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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/16/2026 has been entered.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, while the claims herein are directed to a method and/or system, which could be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes), the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites, in part, acquiring, in a process of responding to a user’s request to access a target page, matching status information of commodities in a selected set of commodities associated with the user that matches a plurality of target user offers and respective completion information on a plurality of tasks each corresponding to a redeem condition of a different target user offer; generating, based on the matching status information and the completion information, prompt information about each target user offer, and providing a first content layer and a second content layer, wherein the first content layer being configured to display content of the target page, and the second content layer comprises an element for displaying the prompt information of only one target user offer of the plurality of target user offers; determining a respective percentage or dollar difference to completion of each respective redeem condition based on a total price of the selected set of commodities; and displaying prompt information of a target user offer having a redeem condition closest to completion.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites, in part, in a process of displaying page content of a target page by means of a first content layer, if it is determined that a user adds a target commodity seen in the target page to a selected set of commodities, determining that the target commodity matches a a plurality of target user offers; and if so, acquiring respective completion information on a plurality of tasks each corresponding to a redeem condition of a different target user offer; generating, based on the matching information and the completion information, prompt information about each target user offer, and providing, in a second content layer an element for displaying prompt information of only one target user offer of the plurality of target user offers; determining a respective percentage or dollar difference to completion of each respective redeem condition based on a total price of the selected set of commodities; and displaying prompt information of a target user offer having a redeem condition closest to completion.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites, in part, acquiring, in a process of responding to a user’s request to access a target page, available user offer information associated with the user; generating prompt information about the redeem conditions of the available user offer information, and providing a first content layer and a second content layer, wherein the first content layer is configured to display content of the target page, and the second content layer comprises an element for displaying prompt information of only one target user offer of the plurality of target user offers; and after commodities in the target page are added to a selected set of commodities and if the redeem conditions are met, determining a respective percentage or dollar difference to completion of each respective redeem condition based on a total price of the selected set of commodities; and displaying prompt information of a target user offer having a redeem condition closest to completion for purchasing the commodities in the element.
The limitations, as drafted and detailed above, recites generating and displaying prompt information for a target user offer, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, and more particularly advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements of a display interface (claims 1, 14, 18, not a structural element but it implies the existence of programming) and one or more processors of an electronic device (claims 1, 14, 18). The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of acquiring, generating, determining, displaying, and providing) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. There are no additional functional limitations to be considered under prong two.
Accordingly, the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the
judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes).
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using display interface (claims 1, 14, 18, not a structural element but it implies the existence of programming) and one or more processors of an electronic device (claims 1, 14, 18) to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent- eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat' l Ass' n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computer (see Applicant specification Paragraph 0129, “general hardware platform”); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility.
The dependent claims 2-13 and 15-17 appear to merely limit implementation via a software development kit, timing of acquiring matching status information, providing prompt information corresponding to target user offers, pushing of recommended commodity language based on a conditional occurrence, updating the prompt information after addition of commodities, adding prompt information about new offers, differentiating displayed data with different colors, filtering of commodities, displaying of a commodity subset and a checkout option, redirecting to a commodity page, displaying commodity information related to a majority of offers and a checkout option, and display of progress information, and therefore only limit the application of the idea, and not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The display interface (claims 1, 14, 18, not a structural element but it implies the existence of programming) and one or more processors of an electronic device (claims 1, 14, 18) are each functional generic computer components that perform the generic functions of acquiring, generating, determining, displaying, and providing, all common to electronics and computer systems.
Applicant's specification does not provide any indication that display interface (claims 1, 14, 18, not a structural element but it implies the existence of programming) and one or more processors of an electronic device (claims 1, 14, 18) are anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-18 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bird (U.S. Pub No. 2024/0412246). Bird teaches a system and method of providing prompt information for target user offers that includes all of the limitations recited in the above claims.
