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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-10 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. As of the date of this communication, no Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) have been filed on behalf of this case.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because 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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-20 are directed toward at least abstract idea without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP § 2106, the rationale for this determination is explained below.
Representative claim 1 is directed towards a method, which is a statutory category of invention.
Although, claim 1 is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim appears to be directed toward a judicial exception namely an abstract idea. The limitations that set forth the abstract idea recites: comprising: an add-on object configured to be installed on a user's computing system, run a spreadsheet application, the add-on object configured to be integrated with the spreadsheet application, the add-on object configured to communicate over a network with at least one eCommerce platform, the add-on object configured to enable the user to manage using the spreadsheet application an advertising campaign within the at least one eCommerce platform. These limitations, comprise commercial interactions including, advertising, marketing or sales activities and business relations, as well as managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions. As such, the limitations are directed towards the abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed as a whole, under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements provided by the claim amount to merely using a computer as a tool to apply an abstract idea, or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. In particular the claim recites the additional elements: the computing system comprising at least one processor and a display, the at least one processor configured to, which are recited at a high level of generality and are the mere use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Simply applying the abstract idea by a computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claim does not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claim does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claim does not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claim does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim is directed to abstract ideas.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements of a processor and a display, which do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment1. Viewing these limitations as a combination, the additional elements amount to no more than merely applying the exception using generic computer components, executing basic functions of a computer. Merely applying an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the limitations of the claim as a whole, when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
A review of dependent claims 2-5, likewise, do not recite any limitations that would remedy the deficiencies outlined above. The claims only further add to the abstract idea, with no elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more. Thus, while they may slightly narrow the abstract idea by further describing it, they do not make it less abstract and are rejected accordingly. Further still, claims 6-10 suffer from substantially the same deficiencies as outlined with respect to claims 1-5 and are also rejected accordingly.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they are directed towards a computer-readable medium which given the broadest reasonable interpretation covers “signal per se”.
The specification, states that “embodiments of the invention can comprise at least two distinctly different kinds of computer-readable media: non-transitory computer-readable storage media (devices) and transmission media.” [0285]. In regards to a signal per se rejection, the language in the claim or specification has to explicitly state that the medium is non-transitory in all scenarios. Accordingly, the Examiner is interpreting the independent claim recitation as signal per se which are non-statutory forms of patentable subject matter. In order to overcome this rejection, the Office recommends amending the claims so that they recite only non-transitory media.
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 set forth in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Malhotra (US Publication 2007/0100789).
Regarding Claims 1-10, Malhotra teaches, system and medium, comprising:
comprising: an add-on object configured to be installed on a user's computing system, the computing system comprising at least one processor and a display, the at least one processor configured to run a spreadsheet application, the add-on object configured to be integrated with the spreadsheet application, the add-on object configured to communicate over a network with at least one eCommerce platform, the add-on object configured to enable the user to manage using the spreadsheet application an advertising campaign within the at least one eCommerce platform. Malhotra [0007; 0023: plug-in module may be added to a conventional spreadsheet, where the plug-in module interfaces with a bid management system and/or web analytics tool; 0025: bulk keyword import/export module serves as a plug-in to a spreadsheet application. However, those skilled in the art will note that in one or more other embodiments, the bulk keyword import/export module may serve as a plug-in for a different document format; 0007: the spreadsheet application is arranged to operate on a file having a collection of keywords for Internet advertising;].
Regarding Claims 2 and 7, Malhotra discloses, further comprising a server intermediate and in signal communication with the add-on object and at least one eCommerce platform. Malhotra [0032: spreadsheet application after keywords have been imported according to the selections shown in FIG. 5. As can be seen in FIG. 7, the keywords are organized by columns entitled, for example, Search Engine, Campaign Name, Campaign Budget, Campaign Geographical (Geo) Target, Campaign Language, Campaign Status, and Content Network].
Regarding Claim 3, Malhotra discloses, wherein the server is configured to provide the add-on object to the user's computing system to enable integration of the add-on object with the spreadsheet application. Malhotra [0037: integration between the spreadsheet application and the web analytics tool may be enhanced and additional functionality may be added to the toolbar; 0024: the plug-in module may interface with a bid management system such as, for example, SearchCenter by Omniture, Inc. Further, such a bid management system may interface with a web analytics tool such as, for example, SiteCatalyst by Omniture, Inc].
Regarding Claims 4 and 9, Malhotra discloses, wherein the add-on object is configured to enable data in the spreadsheet to be synchronized with the at least one eCommerce platform at the same time that the user is editing the data. Malhotra [0024: the plug-in module may interface with a bid management system such as, for example, SearchCenter by Omniture, Inc. Further, such a bid management system may interface with a web analytics tool such as, for example, SiteCatalyst by Omniture, Inc].
Regarding Claims 5 and 10, Malhotra discloses, wherein the add-on object is configured to enable the user to alter parameters of an advertising campaign presented on the at least one eCommerce platform. Malhotra [0033: after keywords have been imported to the spreadsheet application, the user may make changes to the keywords and attendant attributes; 0006: plug-in module arranged to at least one of automatically export at least a portion of the collection of keywords from the spreadsheet application to the bid management system and import at least a portion of the collection of keywords to the spreadsheet application from the bid management system].
Regarding Claim 8, Malhotra discloses, wherein the one or more processing devices are configured to communicate with the at least one eCommerce platform via marketplace ad application program interfaces provided by respective ones of the at least one eCommerce Platform. Malhotra [0026: spreadsheet application maintains a collection of keywords for the user, and the bid management system relies on all or part of this collection when purchasing or pricing keywords. The bid management system is operatively connected to a search engine and communicates with the search engine for the placement of keywords, transfer of advertising content].
Conclusion
6. The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
a) Clark et al. (U.S. Pub 2006/0112123) discloses spreadsheet user-interfaced business data visualization and publishing system
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Errol CARVALHO whose telephone number is (571)272-9987. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30-7:00 Alt Fri
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571- 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E CARVALHO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
1 See, Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2360 (2014) (noting that none of the hardware recited “offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,’ that is, implementation via computers” (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010))).
Prosecution Insights