Patent Application 17657058 - Method Apparatus and Computer Program Product

Title: Method, Apparatus, and Computer Program Product for Generating Graphical User Interface for Facilating Complex User Interactions
Application Information

Invention Title: Method, Apparatus, and Computer Program Product for Generating Graphical User Interface for Facilating Complex User Interactions
Application Number: 17657058
Submission Date: 2025-05-12T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2022-03-29T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2022-03-29T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 705
National Sub-Class: 014530
Examiner Employee Number: 85229
Art Unit: 3685
Tech Center: 3600
Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 1
103 Rejections: 1
Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:
Office Action Text


    DETAILED ACTION
Status
This Final Office Action is in response to the communications filed on 10 March 2025. Claims 1-36 have been canceled currently or previously, claims 37, 44, and 51 have been amended, and no new claims have been added; therefore, claims 37-56 are pending and presented for examination.

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
A summary of the Examiner’s Response to Applicant’s amendment:
Applicant’s amendment appears to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC § 112; therefore, the Examiner withdraws the rejection(s).
Applicant’s amendment does not overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC § 101; therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejection(s) while updating phrasing in keeping with current examination guidelines.
Applicant’s amendment does not overcome the prior art rejection(s) under 35 USC §§ 102 or 103; therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejection(s) as below.
Applicant’s arguments are found to be not persuasive; please see the Response to Arguments below.

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 37-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see the following Subject Matter Eligibility (“SME”) analysis:

For analysis under SME Step 1, the claims herein are directed to an apparatus (claims 37-43), method (claims 44-50), and a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claims 51-56), which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (SME Step 1=Yes).

For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 1, claim 1 recites an apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory including computer-executable program instructions, the computer-executable program instructions configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to at least: retrieve consumer data from a content provider system via a network, wherein the consumer data is generated by a content provider application executing on a consumer device, wherein the content provider application is configured to communicate with the content provider system, and wherein the content provider application is configured to access data related to an audio or video file: (1) associated with a user of the consumer device, or (2) associated with a friend of the user of the consumer device connected via a social network; determine a geographic location of the consumer device based at least in part on GPS signals generated by the consumer device; determine a first filter criteria based at least in part on the determined geographic location; receive, at a promotion and marketing service system application executing on the consumer device, the geographic location of the consumer device, wherein the promotion and marketing service system application is configured to communicate with a promotion and marketing service system; retrieve, from a promotion and marketing service system database associated with the promotion and marketing system, a plurality of available promotions based at least in part on the first filter criteria, wherein each available promotion of the plurality of available promotions occurs within a predetermined distance of the geographic location, wherein the promotion and marketing service system database is accessed using the promotion and marketing service system application, and wherein the promotion and marketing service system application is distinct from the content provider application; receive survey data associated with the user via an interactive user interface of the consumer device; determine, based at least in part on the consumer data and at least in part on the survey data, a subset of filtered promotions from the plurality of available promotions that are determined to be relevant to the user; and output at least one of the subset of filtered promotions within the interactive user interface of the consumer device. 
The Examiner notes that the underlined terms above indicate the additional elements that are analyzed and considered below (at Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B).
The indicated claim elements reflect the claims being directed to tailoring content to a user based on collected user data. Although this summary and indication of an abstract idea is provided here, the Examiner notes that it is the full text and all elements of the claims that are being analyzed below, both as individual elements and as a whole, or ordered combination.
Independent Claim 44 is parallel to claim 37 above, but is directed to a computer-implemented method for generating an interactive user interface by at least one server comprising relevance determination circuitry, the at least one server in electronic communication with a consumer device and a content provider system via a network, the computer-implemented method comprising performing the same (or similar) activities as at claim 37. Independent claim 51 is also parallel to claim 37 above, but directed to a computer program product for generating an interactive user interface, the computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable program instructions which, when executed by a processor, configure the processor to perform the same (or similar) activities indicated above as at claim 37. Therefore, claims 44 and 51 are analyzed in the same manner as claim 37 above.
The claims, as indicated above, are found to be directed to at least one of certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. … commercial or legal interactions such as … advertising, marketing or sales activities/behaviors, or business relations…).
Dependent claims 38-43, 45-50, and 52-56 are encompassed by the abstract idea since they merely limit the abstract idea by reciting a second filter criteria based on interaction data (claims 38, 45, and 52), what consumer and/or consumer interaction data is used (claims 39-41, 46-48, and 53-55), identifying increased demand as a result based on the consumer data and generating a data file (i.e., storing information) (claims 42, 49, and 56), and the interface being further configured to facilitate purchasing (claims 43 and 50). 

For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 2, the above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception when evaluated individually and as a combination. The additional elements are the apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory including computer-executable program instructions, the computer-executable program instructions configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform the activities, via a network, consumer data is generated by a content provider application executing on a consumer device; wherein the content provider application is configured to communicate with the content provider system, the content provider application is configured to access data (of the user and a friend); location of a user being determined by or received from the consumer device based at least in part on GPS signals generated by the consumer device, receive, at a promotion and marketing service system application executing on the consumer device, the geographic location of the consumer device, wherein the promotion and marketing service system application is configured to communicate with a promotion and marketing service system and the use of the consumer device , an application, a system, and the promotion and marketing system is accessed using a promotion and marketing service application that is distinct from the content provider application (at claim 37, 44, and 51); a computer-implemented method via or by at least one server comprising relevance determination circuitry, the at least one server in electronic communication with a consumer device and a content provider system via a network, the computer-implemented method comprising performing the same (or similar) activities as at claim 37 (for claim 44), and a computer program product for generating an interactive user interface, the computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable program instructions which, when executed by a processor, configure the processor to perform the same (or similar) activities indicated above as at claim 37 (for claim 51).
The promotion and marketing system, interactive interface, and use of devices, the devices connected via network, the apparatus and medium with instructions executed by processor, are each using computers as a version of “[a]dding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice” that is generally not considered significant (see MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A)). Applicant’s discussion of the promotion and marketing system, as well as the computers in general used to implement the invention (Applicant paragraphs 0039, 0061, and 00115) indicate the use of a server in general and a general purpose computer (which may be the server). 
The use of GPS for location determinations is considered insignificant since that is what GPS is designed and intended to do, and there are no changes or inventive aspects related to how the GPS and/or GPS data is being used. Further, using GPS for location determination appears to be “[r]eceiving or transmitting data over a network” as indicated by MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), citing to Symantec, TLI Comms., OIP Techs., and buySAFE as generally considered to be insignificant.
The “interactive user interface” is included in the abstract idea since it has an analog in human communications outside the computer-implemented field, such as, e.g., in-person or face-to-face communication (as a form of “interfacing”), communication by telephone, telegraph, etc. (as remote communications), and/or written communications such as letters, filling out forms, surveys, etc., and then sending or receiving information back in response to earlier communications (via the same or complementary communication forms).
That the promotion and marketing system is accessed via a separate application from the content provider application merely appears to indicate, or encompass, that a content provider uses a user/customer application or API for communication between those entities, and a different application or API for communication between the content provider and the promotion and marketing system or service. There is no described or apparent change or improvement to any application or API technology, the application(s) and use thereof is described and claimed at a very high level of generality. As such, this appears to be insignificant with regard to eligibility.
These identified additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field, effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement the judicial exception with, or by using in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and/or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generically linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The computer functions just as it would otherwise, it merely collects specified data to perform the analysis indicated; however, the specific data is a field of use that is generally not granted significance or patentable weight (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). There is no relation to treatment or prophylaxis for disease or a medical condition, nor is there any transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.  Further, the computer(s) used are not indicated or described as any particular machine, but rather a generic or general purpose computer such as a personal computer, laptop, tablet, or cellular phone for examples (see Applicant ¶¶ 0066 and 00115). The Examiner notes that when data is received, how it was generated or what source it came from appears merely descriptive to the analysis or processing involved: for example, if/when the data “ABC123” is received, whether that data was generated by an app, a particular app, a random generation, a 10 year old in Russia, or by any other means, is apparently merely descriptive and immaterial to the analysis or processing that is performed – “ABC123” is still the same “ABC123” data regardless of where it came from or how it was generated. The claims merely receive the data and analyze or process it, apparently regardless of source or generation (i.e., the description makes no distinction regarding any different processing based on origin of the data, but also indicates that data, such as discretionary data, may be from various sources). 
The claims appear to merely apply the judicial exception, include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The idea and processing/analysis is applied via computer, where the computer appears to merely be the tool used (rather than a person performing the analysis) since operating in a computer environment as a field of use. The additional elements appear to merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as indicated above.
The Examiner notes that Applicant’s Background (Applicant ¶ 0003, as submitted) indicates “Promotion and marketing services seek to encourage consumers to explore and discover available promotions that the consumer may be interested in, and … a number of deficiencies and problems associated with the methods and systems used to, among other things, identify promotions which may have a particular relevance to a consumer have been identified”, but Applicant never reveals or discusses what those problems are. Further, the Background describes that “Through applied effort, ingenuity, and innovation, many of these identified problems have been solved by developing solutions that are included in embodiments of the present invention, some examples of which are described herein”. However, the “solution” to the “problems” (that are NOT actually identified by the description) appears to be indicated at the “Overview” (Applicant ¶ 0058) where is it described that “consumers are providing various signals to various products, services, and the like through their various interactions with content provider systems”, and “such services may be television, video, and/or music services, [and/or] may include shopping, travel, and/or the like” and “[a]dditionally or alternatively, users may be interacting with various social networks … [and], the consumer may be sending disparate signals to a number of different services or networks.” Therefore, the “solution” to the “problem” is merely the abstract idea of gathering user information and determining which content to provide to the user based on criteria such as location and/or relevance, i.e., “tailoring content to a user based on collected user data”.

