality of servers different from the server. These additional elements have been considered individually and in combination as a whole together with the functions they perform, e.g., in independent claim 2 the device includes a web browser “associated with” an application that generates enriched content, and presents an actuatable element that displays a window presenting the enriched content on top of the webpage in response to an interaction. The server hosts the web browser and the content is “obtained from” the plurality of different servers. The content includes “presentable information and links associated with network addresses” of the information sources. There are no identified particular devices and the generic ones are recited as passively performing only data storage and presentation steps with all other steps recited as being broadly and generally performed by “the system” as caused by the processors executing stored instructions. Claim 16 has only minor variations from claim 2 with the exception that the entire operation is performed by a single computer device based on instructions stored on the medium, while in claim two the one or more processors perform the operation. Claim 9 recites a lone computer system performing the entire operation with no other additional elements beyond a device with a web browser to access a webpage.
Careful consideration concludes that there does not appear to be any practical application recited. The claim is directed only to the gathering and display of information by generic computer components in response to “input by a user of the device without requiring a further input by the user”. The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they amount to no more than instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of any computer or other technology or technical field, they do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, they do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing, and they fail to apply or use the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05.
If the disclosure describes any improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field this improvement would need to be identifiable as the subject matter appearing in the claims. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. The disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim limitations can integrate a judicial exception into a practical application by implementing the judicial exception with or using it in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. A general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception by use of generic computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2014); MPEP 2106.05(b),(f). There are no particular machines or manufactures identified in the present claims. Claim elements that are not abstract are identified above and they broadly apply a method described only by way of its intended results, without reference to any particular acts or functions performed by any particularly identified machines, and without reference to a use in conjunction with any particular item of manufacture.
The claims do not affect the transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article. A new or different function or use can be evidence that an article has been transformed. Purely mental processes in which data, thoughts, impressions, or human based actions are "changed" are not considered a transformation. MPEP 2106.05(c).
The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in any other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. As a result the claim as a whole appears to be a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. MPEP 2106.05(e),(h).
The additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Although the additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application the claims could still be eligible if they recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more” than the judicial exception). MPEP 2106.05, Eligibility Step 2B.
These claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of the claim merely support instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f). Simply adding general purpose computer components to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2); see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9721, 115 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”). The elements are recited at a high level of generality, implement abstract ideas using generic computers, and fail to present a technical solution to a technical problem created by the use of the surrounding technology. See Ret. Capital Access Mgmt. Co. v. U.S. Bancorp, 611 Fed. Appx. 1007, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14351 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“It may be very clever; it may be very useful in a commercial context, but they are still abstract ideas,” said Circuit Judge Alan Lourie.). MPEP 2106.05(h). No technical problem is indicated and the claims are not directed to a technical solution to any such problem.
Finally, it is reiterated that the remaining dependent claims 3-8, 10-15, and 17-21, do not contribute any additional elements other than those already discussed and do not add "significantly more" to establish eligibility because they merely recite additional abstract ideas that further describe the data and manipulation of data used in implementing the abstract idea. A more detailed abstract idea is still abstract. PricePlay.com, Inc. v. AOL Adver., Inc., 627 Fed. Appx. 925, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 611, 2016 WL 80002 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2016) (in addressing a bundle of abstract ideas stacked together during oral argument, U.S. Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore said, "All of these ideas are abstract…. It’s like you want a patent because you combined two abstract ideas and say two is better than one.").
All of the above leads to the conclusion that additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the claimed subject matter into significantly more than an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05; Eligibility Step 2B. As a result the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because they recite an abstract idea without being directed to a practical application, and they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05, supra..
The preceding analysis applies to all statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, claims 2-21 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 USC 101 based upon the same analysis.
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.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris et al. (Paper No. 20260226; Patent No.: US 9,805,124 B2) in view of Cope (Paper No. 20260226; CANADIAN PATENT APPLICATION Pub. CA 2694372 A1).
