DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to papers filed on 5/6/2026.
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 .
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, while the claims herein are directed to a method and/or system, which could be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes), the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 20, the claims recite, in part, receiving a service viewing request; determining, in response to the service viewing request, a primary service and at least one additional service to be provided; and causing display of a presentation of an aggregate page comprising primary service information related to the primary service and additional service information related to the at least one additional service, wherein the primary service information is presented on the aggregate page prior to presentation of the additional service information or the primary service information is presented in a larger predetermined region of the aggregate page than one or more regions of the aggregate page configured to present the additional service information.
The limitations, as drafted and detailed above, recites advertising of service providers by request, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, and more specifically advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements of client device (claims 1, 11, 20), electronic device (claim 11), processing unit (claim 11), memory (claim 11)¸ non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 20)¸ and computer program (claim 20). The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving, determining, and causing display) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. There are no additional functional limitations to be considered under prong two.
Accordingly, the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the
judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes).
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using client device (claims 1, 11, 20), electronic device (claim 11), processing unit (claim 11), memory (claim 11)¸ non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 20)¸ and computer program (claim 20) to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent- eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat' l Ass' n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computer (see Applicant specification paragraphs 00100, 00107); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility.
The dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 appear to merely limit determining an additional service using a service cluster, determining the services based on a ranking of resource competition and specifics of that competition, providing an aggregate page based on a predetermined trigger operation, specifics of the predetermined trigger operation, presenting all of the service information simultaneously, specifics of the data contained on the aggregate page, an advertising viewing request, and a time and position of the viewing request, and therefore only limit the application of the idea, and not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The client device (claims 1, 11, 20), electronic device (claim 11), processing unit (claim 11), memory (claim 11)¸ non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 20)¸ and computer program (claim 20) are each functional generic computer components that perform the generic functions of receiving, determining, and causing display, all common to electronics and computer systems.
Applicant's specification does not provide any indication that the client device (claims 1, 11, 20), electronic device (claim 11), processing unit (claim 11), memory (claim 11)¸ non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 20)¸ and computer program (claim 20) are anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel (U.S. Pub No. 2017/0004548) in view of Miyazawa (U.S. Pub No. 2009/0247190).
Regarding claims 1, 11, 20, Goel teaches receiving a service viewing request from a client device (Abstract, Paragraph 0047, request for service providers is received); determining, in response to the service viewing request, a primary service and at least one additional service to be provided (Paragraph 0054, service providers are ranked, highest ranking would be “primary” and lower rankings would be “additional”); and providing, to the client device, a presentation of an aggregate page comprising primary service information related to the primary service and additional service information related to the at least one additional service, wherein the primary service information is presented at a higher priority than the additional service information or the primary service information is more prominently presented than the additional service information (Paragraph 0056, Figure 6, highest ranked providers, which are “primary”, are presented at the top of the page, which is a higher priority than the lower ranked providers which are “additional”).
While it could be argued that Goel teaches the primary service information is presented on the aggregate page prior to presentation of the additional service information on the aggregate page (if information is presented at the top of the page, and the top of the page is the only portion of the page in the browser view pane such that a user would need to scroll to view other information, then the information at the top of the page is indeed “presented” prior to other information), Goel does not appear to specify the primary service information is presented in a larger predetermined region of the aggregate page than one or more regions of the aggregate page configured to present the additional service information. However, Miyazawa teaches the primary service information is presented in a larger predetermined region of the aggregate page than one or more regions of the aggregate page configured to present the additional service information (Figure 3b, Paragraph 0069). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to display higher priority information in any type of enhanced manner, including in a larger region, in order to better draw attention to the important information and ensure it is seen.
Regarding claims 2, 12, Goel teaches determining, from a service cluster matching the type of the primary service, the at least one additional service associated with the primary service, wherein the service cluster comprises a plurality of services of a same type (Paragraphs 0047-0049).
Regarding claims 3, 13, Goel teaches determining, from a plurality of candidate services provided by a plurality of service providers, the primary service and the at least one additional service based on a ranking of resource competition by the plurality of service providers (Paragraphs 0037, recommendations, endorsements, credentials, accolades, etc. represent “resources”, 0054, ranking based on expertise, the different service provides are in competition with each other to provide the same services).
Regarding claims 4, 14, Goel teaches a service provider corresponding to the primary service provides more resources in the resource competition than a service provider corresponding to the at least one additional service (Paragraphs 0037, recommendations, endorsements, credentials, accolades, etc. represent “resources”, 0054, ranking based on expertise, the different service provides are in competition with each other to provide the same services, more professional expertise means a higher ranking).
Regarding claims 5, 15, Goel teaches the primary service information is presented at a higher priority than the additional service information, and wherein providing the presentation of the aggregate page to the client device comprises: providing, to the client device, a presentation of an aggregate page comprising the primary service information; and in response to detecting a predetermined trigger operation on the aggregate page, providing, to the client device, a presentation of an aggregate page comprising the at least one additional service information (Figure 6, Paragraphs 0058-0059, clicking on portfolio will provide additional information, clicking on Jane Doe portfolio will provide additional service information).
Regarding claims 6, 16, Goel teaches the predetermined trigger operation comprises at least one of: detecting a predetermined interactive behavior for the primary service, or detecting an additional service viewing request(Figure 6, Paragraphs 0058-0059, clicking on portfolio will provide additional information, clicking on Jane Doe portfolio will provide additional service information, clicking on portfolio for Jane Doe is considered an “additional service viewing request”).
Regarding claims 7, 17, Goel teaches presenting the primary service information and the additional service information simultaneously in the aggregate page, wherein the primary service information is more prominently presented than the additional service information in the aggregate page (Figure 6).
Regarding claims 8, 18, Goel teaches the aggregate page comprises at least one of: a primary details viewing entry corresponding to the primary service, wherein the primary details viewing entry is triggered to jump to a service details page corresponding to the primary service, a details viewing entry corresponding to respective one of the at least one additional service, wherein the details viewing entry is triggered to jump to a service details page corresponding to the corresponding additional service, a primary form entry corresponding to the primary service, wherein the primary form entry is triggered to collect predetermined form information, or a form entry corresponding to respective one of the at least one additional service, wherein the form entry is triggered to collect predetermined form information (Paragraph 0044, clicking on the service providers profile to get more information).
Regarding claims 9, 19, Goel teaches the service viewing request comprises an advertisement viewing request corresponding to a service (Abstract, Paragraph 0047).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel (U.S. Pub No. 2017/0004548) in view of Miyazawa (U.S. Pub No. 2009/0247190), and further in view of Anderson (U.S. Patent No. 10,963,848).
Regarding claim 10, Goel does not appear to specify the service viewing request comprises the advertisement viewing request at a specific time and a specific position. However, Anderson teaches the service viewing request comprises the advertisement viewing request at a specific time and a specific position (Column 4 Lines 6-20, Column 10 Lines 3-21, requesting availability represents a specific time, requesting occupation type represents a specific position). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to search for an advertisement for a service according to time and position in order to best find the service provider that meets the user’s requirements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues “The Office's characterization of the claimed invention as "advertising of service providers by request" is unsupported by the claim language and constitutes improper hindsight reconstruction” and “Displaying information on a page in order to emphasize or prioritize certain information is not "advertising." Instead, these limitations describe a computer-implemented technique for controlling the presentation of a user interface”. However, Merriam Webster Online Dictionary defines advertisement as “a public notice”. Therefore, the presentation of the information of claim 1 is indeed an act of advertising. Further, recommendation of a content or service represents an advertisement for that content or service. Further, Applicant’s Background section of the instant specification explains the state of the field with regard to advertising systems, thus placing the claimed invention squarely within the realm of advertising.
Applicant cites Paragraphs 0036-0038 of the instant specification and states “Applicant's claims reflect the techniques for improving content presentation on client devices described in the Specification”. However, the portions of the specification cited by Applicant merely refer to improvements to the targeting of the recommendations. Efficiency of a user acquiring recommended information or an increase in probability that the recommended information is provided to the user is merely an improvement to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. In the SAP decision (See SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), the courts found that an improvement made to the abstract idea is not patent eligible. SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because there are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.
All other arguments are believed to have been addressed by the new grounds of rejection above.
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 MICHAEL BEKERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3256. The examiner can normally be reached 9PM-3PM EST M, T, TH, F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, WASEEM ASHRAF can be reached at (571) 270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL BEKERMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights