DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response received on 17 November 2025.
Claims 1, 13, and 15 have been amended.
Claim 24 was previously canceled.
Claims 1-23 and 25 have been examined and are pending.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 17 November 2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 13, and 15 objected to because of the following informalities: The claims recite enabling the user interface to be populated from pre-ranted sets without waiting per-interaction computation, which appear to recite typos. The claims should recite enabling the user interface to be populated from pre-ranked sets without waiting pre-interaction computation. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
As indicated in the Office Action mailed on 26 June 2025, the claims recite allowable subject matter and would be allowable if the claims were rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 USC § 112 and 35 USC §101 indicated in the Office action below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amended independent claims recite:
automatically precomputing, prior to receiving user input, a set of candidate generic data descriptions and associated candidate data records based on at least one of orders previously received from the user, the precomputing producing ranked sets of candidate records for subsequent display;
automatically populating the user interface, using at least partially the precomputed candidate records, with specific data records at the slots of the first position and the slots of the second position based on the first generic data description and the second generic data description, wherein automatically populating the specific data records using at least partially the precomputed candidate records comprises:
wherein the precomputing of the candidate records reduces latency of the user interface by enabling the user interface to be populated from pre-ranted sets without waiting per-interaction computation
The disclosure is silent regarding the independent claims and the amended features of automatically precomputing of the set of candidate generic data descriptions and associated candidate data records. The disclosure is also silent on the automatically populating the user interface using at least partially the precomputed candidate records, and wherein the automatically populating the specific data records using at least partially the precomputed candidate records comprising any of the following steps in the claims, including the precomputing of the candidate records reduces latency of the user interface by enabling the user interface to be populated from pre-ranked sets without waiting pre-interaction computation. Specifically, the disclosure does not discuss or explain any step of precomputing the set of candidate generic data descriptions and associated candidate data records. This also means that since the disclosure is silent on this step of the claim, that the disclosure does not discuss any feature of precomputing, and therefore the interface is not understood to be automatically populated. It is also not discussed in the disclosure that any precomputing occurs to reduce latency of the user interface, where it is not discussed that the interface is populated from pre-ranked sets of items without waiting. The disclosure, however, does recite explanation of ranking sets of generic item descriptions (see paragraph [0007] of the Applicant’s specification), explains that items can be ranked on a probability that the user will purchase the items (see paragraphs [0011]-[0012] of the specification), but does not mention any type of precomputing any type of data, such as the set of candidate generic data descriptions and associated candidate data records, and does not mention any type reduction in latency of the user interface. Therefore, since the disclosure lacks explanation of these features, the current claims are considered to be new matter.
Claims 2-12 and 14-23, depending from claims 1 and 13 respectively, inherit the deficiencies noted above and are rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The amended independent claims recite:
automatically precomputing, prior to receiving user input, a set of candidate generic data descriptions and associated candidate data records based on at least one of orders previously received from the user, the precomputing producing ranked sets of candidate records for subsequent display;
automatically populating the user interface, using at least partially the precomputed candidate records, with specific data records at the slots of the first position and the slots of the second position based on the first generic data description and the second generic data description, wherein automatically populating the specific data records using at least partially the precomputed candidate records comprises:
wherein the precomputing of the candidate records reduces latency of the user interface by enabling the user interface to be populated from pre-ranted sets without waiting per-interaction computation
The limitations in this case, render the claims unclear as to what the precomputing a set of candidate generic data descriptions and associated candidate data records would entail, how the precomputing step is occurring, and how the precomputing produces the ranked sets of candidate records for display. Further, the claims are unclear as to how the precomputing of the candidate records would cause the interface to automatically populate specific data records, and is unclear how the precomputing of the candidate records would reduce latency of the user interface. There is no mention of how this precomputing is happening and what is involved with the precomputing, as there is no mention of precomputing or precomputations in the disclosure. Although paragraphs [0007], [0011]-[0012] of the Applicant’s specification do explain that there are rankings of generic item descriptions that occur, and that sets of specific items can be ranked, using the record of previous user purchases, and the probability of a purchase occurring of said items, but there is not mention of any type of precomputing any set of candidate generic data descriptions and associated candidate data records based on any of the previously received orders of a user. There is also no mention in the specification of how any type of precomputing occurs and then leads to a reduced latency of the user interface. As such, the metes and the bounds of the claim are unclear inasmuch as one of the ordinary skill in the art cannot determine how to avoid infringement of the claims because they are not apprised of how these features occurring. Claims 2-12 and 14-23, depending from claims 1 and 13 respectively, inherit the deficiencies noted above and are rejected for the same reasoning.
For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claim language to be as best understood.
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 1-23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis the claims are directed to statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03. Specifically, the method, as claimed in claims 1-12, is directed to a process. Additionally, the computer program product, as claimed in claims 13-23, is directed to an apparatus, and claim 25 is directed to a system.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites the abstract idea of providing data records (i.e., items), based on a taxonomy. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
storing a taxonomy at a concierge system, the taxonomy associating one or more generic data descriptions with one or more specific data records associated with a location;
automatically predetermining, prior to receiving user input, a set of candidate generic data descriptions and associated candidate data records based on at least one of orders previously received from the user, producing ranked sets of candidate records for subsequent display;
causing to display a region displaying depictions of different selected generic data descriptions, the region comprising a plurality of positions along a first axis, each position comprising a plurality of slots along a second axis different from the first axis;
receiving, at the concierge system, a selection of a first generic data description at a first position along the first axis and a selection of a second generic data description at a second position along the axis;
automatically populating, using at least partially the predetermined candidate records, with specific data records at the slots of the first position and the slots of the second position based on the first generic data description and the second generic data description, wherein automatically populating specific data records using at least partially the predetermined candidate records comprises:
identifying a first set of candidate data records based on the first generic data description in the taxonomy and a second set of candidate data records based on the second generic data description in the taxonomy;
predict a dynamic parameter at the location for each candidate data record of the first or second set, the dynamic parameter indicating a predicted status associated with the location of each candidate data record;
selecting specific data records associated with the first generic data description based on the predicted dynamic parameter; and
selecting additional specific data records associated with the second generic data description based on the dynamic parameter;
wherein the predetermining of the candidate records reduces latency by enabling the display to be populated from pre-ranted sets without waiting per-interaction; and
forming the user-specific display that is customized to the user based on the user’s selection of the first generic data description and the second generic data description and based on the dynamic parameters at the location indicating the predicted status associated with the data records, wherein forming the user-specific display comprises:
causing to display the selected specific data records at the slots of the first position along the axis of the display including an identifier of the selected first generic data description,
causing to display the selected additional specific data records at the slots of the second position along the axis.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a). The abstract idea identified above is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity because determining items based on a taxonomy and previous orders is a commercial or legal interaction and because it is a sales activity or behavior. Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements such as a user-specific interface, an online concierge system, precomputing, precomputed, the interface at a client device, the interface, via the user interface, applying a machine-learned model, the user-specific interface, and computation. Although reciting additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are recited in a generic manner and merely amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The courts have identified various examples of limitations as merely indicating a field of use/technological environment in which to apply the abstract idea, such as specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer. FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Similarly, specifying that the abstract idea of determining items based on a taxonomy occurs within an electronic world merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
As such, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the abstract idea and, thus, representative claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the 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). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘ad[d] nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’… [and] [v]iewed as a whole…[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-12 do not aid in the eligibility of independent claim 1. For example, claims 2-12 merely provide further embellishments of the abstract limitations recited in independent claim 1. Dependent claims 2-12 do not recite any additional elements supplemental to those recited in independent claim 1. Thus, dependent claims 2-12 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not recite anything amounting to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. As such, dependent claims 2-12 are ineligible for the same reasons described above for independent claim 1.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. Although literally invoking a computer program product and system (claims 13-23 & 25), the claims remain broadly and generally defined, with the claimed functionality paralleling that of method claims 1-12. Specifically, claims 13-23 & 25 recite the same abstract idea as identified in representative claims 1-12, therefore the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1. Claims 13-23 & 25 recite additional elements supplemental to those recite in representative claims 1-12, such as a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions encoded thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor and a processor, and memory configured to store instructions for customizing a user-specific interface, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform of the steps method. The additional elements recited in claims 13-23 & 25, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the same reasons stated as it relates to representative claims 1-12. Therefore, claims 13-23 & 25 are directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 2. Furthermore, the additional elements recited in claims 13-23 & 25 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons stated as it relates to representative claims 1-12. Therefore, claims 13-23 & 25 do not recite significantly more under Step 2B.
As such, claims 13-23 & 25 are rejected for at least similar rationale as discussed above.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s arguments filed on 17 November 2025, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. As such, the rejection is hereby maintained.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on pages 18-19 of the remarks stating “By automatically precomputing these records, the claimed system reduces interface latency and ensures that user-specific depictions and data records can be displayed immediately” and “These improvements are not directed to abstract recommendation practices but to a technical solution for reducing delays and inefficiencies in computer-human interaction” and further “improve the speed and reliability of the online concierge system” and “directly enhances computer functionality by enabling rapid, latency-reduced interface updates,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, the amended claims do not recite additional elements that would be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the claims do not reflect an improvement to the technology itself, nor do they reflect a technical solution to a technical problem. It is also noted that the amended features that include precomputing, are not described in the Applicant’s specification. The MPEP (2106.05(a)) provides further guidance on how to evaluate whether claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For example, as indicated in 2106.05(d)(1) of the MPEP “the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement,” and that “[t]he specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Looking to the specification is a standard that the courts have employed when analyzing claims as it relates to improvements in technology. For example, in McRO, the claimed improvement, as confirmed by the originally filed specification, was “…allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters…’” and it was “…the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks”. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016). Further, with respect to Trading Technologies, the improvement was found to be related in computerized trading related to speed, accuracy, and usability, and therefore the claims recited an inventive concept that “allows traders to more efficiently and accurately place trades” while using the system. The courts concluded that the system was not just improving the experience of the user, but rather improving the actual graphical user interface (GUI) devices that did not have a “pre-electronic trading analog” and recited more than just displaying and selecting data or information that is visible on the GUI device. Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
In this case, Applicant’s specification provides no explanation of an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology. Rather, the claims focus “on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool”. Id citing Enfish at 1327, 1336. This is reflected in paragraphs [0002]-[0004] of Applicant’s specification, which describe Applicant’s claimed invention is directed toward solving problems regarding users having to navigate through listings of items offered by a warehouse and selecting specific items for inclusion in an order, which may complicate a third party system to identify items. Although the amended claims include computer technology such as a user-specific interface, an online concierge system, precomputing, the interface at a client device, the interface, via the user interface, precomputed, applying a machine-learned model, user-specific interface, and computation, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the courts in cases such as McRO and Trading Tech. Unlike precedential cases, the specification of the instant invention does not identify such a specific improvement to computer capabilities. The instant claims are not directed to improving the existing technological process but are directed to improving the commercial task of providing data records (i.e., items), based on a taxonomy. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in improved display of specific items, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving the processor and computer components that operate the system. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing different data while still employing the same processor and computer components used in conventional systems to improve the providing of data records, e.g. commercial process. As such, the claims do not recite a technical solution that directly enhances computer functionality.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on page 19 of the remarks stating “the claims are directed to significantly more than generic data display or abstract user customization,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself and do not provide an inventive concept. The claims recite additional elements that are still recited in a generic manner, and amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore the Examiner maintains that the claims do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus, maintains the 101 rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4399. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/ASHLEY D PRESTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688