Regarding claim 1, Bird teaches acquiring, in a process of responding to a user’s request to access a target page, matching status information of the commodities in a selected set of commodities associated with the user that matches a plurality of target user offers (Paragraphs 0060, 0080, 0099) and respective completion information on a plurality of tasks corresponding to a redeem condition of a different target user offer (Paragraph 0097, Figure 5A); and generating, based on the matching status information and the completion information, prompt information about the target user offer (Paragraphs 0075-0076), providing a first content layer and a second content layer in a display interface, wherein the first content layer being configured to display content of the target page, and the second content layer comprises an element for displaying the prompt information of only one target user offer of the plurality of target user offers (Paragraph 0102, pop-up represents a second content layer of the website display interface, the pop up displays only one offer upon selection of the specific call to action button, “go to offer” singular), determining, by the one or more processors, a respective percentage or dollar difference to completion of each respective redeem condition based on a total price of the selected set of commodities (Paragraph 0076, Figures 3A, 3E, 3F, 5A); and displaying, by the one or more processors, prompt information of a target user offer having a redeem condition closest to completion (Figure 5A, multiple offers with multiple levels of completion are available, should a user click on the item with only $50 left rather than the one with $150 left, a pop-up as detailed in Paragraphs 0102 will appears with the offer having a “redeem condition closest to completion”, which meets the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 2, Bird teaches the method is applied to target function modules in the form of a software development kit (SDK) (Paragraph 0117, the software modules of Bird are considered a “software development kit”), so that the target function modules may be implanted, by means of the SDK, into pages corresponding to a plurality of nodes on shopping guide links of a plurality of access link nodes in a commodity information service system (the entire limitation following “so that” is intended use and not an active limitation, and since the limitation is not actively required, it is afforded little to no patentable weight).
Regarding claim 3, Bird teaches acquiring, after receiving the user’s request to access the target page and before the target page is displayed (Paragraph 0008, detecting access to a webpage, then accessing a first profile, then displaying data), the matching status information of the commodities already added to the selected set of commodities that matches at least one target user offer within the most recent threshold time and the completion information of the task corresponding to the redeem condition of the target user offer (Paragraphs 0060, 0073, 0075-0076, 0080, 0099, threshold time is an expiration countdown time), so that when a matched target user offer is found, the element is displayed at the time when the target page is displayed (the entire limitation following “so that” is intended use and not an active limitation, and since the limitation is not actively required, it is afforded little to no patentable weight).
Regarding claim 4, the instant claim recites a limitation that occurs (prompt information respectively corresponding to the plurality of target user offers is provided in the element) if a conditional statement is met (when the commodities in the selected set of commodities match a plurality of target user offers). However, because of the conditional statement, the limitation is not required to occur. That is, should the “when the commodities in the selected set of commodities match a plurality of target user offers” language never happen, the limitation of “prompt information respectively corresponding to the plurality of target user offers is provided in the element” will never happen. Therefore, this limitation is not required. Further, the claims are silent on what should occur if the conditional statement is not met, leaving this portion of the claim broad and open to interpretation. Therefore, should the “when the commodities in the selected set of commodities match a plurality of target user offers” language not occur, Examiner interprets no change to the invention, which has been anticipated by Bird for the reasons above. According to MPEP 2106 II, language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation.
Regarding claim 5, the instant claim recites a limitation that occurs (recommended commodity information is pushed by means of the element, the recommended commodity being within the eligible range for the target user offer and an associated price attribute being slightly greater than the task completion dollar difference of the redeem condition) if a conditional statement is met (if a task completion dollar difference of the redeem condition for the target user offer is less than a preset threshold). However, because of the conditional statement, the limitation is not required to occur. That is, should the “if a task completion dollar difference of the redeem condition for the target user offer is less than a preset threshold” language never happen, the limitation of “recommended commodity information is pushed by means of the element, the recommended commodity being within the eligible range for the target user offer and an associated price attribute being slightly greater than the task completion dollar difference of the redeem condition” will never happen. Therefore, this limitation is not required. Further, the claims are silent on what should occur if the conditional statement is not met, leaving this portion of the claim broad and open to interpretation. Therefore, should the “if a task completion dollar difference of the redeem condition for the target user offer is less than a preset threshold” language not occur, Examiner interprets no change to the invention, which has been anticipated by Bird for the reasons above. According to MPEP 2106 II, language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation.
Regarding claim 6, the instant claim recites a limitation that occurs (updating a style of the element and/or the content of the prompt information presented therein) if a conditional statement is met (if a change in the matching status information and/or the completion information is triggered). However, because of the conditional statement, the limitation is not required to occur. That is, should the “if a change in the matching status information and/or the completion information is triggered” language never happen, the limitation of “updating a style of the element and/or the content of the prompt information presented therein” will never happen. Therefore, this limitation is not required. Further, the claims are silent on what should occur if the conditional statement is not met, leaving this portion of the claim broad and open to interpretation. Therefore, should the “if a change in the matching status information and/or the completion information is triggered” language not occur, Examiner interprets no change to the invention, which has been anticipated by Bird for the reasons above. According to MPEP 2106 II, language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation.
Regarding claim 7, this claim further limits a limitation that is optional due to conditional language and is not required (see the rejection of claim 6, regarding “the updating the style of the element and/or the content of the prompt information presented therein comprises”). According to MPEP 2106 II, language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation.
Regarding claim 8, the instant claim recites a limitation that occurs (the prompt information respectively corresponding to the plurality of the target user offers is differentiated and shown using different colors) if a conditional statement is met (when the respective prompt information corresponding to the plurality of target user offers is displayed by means of the element). However, because of the conditional statement, the limitation is not required to occur. That is, should the “when the respective prompt information corresponding to the plurality of target user offers is displayed by means of the element” language never happen, the limitation of “the prompt information respectively corresponding to the plurality of the target user offers is differentiated and shown using different colors” will never happen. Therefore, this limitation is not required. Further, the claims are silent on what should occur if the conditional statement is not met, leaving this portion of the claim broad and open to interpretation. Therefore, should the “when the respective prompt information corresponding to the plurality of target user offers is displayed by means of the element” language not occur, Examiner interprets no change to the invention, which has been anticipated by Bird for the reasons above. According to MPEP 2106 II, language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation.
Regarding claim 9, Bird teaches the target page comprises a page configured for displaying information of the plurality of commodities in an aggregated manner (Figures 7A, 7B, 8A, 8B); and the method further comprises: providing, on the target page, an operation option for filtering commodities according to different target user offers (Paragraph 0102, Figure 7A), wherein a color attribute of the operation option is consistent with a color attribute of the prompt information corresponding to the target user offer (Paragraph 0085, colors are selectable, meaning that colors may be consistent with each other or non-consistent based on a user choice).
Regarding claim 10, this claim further limits a limitation that is optional due to conditional language and is not required (see the rejection of claim 6, regarding “the updating the style of the element and/or the content of the prompt information presented therein comprises”). According to MPEP 2106 II, language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation.
Regarding claim 11, this claim further limits a limitation that is optional due to conditional language and is not required (see the rejection of claim 6, regarding “the updating the style of the element and/or the content of the prompt information presented therein comprises”). According to MPEP 2106 II, language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation.
Regarding claim 12, Bird teaches redirecting, after the element is executed by a target operation, to a page corresponding to the selected set of commodities for display, and classifying and displaying the commodities thereon according to the different matched target user offers (Figures 3D, 7A, 7B, 8A, 8B).
Regarding claim 13, Bird teaches displaying, after the element is executed by a target operation, the commodity information related to the majority of target user offers in the selected set of commodities by means of the element, and providing an operation option for initiating the checkout operation (Paragraph 0074, add product to a cart).
Regarding claim 14, Bird teaches generating, based on the matching information and the completion information, prompt information about each target user offer (Paragraphs 0075-0076), and providing, in a second content layer of the display interface, an element for displaying prompt information of only one target user offer of the plurality of target user offers (Paragraph 0102, pop-up represents a second content layer of the website display interface, the pop up displays only one offer upon selection of the specific call to action button, “go to offer” singular), determining, by the one or more processors, a respective percentage or dollar difference to completion of each respective redeem condition based on a total price of the selected set of commodities (Paragraph 0076, Figures 3A, 3E, 3F, 5A); and displaying, by the one or more processors, prompt information of a target user offer having a redeem condition closest to completion (Figure 5A, multiple offers with multiple levels of completion are available, should a user click on the item with only $50 left rather than the one with $150 left, a pop-up as detailed in Paragraphs 0102 will appears with the offer having a “redeem condition closest to completion”, which meets the claim limitation)..