Morris teaches with regard to
Claim 2. A system comprising: ● a non-transitory memory storing instructions (see at least Morris figs. 5, 11, c2:46-54, c3:4-10); and ● one or more hardware processors coupled to the non-transitory memory and configured to execute the instructions (see at least Morris figs. 5, 11, c2:46-54, c3:4-10) to cause the system to: ● in response to detecting a webpage being accessed via a web browser of a device from an input by a user of the device without requiring a further input by the user, analyze, by an application associated with the web browser of the device, content included in the first webpage rendered by the web browser, wherein the webpage is hosted by a server (see at least Morris abstract, figs. 1-2B, 3A-1, 4, 11, c1:50-55 “content collection system receives a natural language input and identifies a type of content to be collected,” c9:60-67 “content collection system 102 also allows user 104 to purchase and customize a domain name when the stack is to be … accessed through a webpage,” c11:10-15 “cloud computing providers deliver applications over a wide area network and they can be accessed through a web browser or any other computing component. Software or components of architecture 100 as well as the corresponding data, can be stored on servers at a remote location…. components and functions described herein … can be provided from a conventional server, or they can be installed on client devices directly”).
Morris teaches all of the above, and all of the below, as noted. It teaches, a) displaying content in a webpage, b) analyzing displayed content, c) identifying content items, d) generating enriched content associated with identified content items, and determine that the content includes representations of products based on analyzing the content (see at least Morris c4:17-22 “These are all processed by NLU component 164 to obtain an interpretation that can be used to identify relevant items of content,” c5:16-22 “content for the stack can be items of multiple different digital media types. For instance, they can be documents, videos, websites or website addresses, images, digital books, periodicals, free content, links to paid content, or overviews of paid content, etc.”), but does not explicitly disclose determine that the content includes a representation of a product based on comparing one or more portions of the content against one or more entries in a product database, and a window to be overlaid on top of the first webpage, wherein the window includes the enriched content.
Cope also teaches a) displaying content in a webpage, b) analyzing displayed content, c) identifying content items, and d) generating enriched content associated with identified content items, and further discloses
● determine that the content includes a representation of a product based on comparing one or more portions of the content against one or more entries in a product database (see at least Cope abstract “tracking product images appearing in a display of a video recording, and an augmented-display tool for relating product images appearing in a display of a video recording to respective product information. The information depot comprises a global product directory,” p.2¶4 “acquiring collective product information, pertinent to a set of products, from product data bases… tracking product images appearing in a first display of a specific video recording received from a video source, associating product identifiers to the product images, and producing an overlay directory relating each of selected product images to respective information within the collective product information;” p.3¶2 “tracking specific product images appearing in a display of a video recording …; and accessing the global product directory to obtain product information relevant to the specific product images,” p.6¶1 “identifiers of particular objects spotted within a display of a corresponding video signal read from the particular video recording, and an overlay directory of the respective video signal,” (note: as explained above, the overlay directory relates each selected product image to its information in the directory), p.11¶1 “detect pointing times at which the viewer points to a particular displayed object; and compare the pointing times to the presence times to find a counterpart content, in the selected contents, to the particular displayed object. If the counterpart is found, a subset of the network addresses corresponding to the counterpart content is extracted”).
Morris in view of Cope further teaches
● in response to determining that the content includes the representation of the product, generate, by the application, enriched content associated with the product based on data obtained from a plurality of webpages hosted by a plurality of servers different from the server, wherein the enriched content comprises presentable information included in the plurality of webpages and links associated with network addresses of the plurality of webpages (Morris discloses the limitation except as it is directed to a single identified product as noted above, and Cope discloses the entire limitation. See at least Morris abstract “identifies a type of content to be collected based on the natural language input. Items of content from multiple different digital media types are collected from a plurality of different sources,” fig. 1, c2:13-22 “content collection system 102 to collect content from sites to be searched 108, public databases 110, digital marketplaces 112, various other websites 114, social network sites 116 and other areas,” in view of Cope Title “SYSTEM FOR LINKING CONTENT OF VIDEO SIGNALS TO INFORMATION SOURCES,” abstract “computers connect to … streaming video sources and advertising databases to generate content of the information depot,” fig. 18 “Use selected object information to link to relevant network sites,” p.3¶4 “information extraction tool … for extracting product information, for a set of products, from a plurality of product servers and assembling the product information,” p.4¶2 “a product image for at least one product in the set of products; a title and description for each product in the set of products; and at least one network address of a product server providing information relevant to each product in the set of products,” p.4¶5-p.5 “acquiring network addresses of product servers, each product server providing information relevant to at least one of the set of products,” p.11¶1 “detect pointing times at which the viewer points to a particular