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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. The following is a non-final, First Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are pending.
The Examiner’s Notes:
2. Dependent claims 7 and 14 (dependency of claims 1 and 8) as a whole recites a combination of limitations that has been found as defined over prior art of record {The combination of Ahmad-Taylor; (US 2025/0061491 A1), Naidu et al; (US 2021/0241342 A1), and Jiang et al; (US 2008/0287150 A1) fails to fairly teaches such a system and method, as claimed as a whole, including the underlined subject matter: “determining a length of the third text and generating the link after determining that the length is longer than a predetermined length”.
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.
3. The claimed invention (Claims 1-20) is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract ideas including “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” which has/have been identified/found by the courts as abstract ideas in MPEP 2106.04(a). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because It/they is/are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications:
4. Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a statutory Category?
Claims 1-7: Yes, These claims are system claims which recite a processor…; and therefore, are directed to the statutory class of machine and article of manufacture.
Claims 8-14: Yes, these are method claims, and therefore are directed to the statutory class of process.
Claims 15-20: Yes, these claims recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, which is interpreted as a system because it recites a computer to perform…., and therefore are directed to the statutory class of machine.
5. Step 2A prong 1, 2A prong 2 and 2B:
Independent claim 1 (Step 2A, Prong I): is directed to an abstract idea of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”:
Claim 1, limitations 1-4 of upon receipt of first text from the user, inputting the first text about an item sold by the store, which generates in response thereto second text that promotes the item (limitation 1), acquiring related information corresponding to the item (limitation 2), generating third text based on the acquired related information, generating a content (associating with the third text/based on the third text) (part of limitation 3), generating answer information including the second text and the content (part of limitation 4) fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea because these steps mainly describe the concepts of commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
Independent claim 1, Step 2A (Prong II): Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea(s) as pointed out above. This judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements (e.g., a network interface configured to communicate with a mobile terminal; a memory; a processor configured to execute a program that is stored in the memory to perform…..; a computer model; a storage location, a link/the link, the network interface…) to perform abstract steps/limitations 1-4 mentioned above. The additional element(s) in all of the steps is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using a generic computer component (e.g., a network interface configured to communicate with a mobile terminal; a memory; a processor configured to execute a program that is stored in the memory to perform…..; a computer model; a storage location, a link/the link, the network interface…). Further, in claim 1, limitations 1, 3 and 5 of “… receipt of first text from the mobile terminal” via a processor (limitation 1); “storing a third text in a storage location” via a processor (limitation 3); and “controlling the network interface to transmit the answer information to the mobile terminal” via a processor (limitation 5) are merely receiving data/ gathering data, storing data, and sending data/ transmitting data, which are considered as “insignificant extra solution activity”; thus, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the additional element in steps/limitations 1 and 5 of “a mobile terminal/the mobile terminal” in claim 1 is recited as a source and a destination, wherein information being received from and sent to/ transmitted to, which are considered as general link to technological environment; thus, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Again, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. 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 additional elements of using computer components (e.g., a network interface configured to communicate with a mobile terminal; a memory; a processor configured to execute a program that is stored in the memory to perform…..; a computer model; a storage location, a link/the link, the network interface) to perform the steps/limitations 1-4 mentioned above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component(s); thus, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.05(f). For the above-mentioned reasons, viewed the claim as a whole, the additional elements/additional limitations individually and in combination do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Independent claim 1 (step 2B): The additional element in claim 1 (e.g., a network interface configured to communicate with a mobile terminal; a memory; a processor configured to execute a program that is stored in the memory to perform…..; a computer model; a storage location, a link/the link, the network interface.) is/are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications; thus, it is/they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. In other word, the additional element(s) “e.g., a network interface configured to communicate with a mobile terminal; a memory; a processor configured to execute a program that is stored in the memory to perform…..; a computer model; a storage location, a link/the link, the network interface” is/are amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) of steps/limitations 1-4 mentioned above; thus, are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea(s). See MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in claim 1, limitations 1, 3 and 5 of “… receipt of first text from the mobile terminal” via a processor (limitation 1); “storing a third text in a storage location” via a processor (limitation 3); and “controlling the network interface to transmit the answer information to the mobile terminal” via a processor (limitation 5) are merely receiving data/ gathering data, storing data, and sending data/ transmitting data, which are considered as “insignificant extra solution activity”; thus, are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the additional element in steps/limitations 1 and 5 of “a mobile terminal/the mobile terminal” in claim 1 is recited as a source and a destination, wherein information being received from and sent to/ transmitted to, which are considered as general link to technological environment; thus, are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
When revaluating limitations 1, 3 and 5 of “… receipt of first text from the mobile terminal” via a processor (limitation 1); “storing a third text in a storage location” via a processor (limitation 3); and “controlling the network interface to transmit the answer information to the mobile terminal” via a processor (limitation 5) mentioned above in step 2B here, the receiving data/ gathering data, storing data, and transmitting data/sending data are also well-understood, routine and conventional activities. The use of generic computer to receive information, store information, transmit/display information/data and receive/gather information/data through an unspecified generic computer does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea, and is/are considered as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. According to MPEP 2106.05 (d), elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields are e.g., "Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93”.
Thus, evidence has been provided to show these additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity according to MPEP 2106.07 (a) (III). Therefore, for the above-mentioned reasons, viewed as a whole, even in combination, the above additional steps/additional elements/additional limitations do not amount to significantly more/do not provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
As per independent claims 8 and 15: Alice Corp. also establishes that the same/similar analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, a method claim 8 and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 15 are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same/similar reasons as the system claim(s) 16. The additional components (i.e., a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing program causing the computer to perform……; a mobile terminal/the mobile terminal; a computer model; a storage location, a link/the link ……) described in independent claims 8 and 15 add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. At best, the claim(s) 8 and 15 are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claims 1, 8 and 15 without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Note that, the limitations in dependent claims {2, 9, 16}, and {3, 10 and 17} of
the mobile terminal displays the second text and the link separately (claims 2, 9, 16); and “the mobile terminal displays the second text that is hyperlinked with the link (claims 3, 10, 17) are merely and sending data/ transmitting data/displaying data, which are considered as “insignificant extra solution activity”; thus, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As the result, looking at the above limitations/steps/additional elements as an ordered combinations adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. Therefore, dependent 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
7. Claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, 13, 15-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmad-Taylor; (US 2025/0061491 A1), in view of Naidu et al; (US 2021/0241342 A1):
8. Claims 1, 8 and 15: Ahmad-Taylor teaches a method and system for managing data of items sold by a store, comprising:
receiving first text (e.g., user message 302/ user query about a product in fig. 3 para 0077 in context with para 0085, 0107, 0114) from a mobile terminal (e.g., user client system 306 in fig. 3 paras 0079-0082, 0084) (step/limitation 1) {At least figs 3-4 paras 0077-0085 especially paras 0077, 0085, 0107, 0114};
inputting the first text about an item (e.g., product in para 0085, 0107, 0114) sold by the store (see product catalog 332 of online retailers in para 0091) to a computer model (paras 0076-0077 in context with paras 0086-0091), which generates in response thereto second text (e.g., chatbot message 308 in paras 0076-0077, 0084) that promotes the item (step/limitation 2) {At least figs. 3-4 paras 0076-0077, 0084-0085, 0107, 0114 in context with paras 0086-0091};
acquiring related information corresponding to the item {At least 0091-0111, see determine the available products/ items matched with the user product query and extract these available products/items) (step/limitation 3) {At least paras 0091-0111 in context with paras 0076-0077, 0084-0085, 0107, 0114};
generating third text (e.g., contents of catalog details 330 in para 0084 of fig. 3) indicating based on the acquired related information (part of step/limitation 4) {At least fig. 3 paras 0084 in context with paras 0076-0077};
generating answer information including the second text (e.g., e.g., chatbot message 308 in para 0084 in context with paras 0077) and the third text (e.g., contents of catalog details 330 in para 0084 of fig. 3) (part of step/limitation 5) {At least fig. 3 para 0084 in context with paras 0076-0077); and
transmitting the answer information to the mobile terminal (e.g., user client system 306 in fig. 3 paras 0079-0082, 0084) (step/limitation 6) {At least fig. 3 para 0084 in context with paras 0076-0077)
However, Ahmad-Taylor does not explicitly teach the underlined features: generating third text based on the acquired related information, storing the third text in a storage location, and generating a link to the storage location (part of step/limitation 4), and generating answer information including the second text and the link (step/limitation 5). In other word, Tyron’s third text is not explicitly stored in a storage location and Ahmad-Taylor’s third text (based on acquired advertisement information related to the product/item in the user question/inquiry) is not explicitly a link (advertisement link).
Naidu teaches a general concept of generating text information (e.g., a list of catalog products in Abstract, para 0059), storing the text information in a storage location (e.g., web server 320 include one or more database storing products information…..in para 0040 in context with paras 0059-0060), and generate a link to the storage {At least Abstract, paras 0059-0060 especially Abstract, para 0060 in context with para 0040}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing day of the invention to modify “generating third text (e.g., contents of catalog details 330 in para 0084 of fig. 3) indicating based on the acquired related information; and generating answer information including the second text and the third text” of Ahmad-Taylor to include “generating text information (e.g., a list of catalog products in Abstract, para 0059), storing the text information in a storage location, and generate a link to the storage”, taught by Naidu so that the combination of Ahmad-Taylor and Naidu would yield: “generating third text based on the acquired related information, storing the third text in a storage location, and generating a link to the storage location; and generating answer information including the second text and the link”. One would be motivated to do this in order to increase visibility (e.g., link can direct potential customers to relevant pages on your website, enhancing their ability to find the information they need), and improve ad coverage (e.g., complementing ads with links to specific sections of your website can increase the overall ad coverage and reach).
9. Claims 2, 9 and 16: The combination of Ahmad-Taylor and Naidu teaches the claimed invention as in claims 1, 8 and 15. The combination further teaches wherein the mobile terminal displays the second text and the link separately {Ahmad-Taylor: At least paras 0084} in context with {Naidu: At least Abstract, paras 0059-0060}.
10. Claims 6, 13 and 20: The combination of Ahmad-Taylor and Naidu teaches the claimed invention as in claims 1, 8 and 15. The combination further teaches wherein the third text (e.g., contents of catalog details 330 in fig. 3 para 0084) indicates a name and a price (paras 0092, 0107, 0118-0125) of the item {Ahmad-Taylor: At least paras 0092, 0107, 0118-0125 in context with paras 0077, 0084-0085}.
11. Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmad-Taylor; (US 2025/0061491 A1), in view of Naidu et al; (US 2021/0241342 A1), and further in view of Lueck; (US 2007/0073650 A1):
12. Claims 3, 10 and 17: The combination of Ahmad-Taylor and Naidu teaches the claimed invention as in claims 1, 8 and 15. As indicated in claims 1, 8 and 15, the combination of Tyron and Naidu teaches the mobile terminal displays the answer information includes the second text and the link (transmitting the answer information (includes the second text and the link) to the mobile terminal) . However, the combination does not explicitly teach the underlined features: “the mobile terminal displays the second text that is hyperlinked with the link”.
Lueck teaches a general concept of a mobile terminal display a plurality of advertisement hyperlinks {At least Abstract, para 0008}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing day of the invention to modify “the mobile terminal displays the answer information includes the second text and the link” of the combination of Ahmad-Taylor and Naidu to include “a mobile terminal display a plurality of advertisement hyperlinks”, taught by Lueck so that the combination of Ahmad-Taylor, Naidu and Lueck would yield: “the mobile terminal displays the second text that is hyperlinked with the link”. One would be motivated to do this in order to increase the advertisement effectiveness and increase the user’s experience.
13. Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmad-Taylor; (US 2025/0061491 A1), in view of Naidu et al; (US 2021/0241342 A1), and further in view of Spiegel et al; (US 2024/0249318 A1):
14. Claims 4, 11 and 18: The combination of Ahmad-Taylor and Naidu teaches the claimed invention as in claims 1, 8 and 15. The combination does not explicitly teach the underlined features: “wherein in the third text, the related information of the item is arranged according to a predetermined template”.
Spiegel teaches in a text (e.g., response in para 0140) related information of the item/product is arranged according to a predetermined template {At least para 0140 in context with paras 0109 and 0111}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing day of the invention to modify “generating the third text based on the acquired related information” of the combination of Ahmad-Taylor and Naidu to include “in a text related information of the item/product is arranged according to a predetermined template”, taught by Spiegel. One would be motivated to do this in order to enable the advertiser the ability to provide a structured and organized approach to presenting information in a clear and consistent manner, which can enhance the overall effectiveness of the advertisement.
15. Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmad-Taylor; (US 2025/0061491 A1), in view of Naidu et al; (US 2021/0241342 A1), and further in view of Judovsky et al; (US 2020/0380199 A1):
16. Claims 5, 12 and 19: The combination of Ahmad-Taylor and Naidu teaches the claimed invention as in claims 1, 8 and 15. The combination does not explicitly teach the underlined features: “disabling the link after a predetermined time elapses from the generation of the link”.
Judovsky teaches a general concept of disabling a link after a predetermined time elapses from generation of the link {At least para 0103, 0276}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing day of the invention to modify “generation of the link” of the combination of Ahmad-Taylor and Naidu to include “disabling a link after a predetermined time elapses from generation of the link”, taught by Judovsky. One would be motivated to do this in order to enhance security (e.g., by limiting access the link would reduce the risk of unauthorized users accessing the information), encourage timely information exchange (e.g., expiring links encourage the user to act quickly before the link expires), and control content distribution (e.g., ensuring the user only have access while it’s relevant).
Prior Art that is pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure
17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Aswani et al; (US 2024/0338740 A1), wherein teaches a system and method for facilitating interactive product inquiry in an online ecommerce platform, which can be accessed from the product page itself. It allows users to switch to an interactive mode, wherein the users can ask any questions they have regarding the products and a conversational agent shall provide appropriate answers. This enables a user to get answers quickly unlike traditional systems. With ease of obtaining information without wasting any time, users can make a better decision while shopping.
Jiang et al; (US 2008/0287150 A1), wherein teaches determine a length of an advertisement text message {At least in para 0005}.
Spiegel et al; (US 2024/0249318 A1), wherein teaches A system and method for determining user intent and providing targeted advertising using chatbot interactions is disclosed. The system receives user prompts during chat sessions with a chatbot and generates responses using a large language model. User intent is extracted by analyzing the chat conversations using natural language processing and machine learning techniques. The extracted user intent, comprising weighted keywords and concepts, is used to create a user intent profile. Targeted advertising content is generated based on the user intent profile and provided to the user during subsequent platform interactions. The large language model is continuously retrained using user engagement data to improve intent modeling accuracy. User privacy is maintained by limiting context extraction to chatbot conversations. The system enables personalized and relevant advertising by inferring user intent through conversational interactions.
Qin; (US 2024/0346566 A1), wherein teaches Systems, methods, apparatuses, and computer program products are disclosed for using retrieval augmented artificial intelligence to provide content recommendations. A first feature vector is generated based at least on user contextual information. Second feature vectors are determined based on a comparison of the first feature vector to a plurality of second feature vectors. Content items corresponding to the determined second feature vectors are retrieved. An augmented prompt generated based on the user contextual information and the retrieved content items is provided to a large language model to request a recommendation. A content recommendation is received from the large language model based on the augmented prompt.
Further, see additional references cited in PTO-892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thuy Nguyen whose telephone number is 571-272-4585 and fax number is 571-273-4585. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs, 8:30 am to 5: 00 pm.
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 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.
/THUY N NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622.