The instant claim recites a limitation that occurs (determining by the one or more processors that the target commodity matches a target user offer, and if so, acquiring by the one or more processors, respective completion information on a plurality of tasks each corresponding to a redeem condition of a different target user offer) if a conditional statement is met (if it is detected that a user adds a target commodity seen in the target page to a selected set of commodities). However, because of the conditional statement, the limitation is not required to occur. That is, should the “if it is detected that a user adds a target commodity seen in the target page to a selected set of commodities” language never happen, the limitation of “determining by the one or more processors that the target commodity matches a target user offer, and if so, acquiring by the one or more processors, respective completion information on a plurality of tasks each corresponding to a redeem condition of a different target user offer” will never happen. Therefore, this limitation is not required. Further, the claims are silent on what should occur if the conditional statement is not met, leaving this portion of the claim broad and open to interpretation. Therefore, should the “if it is detected that a user adds a target commodity seen in the target page to a selected set of commodities” language not occur, Examiner interprets no change to the invention, which has been anticipated by Bird for the reasons above. According to MPEP 2106 II, language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation.
Regarding claim 15, the instant claim recites a limitation that occurs (including, in the prompt information, progress information of the task and the task completion dollar difference information) if a conditional statement is met (if a task corresponding to a redeem condition of the target user offer is not completed). However, because of the conditional statement, the limitation is not required to occur. That is, should the “if a task corresponding to a redeem condition of the target user offer is not completed” language never happen, the limitation of “including, in the prompt information, progress information of the task and the task completion dollar difference information” will never happen. Therefore, this limitation is not required. Further, the claims are silent on what should occur if the conditional statement is not met, leaving this portion of the claim broad and open to interpretation. Therefore, should the “if a task corresponding to a redeem condition of the target user offer is not completed” language not occur, Examiner interprets no change to the invention, which has been anticipated by Bird for the reasons above. According to MPEP 2106 II, language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation.
Regarding claim 16, the instant claim recites a limitation that occurs (recommended commodity information is further pushed by means of the element, the recommended commodity being within the eligible range for the target user offer, and an associated price attribute being slightly greater than the task completion dollar difference of the redeem condition) if a conditional statement is met (if the task completion dollar difference information is less than a preset threshold). However, because of the conditional statement, the limitation is not required to occur. That is, should the “if the task completion dollar difference information is less than a preset threshold” language never happen, the limitation of “recommended commodity information is further pushed by means of the element, the recommended commodity being within the eligible range for the target user offer, and an associated price attribute being slightly greater than the task completion dollar difference of the redeem condition” will never happen. Therefore, this limitation is not required. Further, the claims are silent on what should occur if the conditional statement is not met, leaving this portion of the claim broad and open to interpretation. Therefore, should the “if the task completion dollar difference information is less than a preset threshold” language not occur, Examiner interprets no change to the invention, which has been anticipated by Bird for the reasons above. According to MPEP 2106 II, language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation.
Regarding claim 17, the instant claim recites a limitation that occurs (displaying, by means of the element, a commodity subset within the selected set of commodities related to the target user offer and a corresponding checkout operation option , so as to initiate a checkout operation for the commodities in the commodity subset by means of the element) if a conditional statement is met (if the task corresponding to the redeem condition of the target user offer is completed). However, because of the conditional statement, the limitation is not required to occur. That is, should the “if the task corresponding to the redeem condition of the target user offer is completed” language never happen, the limitation of “displaying, by means of the element, a commodity subset within the selected set of commodities related to the target user offer and a corresponding checkout operation option , so as to initiate a checkout operation for the commodities in the commodity subset by means of the element” will never happen. Therefore, this limitation is not required. Further, the claims are silent on what should occur if the conditional statement is not met, leaving this portion of the claim broad and open to interpretation. Therefore, should the “if the task corresponding to the redeem condition of the target user offer is completed” language not occur, Examiner interprets no change to the invention, which has been anticipated by Bird for the reasons above. According to MPEP 2106 II, language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation.
