DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. 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 the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-20, under Step 1, the claims recite a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Under Step 2A claims 1-20 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites: A method for automatically initiating network operation processes associated with media elements without metadata, the method comprising: in response to an interaction with a commerce object of a media element presented on an electronic page, the interaction comprising a hover event associated with the media element, retrieving, by a processor, a user identifier associated with a product depicted within the media element, the hover event causing display of a second media element comprising an indication of the product; identifying, by the processor, an absence of metadata associated with the media element indicating any product attribute; responsive to the identifying the absence of metadata associated with the media element indicating any product attribute, identifying, by the processor, a product attribute, the identifying including: obtaining an image of the media element; and executing an image matching protocol using the obtained image to match the product with a previously known product and to identify the product attribute; retrieving, by the processor, user data and a preference based on the retrieved user identifier and the identified product attribute, the preference being extracted from at least one previously completed network operation associated with the user identifier; generating, by the processor, a message containing network operation attributes corresponding to the user data and the preference; transmitting, by the processor, the message to a server hosting the media element, wherein the message initiates a process using at least one of the network operation attributes; and providing, by the processor for display on an electronic device displaying the media element, a prompt configured to receive a confirmation associated with network operation.
The above limitations set forth a procedure for organizing human activity, such as by performing commercial interactions including marketing activity and business relations. This is because the claim recites the steps performed in order to facilitate transactions (Specification ¶0002). Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) the claim recites an abstract idea because the claim recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites additional elements, including an electronic page, a processor, metadata, at least one previously completed network operation, a server, and an electronic device.
These additional elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment. MPEP 2106.05.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Dependent claims 2-9 recite limitations which are similarly directed to and elaborate on the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 1. Thus, each of claims 2-9 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Furthermore, claims 2-9 do not set forth further additional elements. Considered both individually and as a whole, claims 2-9 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Lastly, under step 2B, dependent claims 2-9 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and specified at a high level of generality.
Claims 10-20 are parallel, i.e. recite similar concepts and elements, to claims 1-9, analyzed above, and the same rationale is applied.
In view of the above, claims 1-20 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Reasons for Allowability Over the Prior Art
The prior art includes Lee et al., US Patent 11,170,424 B1, which teaches systems and methods for dynamically ingesting and monitoring online products including identifying an absence of metadata associated with the media element and identifying a product attribute. However, Lee teaches prompting a user to manually enter the missing metadata rather than executing an image matching protocol to match the product with a previously known product. Baxter et al., US Patent 11,051,067 B1, cited by applicant, teaches an interactive video overlay including automated analysis of metadata associated with media elements but does not identify an absence of metadata. Baxter describes many motivations for improving electronic shopping using the known technique of automated metadata analysis but is silent with respect to an absence of metadata which Lee teaches to enter manually. Non-patent literature Grewal, Rajdeep, Sachin Gupta, and Rebecca Hamilton teaches marketing insights from multimedia data: text, image, audio, and video but does not cure the deficiencies noted above. The examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as combining various references from the totality of the evidence to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
It is thereby asserted by the examiner that, in light of the above and in further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims are allowable over the prior art as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-5549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B SEIBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights