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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office action is in response to the Preliminary Amendment filed on 06/26/2026.
Claims 3, 6-11, 14, 17, 19, 22-25, 30, 32-38, 41, and 44 are canceled.
Claims 13, 26-28, and 40 are currently amended.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 12-13, 15-16, 18, 20-21, 26-29, 31, 39-40, and 42-43 are currently pending and addressed below.
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not on a separate sheet. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-2, 4-5, 12-13, 15-16, 18, 20-21, 26-29, 31, 39-40, and 42-43 is/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 nature phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 12-13, 15-16, 18, 20-21, 26-29, 31, 39-40, and 42-43 is/are directed towards a statutory category (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (Step 1, Yes).
Step 2A Prong One:
Claim 1 recites (additional elements underlined):
A computer-implemented method for generating an advertisement payload for a user, the method comprising:
receiving, from a mobile device with a consumer in a retail store, a location indication;
matching a mobile device identifier with a frequent shopper identification for the consumer at the retail store;
selecting a list of product items that are likely to be purchased by the consumer based on a purchasing history of the consumer in the retail store associated with the frequent shopper identification;
identifying a keyword indicative of a semantic context associated with one or more product items from the list of product items and with a consumer attribute;
selecting a media file based on the keyword indicative of the semantic context; and
providing an advertisement payload for a one or more product items, including the media file, within a streaming feed for the mobile device with the consumer.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations outlined above that describe or set forth the abstract idea, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s). That is, other than reciting the additional elements, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed in the mind. These limitations are considered a mental process because the limitations include an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. These limitations are also similar to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” and/or “collecting and comparing known information” which were determined to be mental processes in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Therefore, the claim recite a mental process (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth an advertising/marketing activity. Advertising/marketing fall within the certain method of organizing human activity enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a fundamental economic principle or practice because advertising/marketing is related to commerce and economy. The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a commercial interaction (e.g., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations). The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth the managing of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Therefore, the claim recites a certain method of organizing human activity (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
Step 2A Prong Two:
In Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) outlined above are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional element(s) amount adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) does not integrate the judicial exception similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. The Examiner notes that “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 pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., in a computer environment). The courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, improves any other technology or technical field, applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, applies the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses 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 claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation (Step 2A Prong Two, No).
Step 2B:
In Step 2B, the additional elements also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong Two. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A Prong Two overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation (Step 2B, No).
Claim(s) 2, 4-5, 12-13, and 15-16 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 1 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes) Claims 13 and 15-16 also recite mathematical concepts.
Claims 2, 12, and 15 do not recite any other additional elements. Therefore, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claims 2, 12, and 15 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 4 recites the additional elements “in a social network portal.” Claim 5 recites the additional elements “media” and “from an advertising technology server.” Claim 13 recites the additional elements “media” and “from a database.” Claim 16 recites the additional elements “media,” “in a multidimensional space” and “in the multidimensional space.” However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 18 recites (additional elements underlined):
A system, comprising:
a memory storing multiple instructions;
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to cause the system to:
receive, from a mobile device with a consumer in a retail store, a location indication;
match a mobile device identifier with a frequent shopper identification for the consumer at the retail store;
select a list of product items that are likely to be purchased by the consumer based on a purchasing history of the consumer in the retail store associated with the frequent shopper identification;
identify a keyword indicative of a semantic context associated with one or more product items from the list of product items and with a consumer attribute;
select a media file based on the keyword indicative of the semantic context; and
provide an advertisement payload for a one or more product items, including the media file, within a streaming feed for the mobile device with the consumer.
For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 18 also recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One. For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 18 also does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim(s) 20-21 and 26-28 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 18 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes) Claims 26-28 also recite mathematical concepts.