Regarding claim 18, Bird teaches acquiring, by the one or more processors of an electronic device in a process of responding to a user’s request to access a target page, available user offer information associated with the user (Paragraphs 0060, 0080, 0099); generating, by the one or more processors, prompt information about the redeem conditions of the available user offer information (Paragraphs 0075-0076), and providing a first content layer and a second content layer in a display interface, wherein the first content layer is configured to display content of the target page, and the second content layer comprises an element for displaying the prompt information of only one target user offer of a plurality of target user offers (Paragraph 0102, pop-up represents a second content layer of the website display interface, the pop up displays only one offer upon selection of the specific call to action button, “go to offer” singular).
The instant claim recites a limitation that occurs (determining, by the one or more processors, a respective percentage or dollar difference to completion of each respective redeem condition based on a total price of the selected set of commodities and displaying, by the one or more processors, prompt information of a target user over having a redeem condition closest to completion for purchasing the commodities in the element) if a conditional statement is met (if the redeem conditions are met). However, because of the conditional statement, the limitation is not required to occur. That is, should the “if the redeem conditions are met” language never happen, the limitation of “determining, by the one or more processors, a respective percentage or dollar difference to completion of each respective redeem condition based on a total price of the selected set of commodities and displaying, by the one or more processors, prompt information of a target user over having a redeem condition closest to completion for purchasing the commodities in the element” will never happen. Therefore, this limitation is not required. Further, the claims are silent on what should occur if the conditional statement is not met, leaving this portion of the claim broad and open to interpretation. Therefore, should the “if the redeem conditions are met” language not occur, Examiner interprets no change to the invention, which has been anticipated by Bird for the reasons above. According to MPEP 2106 II, language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant cites multiple sections of the specification that references an element size being limited and argues “The determination of percentage or dollar different to completion of respective redeem conditions based on a total price does not constitute advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. Rather, these steps solve the technological problem of computing task completion status and comparing closeness to completion to make use of limited space for displaying only one user offer, according to user interface designs. Consequently, consistent with Finjan, claim 1 is directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality, and is not directed to an abstract idea according to Step 2A analysis”. However, Paragraph 0091 of the specification as originally filed explains the differences in Figures 10A and 10B, in which either a large-sized element or a smaller element may be used. There is nothing in the specification that explains that the choice between a large or small element has to do with the saving of computer resources or any other improvement to the functioning of a computing device, or relates specifically to “user interface designs” or any improvement therein. Rather, the display of the data within the elements is directly tied to the abstract idea. Therefore, if there is an improvement realized by the claimed invention, it is merely an improvement to the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and specifically the advertising. In the SAP decision (See SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), the courts found that an improvement made to the abstract idea is not patent eligible. SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because there are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.
Applicant argues that the claim language is not taught by Bird. However, Applicant’s arguments do not explain why the Bird reference is not a proper reference according to Examiner’s interpretation of the reference, which is included in the rejection above. Applicant’s arguments do not reference Examiner’s interpretation either. For the reasons stated in the rejection (such as “pop-up represents a second content layer of the website display interface, the pop up displays only one offer upon selection of the specific call to action button, “go to offer” singular” and “multiple offers with multiple levels of completion are available, should a user click on the item with only $50 left rather than the one with $150 left, a pop-up as detailed in Paragraphs 0102 will appears with the offer having a “redeem condition closest to completion”, which meets the claim limitation”), Bird still appears to anticipate the claimed invention.
All arguments are believed to have been addressed by the amended rejections and the response above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BEKERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3256. The examiner can normally be reached 9PM-3PM EST M, T, TH, F.
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, WASEEM ASHRAF can be reached at (571) 270-3948. 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.
/MICHAEL BEKERMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621