displayed object; and compare the pointing times to the presence times to find a counterpart content, in the selected contents, to the particular displayed object. If the counterpart is found, a subset of the network addresses corresponding to the counterpart content is extracted”); ● present, by the application and on a user interface of the device, an actuatable element associated with the enriched content (see at least Morris fig.2A, c2:23-46 “user interface displays 122 with user input mechanisms 124 for interaction by user 104. User 104 illustratively interacts with the user input mechanisms 124 in order to control and manipulate content collection…. links, buttons, icons, tiles (which not only operate as links to content but dynamically display information about the underlying content as well), text boxes, dropdown menus, check boxes, or any of a wide variety of different user input mechanisms. In addition, the user input mechanisms 124 can be actuated in a wide variety of different ways”); and ● in response to detecting an interaction with the actuatable element, cause, by the application, a window to be overlaid on top of the webpage, wherein the window includes the enriched content (see Morris, disclosing the limitation except for a window overlaid on top of the first webpage, wherein the window includes the enriched content, which is disclosed by Cope, see at least Morris fig.2A-3R, 6, 10, c2:29-46 “links, buttons, icons, tiles (which not only operate as links to content but dynamically display information about the underlying content as well), text boxes, dropdown menus, check boxes, or any of a wide variety of different user input mechanisms. In addition, the user input mechanisms 124 can be actuated in a wide variety of different ways” in view of Cope p.2¶4 “producing an overlay directory relating each of selected product images to respective information within the collective product information,” p.47¶4 “user drags a product image and drops it onto the location of where the product is on the screen. When the object is dropped, a selection window sized to match the size of the product thumbnail is shown on the video”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (for pre-AIA applications) or filing (for applications filed under the AIA ) to modify the method of Morris to include determine that the content includes a representation of a product based on comparing one or more portions of the content against one or more entries in a product database, and a window to be overlaid on top of the first webpage wherein the window includes the enriched content, as taught by Cope since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would result in an improvement. This is because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features even from a variety of technical fields into methods and systems implemented using similar technological structures (i.e., generic computer and/or network hardware such as processors, servers, etc.). In this case the areas of technical endeavor are nonetheless similar and overlapping.
Applicant has not disclosed that the added feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose beyond the performance of the functions they performed separately and since each element and its function are shown in the prior art the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. It would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the feature from Cope in the method of Morris. Furthermore the combination solved no long felt need. Incorporating cumulative known features is additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so increases commercial use of a method by attracting users that previously might have chosen between one of the previously known methods.
Morris in view of Cope further teaches
Claim 3. The system of claim 2, wherein the plurality of webpages is associated with one or more merchant websites (see at least Morris figs.3D-3R, c2:15-20 “collect content from sites to be searched 108, public databases 110, digital marketplaces 112, various other websites,” c5:16-22 “links to paid content, or overviews of paid content,” in view of Cope p.35¶1 “product advertising by linking content of video recordings to product information sources”).Claim 4. The system of claim 2, wherein generating the enriched content is further based on at least one of a user preference of the user of the device, past purchases associated with the user, a location associated with the device, or a price of the product (see at least Morris figs.2B, 3A-1, c5:4-15 “stack generator 146 then accesses user information 136 in data store 132 in order to enhance the natural language query. For instance user information 136 may include profile information indicative of a user's interests. It may include lists of items the user has already reviewed, etc”).
Claim 5. The system of claim 2, wherein the content comprises multimedia data (see at least Morris abstract “Items of content from multiple different digital media types are collected from a plurality of different sources and organized in an order”).
Claim 6. The system of claim 2, wherein each link in the links of the enriched content is embedded with product information associated with purchasing the product with a corresponding webpage in the plurality of webpages (see at least Morris fig.3P, c2:15-20 “collect content from sites to be searched 108, public databases 110, digital marketplaces 112, various other websites,” c5:16-22 “links to paid content, or overviews of paid content,” in view of Cope p.35¶1 “product advertising by linking content of video recordings to product information sources”, p.39 ¶¶2-3 “Once products have been extracted and correlated to content of a video recording using the authoring component, the result is a hyperlinked video…. The player is able to function when downloaded from the same web server that served the overlay metadata or any other site when used as an embeddable player. It enables users to shop, while viewing a video and redirects a user's browser to the retailer of a product when they make a product selection in the video. This functionality even works when the player is embedded in a JavaScript restricted environment”. Please note: any information that would appear embedded in a link directing a user from marketing or advertising materials to a source of the product is “associated with purchasing” the product.).Claim 7. The system of claim 2, wherein the application is a plug-in associated with the web browser (see at least Cope p.42¶1).
Pertaining to method claims 9-14
Rejection of claims 9-14 is based on the same rationale detailed above in addressing claims 2-7. In addition Morris in view of Cope further teaches, pertaining to
Claim 9. A method comprising: ● in response to detecting a webpage being accessed via a web browser of a device from an input by a user of the device without requiring a further input by the user of the device, analyzing, by a computer system, content included in the webpage rendered by the web browser of the device, wherein the webpage is associated with an entity (see at least see at least Morris abstract, figs. 1-2B, 3A-1, 4, 11, c1:50-55 “content collection system receives a natural language input and identifies a type of content to be collected,” c9:60-67 “content collection system 102 also allows user 104 to purchase and customize a domain name when the stack is to be … accessed through a webpage,” c11:10-15 “cloud computing providers deliver applications over a wide area network and they can be accessed through a web browser or any other computing component. Software or components of architecture 100 as well as the corresponding data, can be stored on servers at a remote location…. components and functions described herein … can be provided from a conventional server, or they can be installed on client devices directly”);
● identifying, by the computer system and from a plurality of products, a particular product shown in the webpage based on comparing one or more portions of the content against one or more entries in a database (see at least Cope abstract “tracking product images appearing in a display of a video recording, and an augmented-display tool for relating product images appearing in a display of a video recording to respective product information. The information depot comprises a global product directory,” p.2¶4 “acquiring collective product information, pertinent to a set of products, from product data bases… tracking product images appearing in a first display of a specific video recording received from a video source, associating product identifiers to the product images, and producing an overlay directory relating each of selected product images to respective information within the collective product information;” p.3¶2 “tracking specific product images appearing in a display of a video recording …; and accessing the global product directory to obtain product information relevant to the specific product images,” p.6¶1 “identifiers of particular objects spotted within a display of a corresponding video signal read from the particular video recording, and an overlay directory of the respective video signal,” (note: as explained above, the overlay directory relates each selected product image to its information in the directory), p.11¶1 “detect pointing times at which the viewer points to a particular displayed object; and compare the pointing times to the presence times to find a counterpart content, in the selected contents, to the particular displayed object. If the counterpart is found, a subset of the network addresses corresponding to the counterpart content is extracted”);
● accessing, by the computer system, additional content associated with the particular product, wherein the additional content comprises presentable data obtained from a plurality of webpages associated with a plurality of entities different from the entity and one or more links associated with network addresses of the plurality of
webpages (see at least See at least Morris abstract “identifies a type of content to be collected based on the natural language input. Items of content from multiple different digital media types are collected from a plurality of different sources,” fig. 1, c2:13-22 “content collection system 102 to collect content from sites to be searched 108, public databases 110, digital marketplaces 112, various other websites 114, social network sites 116 and other areas,” in view of Cope Title “SYSTEM FOR LINKING CONTENT OF VIDEO SIGNALS TO INFORMATION SOURCES,” abstract “computers connect to … streaming video sources and advertising databases to generate content of the information depot,” fig. 18 “Use selected object information to link to relevant network sites,” p.3¶4 “information extraction tool … for extracting product information, for a set of products, from a plurality of product servers and assembling the product information,” p.4¶2 “a product image for at least one product in the set of products; a title and description for each product in the set of products; and at least one network address of a product server providing information relevant to each product in the set of products,” p.4¶5-p.5 “acquiring network addresses of product servers, each product server providing information relevant to at least one of the set of products,” p.11¶1 “detect pointing times at which the viewer points to a particular displayed object; and compare the pointing times to the presence times to find a counterpart content, in the selected contents, to the particular displayed object. If the counterpart is found, a subset of the network addresses corresponding to the counterpart content is extracted”); ● presenting an actuatable element associated with the additional content on the webpage (see at least Morris fig.2A, c2:23-46 “user interface displays 122 with user input mechanisms 124 for interaction by user 104. User 104 illustratively interacts with the user input mechanisms 124 in order to control and manipulate content collection…. links, buttons, icons, tiles (which not only operate as links to content but dynamically display information about the underlying content as well), text boxes, dropdown menus, check boxes, or any of a wide variety of different user input mechanisms. In addition, the user input mechanisms 124 can be actuated in a wide variety of different ways”); and ● in response to detecting a user interaction with