For analysis under SME Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as indicated above, the additional elements do not appear to add any specific limitation or combination of limitations that may be considered significant. The additional elements apply the idea on a computer, gather and store data, and/or indicate fields of use or descriptive matter that is generally not considered significant – see MPEP §§ 2106.05(I)(A), 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(h) as indicated above. As such the additional elements, as indicated above, are merely “[a]dding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp.” that MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A) indicates to be insignificant activity.
Further, even if the claim activity were to be considered at Step 2B, MPEP §§ 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that at least “[r]eceiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data” (Symantec, TLI Comms. OIP Techs., buySAFE), “[p]erforming repetitive calculations” (Flook, Bancorp), “[e]lectronic recordkeeping” (Alice, Ultramercial), “[s]toring and retrieving information in memory” (Versata, OIP Techs.), “[e]lectronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document” (Content Extraction), and “[a] web browser’s back and forward button functionality” (Internet Patent Corp) are elements the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (“WURC”). At the claims, the retrieving, receiving, and outputting activities (i.e., “retrieve consumer data…”, “retrieve … available promotions …”, “receive discretionary data”, and “output … filtered promotions …”) would therefore be understood to be WURC as at least a form of receiving or transmitting over a network and/or storing and retrieving information. The determining steps (i.e., “determine geographic location …”, “determine … filter criteria …”, and “determine … filtered promotions …”) would be understood to merely indicate storing and retrieving information – location data is received and Applicant ¶ 0072 indicates that this is used to retrieve a location, similarly, filter criteria appear to be merely retrieved and matched (see Applicant ¶¶ 0071-0074). Therefore, the majority of the claim activity (literally – all the elements) – even if not considered part of the abstract idea (however, they are identified as included in the abstract idea as indicated above) – would also be considered insignificant.
There is no indication the Examiner can find in the record regarding any specialized computer hardware or other “inventive” components, but rather, the claims merely indicate computer components which appear to be generic components and therefore do not satisfy an inventive concept that would constitute “significantly more” with respect to eligibility.
The individual elements therefore do not appear to offer any significance beyond the application of the abstract idea itself, and there does not appear to be any additional benefit or significance indicated by the ordered combination, i.e., there does not appear to be any synergy or special import to the claim as a whole other than the application of the idea itself.
The dependent claims, as indicated above, only limit the data being used and the application of the idea itself, and therefore do not add significantly more than the idea.
Therefore, SME Step 2B=No, any additional elements, whether taken individually or as an ordered whole in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, including analysis of the dependent claims.  

Please see the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) guidance and instruction materials at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility, which includes the latest guidance, memoranda, and update(s) for further information.

NOTICE
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA  35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.  

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 of this title, 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.


Claim(s) 37-41, 44-41, and 51-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Kendall (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0197724), which incorporates Narayanan et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,244,848, hereinafter Narayanan), by reference at Kendall ¶ 0018 (and therefore is considered part of Kendall) and which also incorporates D’Angelo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0070219, hereinafter D’Angelo) by reference at Kendall ¶ 0020 (and therefore is also considered part of Kendall) in view of Gravino et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,356,035, hereinafter Gravino) and in further view of Riedl et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0060229, hereinafter Riedl).

Claim 37: Kendall discloses an apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory including computer-executable program instructions, the computer-executable program instructions configured to, with the at least one processor, (see at least Kendall at 0045-0047; citation by number only hereinafter) cause the apparatus to at least:
retrieve consumer data from a content provider system via a network (0013, “the social networking system may create and store a record, often referred to as a "user profile", in connection with the user … [and] relating to activities or actions of the user. For example, the user may provide his name, profile picture, contact information, birth date, gender, marital status, family status, employment, education background, preferences, interests, and other demographical information to be included in his user profile”, 0016, application generation, 0020, “provide an advertisement that are targeted to a user who is likely to be interested in the advertisement. U.S. application Ser. No. 12/195,321, incorporated by reference in its entirety for all purposes, describes a system that selects advertisements by matching targeting criteria of advertisements and a user's user profile information and past actions, and presents the selected advertisements to the user” – US Application 12/195,321 being published as D’Angelo, 2009/0070219, incorporated into Kendall as above),
wherein the consumer data is generated by a content provider application executing on a consumer device (0013, “the social networking system may create and store a record, often referred to as a "user profile", in connection with the user … [and] relating to activities or actions of the user. For example, the user may provide his name, profile picture, contact information, birth date, gender, marital status, family status, employment, education background, preferences, interests, and other demographical information to be included in his user profile”, 0016, application generation, 0037 and 0060, communication via an API, 0020, “provide an advertisement that are targeted to a user who is likely to be interested in the advertisement. U.S. application Ser. No. 12/195,321, incorporated by reference in its entirety for all purposes, describes a system that selects advertisements by matching targeting criteria of advertisements and a user's user profile information and past actions, and presents the selected advertisements to the user” – US Application 12/195,321 being published as D’Angelo, 2009/0070219, incorporated into Kendall as above),
wherein the content provider application is configured to communicate with the content provider system (Kendall at 0013, 0016, 0020, 0037, 0060, as indicated above where providing the user profile and receiving targeted advertising indicates communication via the content provider system), and
determine a geographic location of the consumer device based at least in part on GPS signals generated by the consumer device (0026, 0028, 0032);
determine a first filter criteria based at least in part on the determined geographic location (0027-0028, within threshold or pre-determined distance);
receive, at a promotion and marketing service system application executing on the consumer device, the geographic location of the consumer device (Kendall at 0019, “The client application may automatically access Global Positioning System (GPS) or other geo-location functions supported by the mobile device and report the user's current location”),
wherein the promotion and marketing service system application is configured to communicate with a promotion and marketing service system (Kendall at 0013, 0016, 0019-0020, 0037, 0060, as above where by definition an entity’s system application – such as an API – communicates with that entities system: it would not be the promotion and marketing service system’s application if it didn’t communicate with/to the promotion and marketing service system application);
retrieve, from a promotion and marketing service system database associated with the promotion and marketing service system, a plurality of available promotions based at least in part on the first filter criteria (0027-0028, distance threshold, 0029, “rank the list of places based on respective distances between the target user’s location and each place”, 0032);
wherein each available promotion of the plurality of available promotions occurs within a predetermined distance of the geographic location (Kendall at 0027, “In particular embodiments, places service 110 may access location database 104 to identify a set of one or more places wherein a place identifier (e.g., a name, a metadata value) of each place matches the character string partially or completely and where the place is within some threshold distance of the user's current location”, 0028, “the mobile advertising process may generate the list of places comprising one or more places within a pre-determined distance from the target user's location”),
receive survey data associated with the user via an interactive user interface of the consumer device (0013, profile information, 0014, “The user may provide information relating to various aspects of the user (such as contact information and interests) at the time the user registers for an account or at a later time. The user may also update his or her profile information at any time”, 0019, “In addition to user profile and place information, the social networking system may track or maintain other information about the user. For example, the social networking system may support geo-social networking system functionality including one or more location-based services that record the user's location”, 0020, “matching targeting criteria of advertisements and a user's user profile information and past actions, and presents the selected advertisements to the user”);
determine, based at least in part on the consumer data and at least in part on the survey data, a subset of filtered promotions from the plurality of available promotions that are determined to be relevant to the user (0013, profile information, 0014, “The user may provide information relating to various aspects of the user (such as contact information and interests) at the time the user registers for an account or at a later time. The user may also update his or her profile information at any time”, 0019, “In addition to user profile and place information, the social networking system may track or maintain other information about the user. For example, the social networking system may support geo-social networking system functionality including one or more location-based services that record the user's location”, 0020, “matching targeting criteria of advertisements and a user's user profile information and past actions, and presents the selected advertisements to the user”); and
output at least one of the subset of filtered promotions within the interactive user interface of the consumer device (0029, 0032, Figs. 3, 3A, 4, 4A).
Kendall, however, does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one application comprises data related to an audio or video file: (1) associated with a user of the consumer device, or (2) associated with a friend of the user of the consumer device connected via a social network, wherein the consumer data comprises data associated with the audio or video file, and wherein the promotion and marketing service system is accessed using the promotion and marketing service system application, and wherein the promotion and marketing service system application is distinct from the content provider application. Gravino, though, teaches “provid[ing] recommendations based on common interests in social networks” (Gravino at column:lines 2:36-37; citation hereinafter by number only) where “ a social network may possibly contain all or nearly all of a user's friends; however, such social networks may be stymied from making relevant recommendations because they may not be able to see all the video, movies, music, etc. that the user and his social media friends consume, but only those activities that users actively publish. Embodiments may utilize a collaboration of social network information (e.g., a user's social media contacts) and information provided by MSOs, telcos, and satellite providers (e.g., a user's consumption history) to provide social media friend-based recommendations” (Gravino at 3:7-17) such as where “a user 102 may provide his social network credentials to a video services provider 106 such that the video services provider 106 may be able to retrieve a user's social network contact list 110 and attempt to match the list with a known database of the provider's customers to provide social network contact-based recommendations” (Gravino at 4:49-55), and as part of the Background of the invention, Gravino indicates that “It is common for various social media networks to provide social activity with information about various categories of interest of a user's social media friends” (Gravino at 1:25-27) so that “[a]utomated recommendations, advertisements, and other features and capabilities may be provided to the user based on the activity information and media consumption data of the subset of social media friends”, i.e., more specifically targeted recommendations may be made (Gravino at 1:62-65). Therefore, the base system and/or methods of providing recommendations as in Kendall would be predictably improved or modified by the known technique of a social network providing activity of a user and/or friends of a user to a separate entity so as to provide recommendations as indicated in Gravino so as to yield the predictable result of providing more specifically targeted recommendations. As such, the Examiner understands and finds that to associate audio or video data related to a user and/or user friends of a user to a separate application is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to provide more specifically targeted recommendations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine or modify the recommendations of Kendall with the audio/video recommendations of Gravino in order to associate audio or video data related to a user and/or user friends of a user to a separate application so as to provide more specifically targeted recommendations.
The rationale for combining in this manner is that to associate audio or video data related to a user and/or user friends of a user to a separate application is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to provide more specifically targeted recommendations as explained above.
Kendall in view of Gravino, however, does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the promotion and marketing system is accessed using a promotion and marketing service application that is distinct from the content provider application. Riedl, though, teaches “an application program interface (API) for facilitating communication” (Riedl at 0024), where “[t]he API of the present invention may further comprise means for the second computer to acknowledge to the first computer that playback of an advertisement associated with the advertisement identifier is complete, means for the second computer to alert the first computer that a new advertisement is available, means for the first computer to instruct the second computer to list a set of available advertisements, and means for the second computer to transmit a listing of the set of available advertisements in response to the first computer's instruction” (Riedl at 0025, with similar indication at 0028), so as to “receive [an] advertisement and its metadata from the advertiser … [and] package [the] advertisement for distribution by a distribution system” (Riedl at 0055). Therefore, the base system and/or methods of providing recommendations as in Kendall in view of Gravino would be predictably improved or modified by the API communications as indicated in Riedl so as to yield the predictable result of using an application distinct from the user-content provider application to communicate in order to provide a list of available advertisements/promotions. As such, the Examiner understands and finds that to access the promotion and marketing system to retrieve available promotions using an application distinct from the content provider application is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to provide a list of available advertisements/promotions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine or modify the recommendations of Kendall in view of Gravino with the API use of Riedl in order to access the promotion and marketing system to retrieve available promotions using an application distinct from the content provider application so as to provide a list of available advertisements/promotions.
The rationale for combining in this manner is that to access the promotion and marketing system to retrieve available promotions using an application distinct from the content provider application is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to provide a list of available advertisements/promotions as explained above.

Claim 38: Kendall in view of Gravino and in further view of Riedl discloses the apparatus of claim 37, wherein the computer-executable program instructions are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to at least:
identify, based at least in part on analysis of the consumer data, at least another user of the content provider application executing on the consumer device (0013, “The user may identify other users of the social networking system that the user considers to be his friends. A list of the user's friends or first degree contacts may be included in the user's profile” and “Connections may be added explicitly by a user, for example, the user selecting a particular other user to be a friend”, 0015, “A social network system may maintain social graph information, which can generally model the relationships among groups of individuals, and may include relationships ranging from casual acquaintances to close familial bonds”, 0016, “allow users to post photographs and other multimedia files to a user's profile, such as in a wall post or in a photo album, both of which may be accessible to other users of the social networking system”, 0019, “In addition to user profile and place information, the social networking system may track or maintain other information about the user. For example, the social networking system may support geo-social networking system functionality including one or more location-based services that record the user's location.”);
determine, a second filter criteria based at least on consumer interaction data associated with the at least another user (0013, “The user may identify other users of the social networking system that the user considers to be his friends. A list of the user's friends or first degree contacts may be included in the user's profile” and “Connections may be added explicitly by a user, for example, the user selecting a particular other user to be a friend”, 0015, “A social network system may maintain social graph information, which can generally model the relationships among groups of individuals, and may include relationships ranging from casual acquaintances to close familial bonds”, 0016, “allow users to post photographs and other multimedia files to a user's profile, such as in a wall post or in a photo album, both of which may be accessible to other users of the social networking system”, 0019, “In addition to user profile and place information, the social networking system may track or maintain other information about the user. For example, the social networking system may support geo-social networking system functionality including one or more location-based services that record the user's location.”); and
determine, at least one of the subset of filtered promotions based at least in part on the second filter criteria (0013, “The user may identify other users of the social networking system that the user considers to be his friends. A list of the user's friends or first degree contacts may be included in the user's profile” and “Connections may be added explicitly by a user, for example, the user selecting a particular other user to be a friend”, 0015, “A social network system may maintain social graph information, which can generally model the relationships among groups of individuals, and may include relationships ranging from casual acquaintances to close familial bonds”, 0016, “allow users to post photographs and other multimedia files to a user's profile, such as in a wall post or in a photo album, both of which may be accessible to other users of the social networking system”, 0019, “In addition to user profile and place information, the social networking system may track or maintain other information about the user. For example, the social networking system may support geo-social networking system functionality including one or more location-based services that record the user's location.”). 

Claim 39: Kendall (as incorporating Narayanan) in view of Gravino discloses the apparatus of claim 38, wherein the consumer interaction data comprises one or more of purchase information and recommendation information generated by the at least another user via a second user interface of another consumer device (Narayanan at 36:44-37:6 – citations hereafter by number only, “displays comments, status updates, wall posts and other user activities associated with the user and friends of the user that are viewing the hub” – at 36:46-48, and “a user requesting or currently viewing another user's profile page within a recommendations section displayed on the other user's profile page” – at 37:4-6).

Claim 40: Kendall (as incorporating D’Angelo) in view of Gravino discloses the apparatus of claim 38, wherein the consumer data comprises audio and video data generated by a first content provider application executing on the consumer device and social network data generated by a second content provider application executing on the consumer device (D’Angelo at 0022-0023, profile including a connection to a group such as a fan club and indicating listening to songs and watching videos as activity related to the fan club, and the Examiner understanding that the listening and/or watching is not, or not necessarily, at/via the social networking website, but would therefore include separate applications). 

Claim 41: Kendall (as incorporating D’Angelo) in view of Gravino discloses the apparatus of claim 38, wherein the consumer interaction data comprises at least one of audio data, video data, clickstream data, and activity data associated with the at least another user (D’Angelo at 0022-0023, profile including a connection to a group such as a fan club and indicating listening to songs and watching videos as activity related to the fan club, the fan club group indicating others also listening and watching). 

Claims 44-48 and 51-55 are rejected on the same basis as claims 37-41 above since Kendall discloses the computer-implemented method for generating an interactive user interface by at least one server comprising relevance determination circuitry, the at least one server in electronic communication with a consumer device and a content provider system via a network (for claims 44-48) and a computer program product for generating an interactive user interface, the computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable program instructions which, when executed by a processor, configure the processor to (for claims 51-55) perform activities comprising the same or similar operations as at claims 37-41 above (Kendall at 0045-0047).

Claims 42-43, 49-50, and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kendall in view of Gravino in further view of Mason (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0287103).

Claims 42, 49, and 56: Kendall in view of Gravino discloses the apparatus, method and program product of claims 37, 44, and 51, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the computer-executable program instructions are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to at least: identify, based at least in part on the consumer data, an increased demand for a particular product or service; and generate a data file comprising analytic data associated with at least one product or service corresponding with the subset of filtered promotions. Mason, however, teaches tracking and recording a “minimum number of sales of the goods or services … as the tipping point” (Mason at 0018), “along with a guarantee that the sale price will only have to be honored if a minimum number of customers not only accept the offer, but also pay the discounted price in advance, for the goods or services. Accordingly, a merchant can provide a greater or deeper discount knowing that at least a certain number of sales will occur at that discount.” (Mason at 0019), where “if the minimum number of sales are attained, the money from the sales can be immediately (or soon thereafter) provided to the merchant, thereby providing the merchant with the revenue from the sale of the goods or services in advance of the merchant providing the goods or services to the customer” (Mason at 0020), and “The sale price may remain available for a limited time, for example, twelve hours or one day, or until the number of sales equals or exceeds the minimum or tipping point by a given amount. For example, the tipping point may be reached when 100 individuals accept an offer to purchase a discounted sandwich, and the offer ends when 200 individuals accept the offer” (Mason at 0021). Therefore, Mason is tracking and recording increased demand and also storing analytic data associated with those products in order “to mutually satisfy the consumer with a discount for the purchase of goods or services on the one hand, and the vendor with a minimum number of sales” (Mason at 0018). Therefore, the Examiner understands and finds that identifying increased demand and generating an analytic data file associated with a product or service is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to record and promote consumer purchases.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine or modify the location based advertising of Kendall in view of Gravino with the data recording of Mason in order to identify increased demand and generate an analytic data file associated with a product or service so as to record and promote consumer purchases.
The rationale for combining in this manner is that identifying increased demand and generating an analytic data file associated with a product or service is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to record and promote consumer purchases as explained above.

Claim 43: Kendall in view of Gravino discloses the apparatus of claim 37, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the interactive user interface is further configured to facilitate purchase of at least one of the subset of filtered promotions. Mason, however, teaches tracking and recording a “minimum number of sales of the goods or services … as the tipping point” (Mason at 0018), “along with a guarantee that the sale price will only have to be honored if a minimum number of customers not only accept the offer, but also pay the discounted price in advance, for the goods or services. Accordingly, a merchant can provide a greater or deeper discount knowing that at least a certain number of sales will occur at that discount.” (Mason at 0019), where “each customer that has accepted the offer is charged using their method of payment, i.e., credit card, debit card, Paypal®, or in other ways utilizing a method of payment. The customer is then provided with a receipt of purchase, such as an email, coupon, gift certificate, etc. that can be printed out for redemption (or used as a receipt on a cell phone, etc.).” (Mason at 0026). Therefore, Mason is tracking and recording increased demand and also storing analytic data associated with those products in order “to mutually satisfy the consumer with a discount for the purchase of goods or services on the one hand, and the vendor with a minimum number of sales” (Mason at 0018). Therefore, the Examiner understands and finds that facilitating purchase of promotions is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to record and promote consumer purchases.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine or modify the location based advertising of Kendall in view of Gravino with the purchasing of Mason in order facilitate purchase of promotions so as to record and promote consumer purchases.
The rationale for combining in this manner is that facilitating purchase of promotions is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to record and promote consumer purchases as explained above.

Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 March 2025 and  have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.

Applicant first argues the 112 rejections (Remarks at 11); however, the amendment appears to overcome the rejections. Therefore, the rejections are withdrawn and the argument is considered moot and not persuasive.

Applicant then argues the 101 rejections (Remarks at 11-14), first repeating the claim 37 activities, italicizing some elements – apparently those related to a content provider and consumer device as using an application to communicate (Id. at 11-12), and then arguing “the amended claims relate to a unique computer embodied innovation with no abstract or non-computer based equivalent” (Id. at 12-13). However, the Examiner notes Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 2015-2080 (Fed. Cir. 2016) affirmed a magistrate judge and U.S. district court  indicating that a system targeting information to a user, such as via network delivery and including targeted advertising, is an abstract idea (Id. at 4-5). Where Affinity is addressed to a system, the court agreed that physical components do not escape the reach of the abstract idea inquiry (Id. at 6), and that "the physical components ‘merely provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner’” (Id., citing TLI).  Where the claims in Affinity Labs v. Amazon were directed to a “system [that] delivers streaming content from a network-based resource upon demand to a handheld wireless communication device having a graphical user interface” (Id. at 4), the court indicated that customization (Affinity arguing "the recitation of a 'customized user interface'" indicated eligible subject matter), such as targeting to user information, including location information, has been recognized as also being abstract (Id. at 9-10, citing to Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank). Similarly here, the claims indicate targeting to particular criteria, but the steps are essentially receiving (i.e., collecting) information and analyzing it so as to provide the results, and as such the claims appear analogous.
Applicant then argues “[t]he independent claims solve problems … [where] “[s]uch solutions are limited to the technical problem for which they are directed” (Remarks at 13). However, there is no identified “technical problem” – the only apparent indication of using technology (such that there could be a “technical problem”) is the mere sending and receiving of information via applications, but neither the sending and receiving nor the applications are indicated as changed, improved, or modified. What Applicant is apparently arguing is what data is being sent and/or received; however, various precedent (such as Electric Power Group) indicate that the data being used is not a technical improvement. The Examiner notes that 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 (SAP v. Investpic, slip op at p. 2, line 22 – p. 3, line 13, 898 F.3d 1161, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2018). And 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 (Id., slip op. at p. 10, lines 18-24, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167).
Applicant then alleges “claims 37 - 56 recite one more elements that reflect at least ‘an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field,’ in accordance with MPEP §2106.05(a) and relevant court precedent” (Remarks at 14); however, Applicant does not indicate or imply which elements, or what combination of elements would possibly be an improvement to anything. Therefore, Applicant's argument fails to comply with 37 CFR1.111(b) because it amounts to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them.
Applicant then continues by alleging that “For example, the independent claims recite limitations configured to improve the efficiency of a consumer device. By utilizing consumer data, across applications, storage of duplicate data may be reduced, reducing the amount of memory utilized by applications on the consumer device. In addition, utilizing consumer data captured from a distinct application may reduce the interaction time with a user of the promotion and marketing service system application. Reduced interaction time may increase battery life of a consumer device and/or reduce data traffic” (Id.). However, the claims do not appear to indicate or require any of this – in fact, data storage appears duplicated or multiplied (and memory demand increased if anything) in that various pieces of information are indicated as being sent and received between computers/devices where each then must also store that information. There does not appear to be any reduced interaction time since the claims indicate repeatedly interacting by sending and receiving information between the entities.
Applicant then alleges that “Moreover, one or more elements of the Claims ‘appl[y] or use[] the [alleged] judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the [alleged] judicial exception to a particular technological environment,’ in accordance with MPEP §2106.05(e) and relevant court precedent” (Remarks at 14). However, Applicant does not indicate or imply which elements, or what combination of elements would possibly be meaningful, or how or why any elements would be meaningful. Therefore, Applicant's argument fails to comply with 37 CFR1.111(b) because it amounts to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them.
The response then indicates that “Applicant does not offer additional Step 2B arguments at this time”. (Remarks at 14).
Applicant then argues the prior art rejections (Remarks at 14-18), first repeating claim 37 (Id. at 15-16), describing Kendall and Riedl generally (Id. at 16-17), then alleging that “Communication between two computers to facilitate the coordination of the display of advertisements, is not the same as a consumer device comprising a distinct promotion and marketing service system application and a content provider application” (Id. at 17). However, Applicant does not provide any reasoning or explanation as to why this may be considered as true – that “a consumer device comprising a distinct promotion and marketing service system application and a content provider application” is somehow different. As explained at Riedl ¶ 0024, “an application program interface (API) [is] for facilitating communication between a first computer and a second computer” – the first computer can request registration from the second computer, which then responds, etc. This is to say that the API as described by Riedl is a “tunnel” or connection between two computers – it is not a connection that includes a third computer or other computers. As such, an API that communicates with a/the promotion and marketing system is a/the promotion and marketing system API (i.e., application), and an API that communicates with a/the content provider is a/the content provider API (i.e., application).
Applicant then relies on the above for the dependent claims (Remarks at 17-18), and as such, the Examiner relies on the above explanation in response.

Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.

The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.

Singer, Natasha, Listen to Pandora, and It Listens Back, from the New York Times [online], dated 4 January 2014, downloaded 28 January 2021 from https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/technology/pandora-mines-users-data-to-better-target-ads.html indicates that for Pandora, “[a]fter years of customizing playlists to individual listeners by analyzing components of the songs they like, then playing them tracks with similar traits, the company has started data-mining users’ musical tastes for clues about the kinds of ads most likely to engage them” and also further indicating travel ads (at 1).
Selig et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0334644, hereinafter Selig) discusses “One variation of a method for augmenting a listening experience of a user through an audio device includes: detecting a location of the audio device; selecting a set of audio output feedbacks, each audio output feedback in the set of audio output feedback entered by an individual and associated with a physical site proximal to the location; identifying a common feature across audio output feedbacks within the set of audio output feedbacks; transforming an audio signal into a processed audio signal according to a hearing profile of the user and the common feature; and outputting the processed audio signal through the audio device” (Selig at Abstract).
Bauman et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0086368, hereinafter Bauman) discusses “An online advertisement is targeted to a publication medium (e.g., a website) based on a location of a user visiting the website … [and t]he targeted advertisements can include a click-to-call link and/or other features for allowing a user to interact with and explore the targeted advertisement.
Redstone et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0047129, hereinafter Redstone) incorporated by reference into Kendall at Kendall ¶ 0019 (and therefore is considered part of Kendall), discusses “In one embodiment, a user of a social networking system requests to check in a place near the user's current location. The social networking system generates a list of places near the user's current location, ranks the places in the list of places near the user's current location by a distance between each place and the user's current location, as well as activity of the user and the user's social contacts for each place, and returns the ranked list to the user.” (Abstract).
Sharon et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0083101, hereinafter Sharon) incorporated by reference into Kendall at Kendall ¶ 0019 (and therefore is considered part of Kendall), discusses “A method and/or system allows a user of a social networking service to publish a content item tagged with location information for sharing with other users of the social networking service. The user publishing the content item performs operations on the originating device to generate the content item. The originating communication device attaches the location information to the content item, and transmits the content item to a social networking system. The social networking system may provide various location-based services based on the content item tagged with the location information.” (Abstract).
Occhino et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0004692, hereinafter Occhino), discusses “To enhance information about connections in a social networking service, embodiments of the invention enable users to reference nodes while posting content to a communication channel. To identify connections within content in the social networking service, users of the social networking service are provided an interface to post content items in communication channels of the social networking service. A trigger received in the interface indicates that a user wishes to identify a connection in the posted content item. Selectable links enable the user to mention another node in the social networking service when posting a content item. As users reference nodes in content items, information about the connections with the referenced nodes is gathered and stored in a database that is indexable and searchable in real-time.” (Abstract).
Lee et al., "Building Location-Based Service Based on Social Network API: An Example of Check-In App," 2013 IEEE International Conference on Green Computing and Communications and IEEE Internet of Things and IEEE Cyber, Physical and Social Computing, Beijing, China, 2013, pp. 1904-1909, doi: 10.1109/GreenCom-iThings-CPSCom.2013.354. downloaded 4 December 2024 from https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6682365, indicating that “With the rapid progress of sensing and tracking technology, more and more location-based services (LBS) and applications are nowadays available in the market. But while it is convenient to retrieve various kinds of information via LBS, it is not easy to build up LBS apps which support a large amount of users and information. Therefore, it is important for developers to utilize the free application programming interface (API) resources available on the Internet for harvesting the benefit of the cloud computing, particularly for individual developers who have limited resources. This research explores the benefits of building LBS service/application based on free APIs and service-oriented computing (SOC). Using a social check-in app as example, the design and implementation of a smartphone application using the proposed approach will be described in this article. Moreover, by comparing with some other smartphone applications which also provide check-in services, the advantages and potential value of our approach to integrating social network APIs and SOC concept will be discussed” (at Abstract).

Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT D GARTLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5501.  The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 AM - 5 PM.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.





/Scott D Gartland/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685