Claim 20 recites the additional elements “wherein the one or more processors being configured to execute the instructions to cause the system to” and “in a social network portal.” Claim 21 recites the additional elements “wherein the one or more processors being configured to execute the instructions to cause the system to,” “media,” and “machine-learning.” Claim 26 recites the additional elements “wherein the one or more processors being configured to execute the instructions to cause the system to,” “media,” and “from a database.” Claim 27 recites the additional elements “wherein the one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to cause the system to.” Claim 28 recites the additional elements “wherein the one or more processors being configured to execute the instructions to cause the system to,” “media,” “in a multidimensional space,” and “in the multidimensional space.” However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 29 recites (additional elements underlined):
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause a computer to perform a method for generating an advertisement payload for a user, the method comprising:
receiving, from a mobile device with a consumer in a retail store, a location indication;
matching a mobile device identifier with a frequent shopper identification for the consumer at the retail store;
selecting a list of product items that are likely to be purchased by the consumer based on a purchasing history of the consumer in the retail store associated with the frequent shopper identification;
identifying a keyword indicative of a semantic context associated with one or more product items from the list of product items and with a consumer attribute;
selecting a media file based on the keyword indicative of the semantic context; and
providing an advertisement payload for a one or more product items, including the media file, within a streaming feed for the mobile device with the consumer.
For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 29 also recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One. For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 29 also does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim(s) 31, 39-40, and 42-43 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 18 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes) Claims 40 and 42-43 also recite mathematical concepts.
Claim 31 recites the additional elements “in a social network portal.” Claim 40 recites the additional elements “media” and “from a database.” Claim 43 recites the additional elements “media,” “in a multidimensional space,” and “in the multidimensional space.” However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 39 and 42 do not recite any other additional elements. Therefore, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 29, claims 39 and 42 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
The Examiner notes that after a thorough search on the claims as currently amended, the claims are found to recite novel and non-obvious subject matter. The closest prior art are the following:
Singh et al. (WO 2022/204483 A1) discloses a computer-implemented method, system, and computer-readable medium for selecting, based on a prior purchasing behavior for a consumer, a digital payload, wherein the digital payload comprises at least one of a coupon, a discount, or an advertisement for a retail product, selecting a channel for the consumer to validate the digital payload, wherein the channel for the consumer to validate the digital payload comprises one of an onsite validation of the digital payload or an online validation in a shopping basket, providing the digital payload for display in a client device used by the consumer, and indicating, in the display, the channel for the consumer to redeem the digital payload. However, Singh et al. does not qualify as prior art as it was published within the grace period. The Examiner notes that a rejection should not be made based on a §102(a)(1) disclosure made during the grace period if the authorship of the disclosure includes one or more joint inventor(s) or the entire inventive entity of the application under examination.1
Singh et al. (US 2018/0336597 A1) discloses a method including receiving, in a dynamic creative rendering server, a request from a browser or mobile application, the request directed to an ad-creative display, is provided. The method also includes determining an identifier for the mobile device from a publisher website or application accessible to the mobile device, providing the identifier to an advertisement engine, and correlating the identifier with a frequent shopper identification in a lookup table in the advertisement engine, the frequent shopper identification associated with a retailer. The method also includes receiving a playlist including a structured content, processing the structured content and pushing the playlist including the structured content into the browser or mobile application. A system for performing the above method is also provided. However, Singh et al. fails to identify a keyword indicative of a semantic context associated with one or more product items from the list of product items and with a consumer attribute; select a media file based on the keyword indicative of the semantic context; and provide an advertisement payload for a one or more product items, including the media file, within a streaming feed for the mobile device with the consumer as claimed.
Katzin et al. (US 2012/0303425 A1) discloses the concept of providing targeted advertisements to a user based on their social media posts. However, Katzin et al. fails to identify a keyword indicative of a semantic context associated with one or more product items from the list of product items and with a consumer attribute; select a media file based on the keyword indicative of the semantic context; and provide an advertisement payload for a one or more product items, including the media file, within a streaming feed for the mobile device with the consumer as claimed.
Adoni et al. (US 2014/0201026 A1) discloses a method that improves and enhances the customer's in-store shopping experience. The consumer product of purchase interest or intent to buy expresses (or self-announces via technology) it's match (or fit based on known or understood buying habits, customer taste, tendencies, etc.) against the customer preferences during an in-store shopping experience. However, Adoni et al. fails to match a mobile device identifier with a frequent shopper identification for the consumer at the retail store, select a list of product items that are likely to be purchased by the consumer based on a purchasing history of the consumer in the retail store associated with the frequent shopper identification; identify a keyword indicative of a semantic context associated with one or more product items from the list of product items and with a consumer attribute; select a media file based on the keyword indicative of the semantic context; and provide an advertisement payload for a one or more product items, including the media file, within a streaming feed for the mobile device with the consumer as claimed.