the actuatable element, causing, by the computer system, a user interface to be displayed on top of the first webpage, wherein the user interface includes the additional content (see at least Morris fig.2A-3R, 6, 10, c2:29-46 “links, buttons, icons, tiles (which not only operate as links to content but dynamically display information about the underlying content as well), text boxes, dropdown menus, check boxes, or any of a wide variety of different user input mechanisms. In addition, the user input mechanisms 124 can be actuated in a wide variety of different ways” in view of Cope p.2¶4 “producing an overlay directory relating each of selected product images to respective information within the collective product information,” p.47¶4 “user drags a product image and drops it onto the location of where the product is on the screen. When the object is dropped, a selection window sized to match the size of the product thumbnail is shown on the video”).Claim 10. The method of claim 9, further comprising: ● generating programming code based on the additional content (see at least Morris figs. 1-2A, 3N-3O, 3Q-3R, 4, 11); and ● causing the web browser to execute the programming code, wherein the user interface is caused to be displayed based on the web browser executing the programming code (see at least Morris figs. 1-2A, 3N-3O, 3Q-3R, 4, 11).Claim 11. The method of claim 9, wherein the analyzing the content comprises parsing text content included in the webpage (see at least Cope fig. 36, p.44§11 “Product Extraction Server receives the product POST request, parses and validates all product attributes and ensures that all are well-formed and that all mandatory attributes are included”).Claim 12. The method of claim 9, further comprising: ● obtaining price data associated with the particular product from the plurality of webpages, wherein the additional content is generated further based on the price data (see at least Morris fig. 2B, Cope p.18¶1 “The viewer may get further information regarding a displayed object in the displayed video signal, by accessing search engine 114, to get general information, … and an object server 116 which may provide product pricing and ordering information,” p.43§4 “HTML including product information such as title, description, price and product image for example, is returned to the browser. The browser renders the HTML page according to the layout included in it and shows the product information in the page”).Claim 13. The method of claim 9, wherein a selection of a link from the one or more links enables the user of the device to purchase the particular product from one of the plurality of webpages (see at least Morris figs.3N-3R, c3:34-43 “The stacks can be output simply as a list of links or tiles 143, each link or tile representing an item in the stack,” c5:16-22 “content for the stack can be … links to paid content, or overviews of paid content,” in view of Cope p.35¶1 “product advertising by linking content of video recordings to product information sources”).
Claim 14. The method of claim 9, wherein ● the database stores product information associated with the plurality of products (see at least Morris figs. 3A2-3C, 6, 10, Cope abstract “relating product images appearing in a display of a video recording to respective product information. The information depot comprises a global product directory”).
Pertaining to machine-readable medium claims 16-20
Rejection of claims 16-20 is based on the same rationale detailed above in addressing claims 2-7. In addition Morris in view of Cope further teaches, pertaining toClaim 16. A non-transitory machine-readable medium having stored thereon machine-readable instructions executable to cause a computer device to perform operations (see at least Morris figs. 5, 11, c2:46-54, c3:4-10) comprising: ● in response to detecting a webpage being accessed via a web application of the
computer device from an input by a user of the computer device without requiring a further input by the user, analyzing, by an application associated with the web application of the computer device, content included in the webpage presented by the web application on the computer device, wherein the webpage is hosted by a server (see at least Morris abstract, figs. 1-2B, 3A-1, 4, 11, c1:50-55 “content collection system receives a natural language input and identifies a type of content to be collected,” c9:60-67 “content collection system 102 also allows user 104 to purchase and customize a domain name when the stack is to be … accessed through a webpage,” c11:10-15 “cloud computing providers deliver applications over a wide area network and they can be accessed through a web browser or any other computing component. Software or components of architecture 100 as well as the corresponding data, can be stored on servers at a remote location…. components and functions described herein … can be provided from a conventional server, or they can be installed on client devices directly”);
● generating, by the application, displayable content associated with the product based on data obtained from a plurality of webpages hosted by a plurality of servers different from the server, wherein the displayable content comprises information included in the plurality of webpages and links associated with network addresses of the plurality of webpages (see at least Morris abstract “identifies a type of content to be collected based on the natural language input. Items of content from multiple different digital media types are collected from a plurality of different sources,” fig. 1, c2:13-22 “content collection system 102 to collect content from sites to be searched 108, public databases 110, digital marketplaces 112, various other websites 114, social network sites 116 and other areas,” in view of Cope Title “SYSTEM FOR LINKING CONTENT OF VIDEO SIGNALS TO INFORMATION SOURCES,” abstract “computers connect to … streaming video sources and advertising databases to generate content of the information depot,” fig. 18 “Use selected object information to link to relevant network sites,” p.3¶4 “information extraction tool … for extracting product information, for a set of products, from a plurality of product servers and assembling the product information,” p.4¶2 “a product image for at least one product in the set of products; a title and description for each product in the set of products; and at least one network address of a product server providing information relevant to each product in the set of products,” p.4¶5-p.5 “acquiring network addresses of product servers, each product server providing information relevant to at least one of the set of products,” p.11¶1 “detect pointing times at which the viewer points to a particular displayed object; and compare the pointing times to the presence times to find a counterpart content, in the selected contents, to the particular displayed object. If the counterpart is found, a subset of the network addresses corresponding to the counterpart content is extracted”); ● presenting, by the application and on a user interface of the web application, an actuatable element associated with the displayable content (see at least Morris fig.2A, c2:23-46 “user interface displays 122 with user input mechanisms 124 for interaction by user 104. User 104 illustratively interacts with the user input mechanisms 124 in order to control and manipulate content collection…. links, buttons, icons, tiles (which not only operate as links to content but dynamically display information about the underlying content as well), text boxes, dropdown menus, check boxes, or any of a wide variety of different user input mechanisms. In addition, the user input mechanisms 124 can be actuated in a wide variety of different ways”); and ● in response to detecting an interaction with the actuatable element, displaying, by the application, the displayable content on a user interface of the computer device (see at least Morris fig.2A-3R, 6, 10, c2:29-46 “links, buttons, icons, tiles (which not only operate as links to content but dynamically display information about the underlying content as well), text boxes, dropdown menus, check boxes, or any of a wide variety of different user input mechanisms. In addition, the user input mechanisms 124 can be actuated in a wide variety of different ways” in view of Cope p.2¶4 “producing an overlay directory relating each of selected product images to respective information within the collective product information,” p.47¶4 “user drags a product image and drops it onto the location of where the product is on the screen. When the object is dropped, a selection window sized to match the size of the product thumbnail is shown on the video”).
Claim 17. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the plurality of webpages is associated with one or more merchant websites (see at least Morris figs.3D-3R, c2:15-20 “collect content from sites to be searched 108, public databases 110, digital marketplaces 112, various other websites,” c5:16-22 “links to paid content, or overviews of paid content,” in view of Cope p.35¶1 “product advertising by linking content of video recordings to product information sources”).Claim 18. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the generating the displayable content is further based on at least one of a user preference of the user of the computer device, past purchases associated with the user, a location associated with the computer device, or a price of the product (see at least Morris figs.2B, 3A-1, c5:4-15 “stack generator 146 then accesses user information 136 in data store 132 in order to enhance the natural language query. For instance user information 136 may include profile information indicative of a user's interests. It may include lists of items the user has already reviewed, etc”).Claim 19. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the content comprises text data and multimedia data (see at least Morris abstract “Items of content from multiple different digital media types are collected from a plurality of different sources and organized in an order,” fig.3A-3R, 6, c2:29-46 “links, buttons, icons, tiles (which not only operate as links to content but dynamically display information about the underlying content as well), text boxes, dropdown menus, check boxes, or any of a wide variety of different user input mechanisms. In addition, the user input mechanisms 124 can be actuated in a wide variety of different ways”).
Claim 20. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 16, wherein each of the links is embedded with product information associated with purchasing the product with a corresponding webpage in the plurality of webpages (see at least Morris fig.3P, c2:15-20 “collect content from sites to be searched 108, public databases 110, digital marketplaces 112, various other websites,” c5:16-22 “links to paid content, or overviews of paid content,” in view of Cope p.35¶1 “product advertising by linking content of video recordings to product information sources”, p.39 ¶¶2-3 “Once products have been extracted and correlated to content of a video recording using the authoring component, the result is a hyperlinked video…. The player is able to function when downloaded from the same web server that served the overlay metadata or any other site when used as an embeddable player. It enables users to shop, while viewing a video and redirects a user's browser to the retailer of a product when they make a product selection in the video. This functionality even works when the player is embedded in a JavaScript restricted environment”. Please note: any information that would appear embedded in a link directing a user from marketing or advertising materials to a source of the product is “associated with purchasing” the product.).
Claims 8, 15, and 21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris et al. (Paper No. 20260226; Patent No.: US 9,805,124 B2) in view of Cope (Paper No. 20260226; CANADIAN PATENT APPLICATION Pub. CA 2694372 A1) as applied to claims 2, 9, and 16, above, and further in view of Rathod (Paper No. 20260226; Pub. No.: US 2014/0067702 A1).
Morris in view of Cope teaches all of the above as noted. It teaches, a) determining that content includes a representation of a product, b) generating enriched content associated with the product, c) wherein the enriched content includes a link to a merchant website, and d) purchasing the product, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the enriched content comprises a coupon usable for purchasing the product.
Rathod also teaches a) determining that content includes a representation of a product, b) generating enriched content associated with the product, c) wherein the enriched content includes a link to a merchant website, and d) purchasing the product, and further discloses wherein the enriched content comprises a coupon usable for purchasing the product, wherein the method further comprises, pertaining to
Claim 8. The system of claim 2, wherein the enriched content comprises a coupon usable for purchasing the product (see at least Morris fig.9 in view of Rathod figs. 4-7, ¶0181 “active note specific response with active links, wherein active links enables users to … make deal, … receives discount vouchers, … negotiate with advertiser,” ¶0230 “user can receives deals related messages from publisher "GroupOn™"”).Claim 15. The method of claim 9, wherein the additional content comprises a coupon usable for purchasing the particular product (see at least Morris fig.9 in view of Rathod figs. 4-7, ¶0181 “active note specific response with active links, wherein active links enables users to … make deal, … receives discount vouchers, … negotiate with advertiser,” ¶0230 “user can receives deals related messages from publisher "GroupOn™"”).Claim 21. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the displayable content comprises a coupon usable for purchasing the product (see at least Morris fig.9 in view of Rathod figs. 4-7, ¶0181 “active note specific response with active links, wherein active links enables users to … make deal, … receives discount vouchers, … negotiate with advertiser,” ¶0230 “user can receives deals related messages from publisher "GroupOn™"”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (for pre-AIA applications) or filing (for applications filed under the AIA ) to modify the method of Morris in view of Cope to include wherein the enriched content comprises a coupon usable for purchasing the product, as taught by Rathod since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would result in an improvement. This is because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features even from a variety of technical fields into methods and systems implemented using similar technological structures (i.e., generic computer and/or network hardware such as processors, servers, etc.). In this case the areas of technical endeavor are nonetheless similar and overlapping.
Applicant has not disclosed that the added feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose beyond the performance of the functions they performed separately and since each element and its function are shown in the prior art the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. It would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the feature from Rathod in the method of Morris in view of Cope. Furthermore the combination solved no long felt need. Incorporating cumulative known features is additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so increases commercial use of a method by attracting users that previously might have chosen between one of the previously known methods.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
● HENKIN et al., International Publication Number WO 2010/085773 A1: teaches real-time analysis of web page content used to select relevant related information then displayed to the user, such as dynamic display of additional content via use of one or more customized overlay layers. The content displayed in the overlay may be a link to a landing page for the ad (such as the vendor's web site), and can include more than one item of target content in the overlay, for example one or more links to related web pages or other related content.
● Green et al., Patent No.: US 7,975,020 B1: teaches dynamically updating a web page when an interaction occurs with respect to a recognized item on the web page. An overlay is displayed with information about or associated with the recognized item.
● Gardner et al., Pub. No.: US 2014/0280007 A1: teaches returning product results from multiple websites in response to a search interaction.
● Salvetti et al., Patent No.: US 9,223,870 B2: teaches decorating search results with interactive content. The searching user can then interact with the content and view the content without leaving the search results page. A content enrichment enabler transforms the content into an enriched content and a location identifier includes information that identifies the provider and the location of the enriched content.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ADAM LEVINE whose telephone number is (571)272-8122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am-7:30pm.
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.
/ADAM L LEVINE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 August 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights