DETAILED ACTION
In the response filed August 20, 2026, the Applicant amended claims 1, 8, and 15. Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application.
Notice of 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments for claims 1-20 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been considered but are unpersuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the steps describe or set-forth receiving user selections to create and publish a generated offer to a user for a vehicle, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception as they provide a technological solution to a technical problem in the field of package tracking – in particular, “acquiring data wirelessly and through APIs or web scraping, using various data to generate an offer that satisfies a template of a slideshow stored in a memory, and publishing the offer on web pages.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, the steps including “using various data to generate an offer that satisfies a template of a slideshow stored in a memory, and publishing the offer on web pages,” amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas. The additional elements of “acquiring data wirelessly and through APIs or web scraping” are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See § MPEP 2106.05(f).
The steps and limitations as claimed is executed by “at least one hardware processor,” “a second data source,” (claim 1); “an application program interface associated with a first data source,” “a web scraping tool on a website of a vehicle dealership,” “a computing device associated with the vehicle dealership,” “a display device, a graphical user interface,” (claims 1, 8, and 15); “a system comprising: at least one processor; and memory,” (claim 8); “a non-transitory computer readable medium” (claim 15). The dependent claims also recite the additional elements/limitations of: “wherein the first data source is run by a third party that is different than the vehicle manufacturer and the vehicle dealership,” (claims 5 and 12), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See § MPEP 2106.05(f).
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Applicant’s arguments remain unpersuasive.
Applicant argues the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they improve the functioning of a computer or improve the technical field of automated content publications systems to a target platform. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specific problem (generation and publication of offers) is not a problem specifically arising in the technical field of computer-implemented business methods. Here, the alleged improvements are non-technical subjective/abstract improvements, not technical improvements to computers or technological processes, but addresses a business challenge regarding the generation and publication of offers on different platforms. Creating an offer and publishing the offer to users is directed to, if anything, a business “improvement” (e.g., efficient methods and ways to market goods to a consumer). The idea of creating offers to provide to customers is not a patent eligible “improvement.” That a computer is used to select eligible entities serves merely to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Applicant further argues that the currently amended claims under the decision of Desjardins recite additional elements that are directed to improvements in automated content publications systems to a target platform. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, the alleged improvements are non-technical subjective/abstract improvements, not technical improvements to computers or technological processes, but addresses a business challenge regarding the generation and publication of offers on different platforms. Unlike Desjardins, the specification in the current application discusses a business “improvement” (e.g., efficient methods and ways to market goods to a consumer). The idea of creating offers to provide to customers is not a patent eligible “improvement.” That a computer is used to select eligible entities serves merely to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Applicant’s arguments remain unpersuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is hereby maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 29, “the generate offer” should read --the generated offer-- as this appears to be the Applicant’s intent.
Claim 8, line 32, “the generate offer” should read --the generated offer-- as this appears to be the Applicant’s intent.
Claim 1, line 31, “the generate offer” should read --the generated offer-- as this appears to be the Applicant’s intent.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 are drawn to a process, claims 8-14 are drawn to a machine, and claims 15-20 are drawn to a product of manufacture, each of which is within the four statutory categories (e.g., a process, a machine). (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception.
Claim 1 (representative of claims 8 and 15) recites/describes the following steps:
“receive a plurality of incentives offered by a vehicle manufacturer for vehicles produced by the vehicle manufacturer;”
“receive inventory data …, the inventory data comprising data about a plurality of vehicles currently in stock at a vehicle dealership;”
“present,… to a user associated with the vehicle dealership, … an element activatable by the user to select a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles for the user to generate an offer;”
“receiving, …, an activation of the element by the user, the activation selecting the vehicle for the user to generate the offer;”
“determining, based on the plurality of incentives, at least one incentive for the selected vehicle;”
“present to the user, …, the at least one incentive for the selected vehicle;”
“receiving,…, a selection by the user of at least one of the incentives for the selected vehicle;”
“present to the user, …, at least one publication destination;”
“receiving, …, a selection of a publication destination;”
“generating, on behalf of the computing device, the offer for the selected vehicle that satisfies a set of predefined criteria for a template of a slideshow,…, the set of predefined criteria defines types of information associated with the offer and to be displayed by different frames of the slideshow, and the generate offer is based on the selected vehicle, the selected at least one of the incentives, and the selected publication destination;”
“present to the user, …, the generated offer to the user;”
“receiving, …, an acceptance of the generated offer by the user;”
“present to the user, …, at least one audience setting for the generated offer, the at least one audience setting comprising a setting identifying a target audience;”
“receiving, …, a selection of the at least one audience setting by the user;” and
“publishing, at the selected publication destination and on behalf of the computing device, the generated offer as the slideshow on webpages of the target audience identified in the selected at least one audience setting, wherein the webpages of the target audience belong to the selected publication destination, and wherein the generated offer automatically transition between the different frames of the slideshow at the selected publication destination,”
These steps, under broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth receiving user selections to create and publish a generated offer to a user for a vehicle, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claims 1, 8, and 15 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Dependent claims 2, 9, and 16 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because they recite the limitation “wherein the inventory data comprises an identifier for each vehicle currently in stock at the vehicle dealership that uniquely identifies each vehicle, and wherein the generated offer comprises the identifier that uniquely identifies the selected vehicle” that further defines the data from the abstract idea of receiving user selections and publishing a generated offer to a user for a vehicle, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected due to being abstract and do not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claims 3, 10, and 17 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because they recite the limitation “wherein the identifier is a vehicle identification number (VIN) for the selected vehicle” that further defines the data from the abstract idea of receiving user selections and publishing a generated offer to a user for a vehicle, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected due to being abstract and do not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claims 4, 11, and 18 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because they recite the limitation “receiving vehicle data … for the selected vehicle, the vehicle data comprising a plurality of images of the selected vehicle, wherein the generated offer includes at least one of the images of the selected vehicle” that further defines the data from the abstract idea of receiving user selections and publishing a generated offer to a user for a vehicle, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). Claims 4, 11, and 18 recite the additional element of “the first data source,” which is analyzed in the steps below.
Claims 5 and 12 recite the additional element of “wherein the first data source is run by a third party that is different than the vehicle manufacturer and the vehicle dealership,” which is analyzed in the steps below.
Dependent claims 6, 13, and 19 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because they recite the limitation “wherein the generated offer comprises at least one component, the generated offer generated based on at least one component template, the at least one component template defining a format for the at least one component of the generated offer” that further defines the data from the abstract idea of receiving user selections and publishing a generated offer to a user for a vehicle, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). Claims 6, 13, and 19 are rejected due to being abstract and do not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claims 7, 14, and 20 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because they recite the limitation “wherein the at least one component comprises an image of the selected vehicle, the selected at least one of the incentives, and a unique identifier of the selected vehicle, the at least one component template defining a position of each of the image of the selected vehicle, the selected at least one of the incentives, and the unique identifier of the selected vehicle in the generated offer” that further defines the data from the abstract idea of receiving user selections and publishing a generated offer to a user for a vehicle, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected due to being abstract and do not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The claims recite the additional elements/limitations of: “at least one hardware processor,” “a second data source,” (claim 1); “an application program interface associated with a first data source,” “a web scraping tool on a website of a vehicle dealership,” “a computing device associated with the vehicle dealership,” “a display device, a graphical user interface,” (claims 1, 8, and 15); “a system comprising: at least one processor; and memory,” (claim 8); “a non-transitory computer readable medium” (claim 15). The dependent claims also recite the additional elements/limitations of: “wherein the first data source is run by a third party that is different than the vehicle manufacturer and the vehicle dealership,” (claims 5 and 12).
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “at least one hardware processor,” “a second data source,” (claim 1); “an application program interface associated with a first data source,” “a web scraping tool on a website of a vehicle dealership,” “a computing device associated with the vehicle dealership,” “a display device, a graphical user interface,” (claims 1, 8, and 15); “a system comprising: at least one processor; and memory,” (claim 8); “a non-transitory computer readable medium” (claim 15). The dependent claims also recite the additional elements/limitations of: “wherein the first data source is run by a third party that is different than the vehicle manufacturer and the vehicle dealership,” (claims 5 and 12), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See § MPEP 2106.05(f).
Remaining dependent claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 14, and 16-20, either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2,” the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “at least one hardware processor,” “a second data source,” (claim 1); “an application program interface associated with a first data source,” “a web scraping tool on a website of a vehicle dealership,” “a computing device associated with the vehicle dealership,” “a display device, a graphical user interface,” (claims 1, 8, and 15); “a system comprising: at least one processor; and memory,” (claim 8); “a non-transitory computer readable medium” (claim 15). The dependent claims also recite the additional elements/limitations of: “wherein the first data source is run by a third party that is different than the vehicle manufacturer and the vehicle dealership,” (claims 5 and 12), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Remaining dependent claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 14, and 16-20, either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Indication of Novel and Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 recite novel and non-obvious subject matter. Each of the dependent claims recite novel and non-obvious subject matter by virtue of their dependency on independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
As per claim 1 (representative of claims 8 and 15), the closest prior art of record taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach or suggest “causing a computing device associated with the vehicle dealership to present, via a display device, a graphical user interface to a user associated with the vehicle dealership, the graphical user interface comprising an element activatable by the user to select a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles for the user to generate an offer; receiving, wirelessly from the computing device associated with the vehicle dealership, an activation of the element by the user, the activation selecting the vehicle for the user to generate the offer; determining, based on the plurality of incentives, at least one incentive for the selected vehicle; causing the computing device associated with the vehicle dealership to present to the user, via the graphical user interface, the at least one incentive for the selected vehicle; receiving, wirelessly from the computing device associated with the vehicle dealership, a selection by the user of at least one of the incentives for the selected vehicle; causing the computing device associated with the vehicle dealership to present to the user, via the graphical user interface, at least one publication destination; receiving, wirelessly from the computing device associated with the vehicle dealership, a selection of a publication destination; generating, on behalf of the computing device, the offer for the selected vehicle that satisfies a set of predefined criteria for a template of a slideshow, wherein the set of predefined criteria and the template are stored in a memory, the set of predefined criteria defines types of information associated with the offer and to be displayed by different frames of the slideshow, and the generate offer is based on the selected vehicle, the selected at least one of the incentives, and the selected publication destination; causing the computing device associated with the vehicle dealership to present to the user, via the graphical user interface, the generated offer to the user; receiving, wirelessly from the computing device associated with the vehicle dealership, an acceptance of the generated offer by the user; causing the computing device associated with the vehicle dealership to present to the user, via the graphical user interface, at least one audience setting for the generated offer, the at least one audience setting comprising a setting identifying a target audience; receiving, wirelessly from the computing device associated with the vehicle dealership, a selection of the at least one audience setting by the user; and publishing, at the selected publication destination and on behalf of the computing device, the generated offer as the slideshow on webpages of the target audience identified in the selected at least one audience setting, wherein the webpages of the target audience belong to the selected publication destination, and wherein the generated offer automatically transition between the different frames of the slideshow at the selected publication destination” This combination of functions/features would not have been obvious to a PHOSITA in view of the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patrick Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-8619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at (571)272-6782. 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.
/Patrick Kim/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