Burazin et al. (US 2009/0157472 A1) discloses a personalized shopping system that can provide for delivery of relevant information that is responsive to the needs and desires of shoppers. Any suitable information can be delivered including, but not limited to, advertisements. By taking one or more preferences or parameters of the shopper into account, the advantages of targeted advertising and/or other information delivery can be achieved with reduced adverse effects on shoppers. To the contrary, the shoppers may benefit from the system, since it is configured to address the needs of the shopper, rather than the needs of only the manufacturer, retailer, advertiser, or other information purveyor. The system can evaluate whether to present information at various opportunities based on the shopper's media preferences. Further, the system may respond to user requests for information. The system may be configured to provide navigational guidance, such as a map through a retail location, for use by a shopper. However, Burazin et al. fails to match a mobile device identifier with a frequent shopper identification for the consumer at the retail store, select a list of product items that are likely to be purchased by the consumer based on a purchasing history of the consumer in the retail store associated with the frequent shopper identification; identify a keyword indicative of a semantic context associated with one or more product items from the list of product items and with a consumer attribute; select a media file based on the keyword indicative of the semantic context; and provide an advertisement payload for a one or more product items, including the media file, within a streaming feed for the mobile device with the consumer as claimed.
Al Jadda et al. (US 201/0073891 A1) disclose systems and methods for providing suggestions of complementary products responsive to an anchor product are disclosed. The method includes receiving a selection of an anchor product. A similarity score between text embeddings of the anchor product and text embeddings of a plurality of products in a product database is calculated. A similarity score between an image feature of the anchor product and an image feature of the plurality of products in the product database is calculated. A weighted score between the two similarity scores as calculated for the anchor product and the plurality of products in the product database is calculated. At least one of the products from the product database having a highest weighted score is selected and returned responsive to the selection of the anchor product. However, Al Jadda et al. fails to receive, from a mobile device with a consumer in a retail store, a location indication; match a mobile device identifier with a frequent shopper identification for the consumer at the retail store, select a list of product items that are likely to be purchased by the consumer based on a purchasing history of the consumer in the retail store associated with the frequent shopper identification; identify a keyword indicative of a semantic context associated with one or more product items from the list of product items and with a consumer attribute; select a media file based on the keyword indicative of the semantic context; and provide an advertisement payload for a one or more product items, including the media file, within a streaming feed for the mobile device with the consumer as claimed.
Solomon et al. (US 2011/0179116 A1) discloses systems and methods directed to a selection and delivery of content. Content produced by a user may be analyzed. A personality related parameter may be generated or determined. A content object may be selected for delivery based on a personality parameter. In some embodiments, a content object may be generated or modified based on a personality parameter. However, Solomon et al. fails to match a mobile device identifier with a frequent shopper identification for the consumer at the retail store, select a list of product items that are likely to be purchased by the consumer based on a purchasing history of the consumer in the retail store associated with the frequent shopper identification; identify a keyword indicative of a semantic context associated with one or more product items from the list of product items and with a consumer attribute; select a media file based on the keyword indicative of the semantic context; and provide an advertisement payload for a one or more product items, including the media file, within a streaming feed for the mobile device with the consumer as claimed.
Pinel et al. (US 2020/0167832 A1) discloses machine logic (for example, software) for creating layout for an advertisement and choosing a color scheme, with good color harmony, for the advertisement. Some embodiments are directed to testing how well people respond to advertisements laid out and colored created by the machine logic. However, Solomon et al. fails to receive, from a mobile device with a consumer in a retail store, a location indication; match a mobile device identifier with a frequent shopper identification for the consumer at the retail store, select a list of product items that are likely to be purchased by the consumer based on a purchasing history of the consumer in the retail store associated with the frequent shopper identification; identify a keyword indicative of a semantic context associated with one or more product items from the list of product items and with a consumer attribute; select a media file based on the keyword indicative of the semantic context; and provide an advertisement payload for a one or more product items, including the media file, within a streaming feed for the mobile device with the consumer as claimed.
Moreover, while the prior art teach some of the elements of the claimed invention, there is no teaching or suggestions absent Applicant’s own disclosure to combine these features in the specific manner claimed other than with impermissible hindsight. Therefore, the claims are found to recite novel and non-obvious subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAM REFAI whose telephone number is (313)446-4822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
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.
/SAM REFAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
1 https://www.uspto.gov/video/cbt/intro35USC102a1/
Prosecution Insights