DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response received on 13 October 2025.
Claims 1, 12, and 23 have been amended.
Claim 22 was previously canceled.
Claims 1-21 and 23 are pending and have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 13 October 2025 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
As indicated in the Office Action mailed on 13 February 2024, claims 1-21 and 23 recite allowable subject matter, and would be allowable if the claims were rewritten to overcome the 101 rejection stated in this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12, and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims recite automatically precomputing, without additional input from the user and concurrently with displaying a set of data records in the user interface, which appears to be typographical errors, since a set of data records has already been recited in previous limitations, and should be written as automatically precomputing, without additional input from the user and concurrently with displaying [[a ]] the set of data records in the user interface. Appropriate correction is required.
Further, the claims appear to be missing the proper punctuation mark, as the claim now recites arranging a second set of one or more specific data records in the second selected category along the first axis in the display slots and, which should be corrected to either include a comma or a semi-color after the term slots. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under step 1 of the analysis, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention (see MPEP 2106.03(II)). In the instant case, claims 1-11 are directed to a method, and claims 12-21 are directed to a product of manufacture, and claim 23 is directed to a system.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites an abstract idea of improving selection of data records. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
obtaining a taxonomy of the data records at a system, the taxonomy associating one or more categories with one or more data records;
receiving a request to create a user-selected list from a user;
receiving a selection of a set of one or more data records for inclusion in the user-selected list;
monitoring the user-selected list as the real-time user-selected data records;
causing automatically populate the display slots with one or more data records in the taxonomy, wherein display slots are arranged in a first axis and a second axis different from the first axis, wherein one of the data records to be populated in a display slot is selected for predicting dynamic parameters, wherein the predicting dynamic parameters comprises:
applying a plurality of datasets for predicting dynamic parameters;
predicting dynamic parameters comprises:
inputting factors for a record-location pair for predicting dynamic parameters, the record-location pair correspond to a parameter related toa specific data record at a location;
receiving a result of a measure of the parameter at the location and new information about the specific data record;
updating a training dataset of the plurality of training datasets to include the new information and the result, wherein the new information is used to update the factors for the record-location pair and wherein the result is used to an indication of the parameter of the specific data record at the location and a corresponding time of the result; and
predicting dynamic parameters based on the updated training dataset,
automatically, without additional input from the user and concurrently with displaying a set of data records, one or more additional categories and corresponding scores for the set of data records, such that the one or more additional categories and scores are available for immediate user if a data record of the set is selected by the user, thereby reducing latency in populating subsequent display slots;
automatically determining, in real-time as the real-time user-selected data records change and iteratively, positional arrangements of the data records in the display slots that are arranged in the first axis and the second axis, the positional arrangements including at least one additional category that is automatically determined, wherein the positional arrangements in each iteration are determined automatically based on the real-time user-selected data records without additional recommendation query from the user,
wherein each iteration comprises:
determining, from the obtained taxonomy a category including a newly added data record that is included in the user-selected list;
retrieving prior parameters received by the system;
for each retrieved prior parameter, identifying an additional category including one or more data records associated with the retrieved prior parameter;
determining a score for each additional category, the score for the additional category based on cooccurrences of the additional category and the category that includes the newly added data record;
selecting one or more additional categories based on the scores;
predicting dynamic parameters to identify specific data records that are predicted to have dynamic parameters higher than a threshold, the specific data records associated with at least one of the one or more selected additional categories by the taxonomy;
removing an additional category that overlaps with a data record hat has already been included in the user-selected list;
arranging a first set of one or more specific data records in a first selected category along the first axis in the display slots;
arranging a second selected category along the second axis relative to the first selected category;
arranging a second set of one or more specific data records in the second selected category along the first axis in the display slots and
continuing concurrently with displaying the second set of data records in the user interface, additional categories and corresponding scores for the second set of data records, such that the one or more additional categories and scores are available for immediate use in real-time as the real-time user-selected data records change iteratively.
Under revised 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 articulated in 2106.04(a) of the MPEP. Even in consideration of the analysis, the claims recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of identifying items based on a taxonomy as noted above. This concept is considered to be a method of organizing human activity because it relates to sale activities since the claims recite activities included in the population of data records for display, that include the activities of obtaining a taxonomy of the data records associating one or more categories, receiving a request to create a user-selected list, receiving a selection of a set of one or more data records (e.g., items) for inclusion in a user-selected list, monitoring the user-selected lists as the real-time user-selected data records, displaying the selected additional categories, predicting the dynamic parameters, inputting factors for a record-location for predicting the dynamic parameters, where the record-location corresponds to a parameter related to a specific data record at a location, receiving a result of a measure of the parameter at the location and a new information about the specific data record, updating the dataset to include the new information and result, determining the set of data records where one or more additional categories and corresponding scores are available for immediate use if the data record of the set is selected by the user, thereby reducing latency in populating the display, determining that a user-selected collection record changes and positional arrangements of the data records in the display that are arranged in a first and second axis, selecting one or more categories based on scores of additional categories, identifying specific items associated with the additional category taxonomies, removing any additional categories that may overlap with an item that already has been included in the user-selected list, and arranging a first set of data records in a first selected category, arranging a second category along the second axis relative to the first selected category, arranging a more specific data record in the second selected category along the first axis in the display slots, and then continuing along with displaying the second set of data records, with additional categories and corresponding scores for the seconds et of data records, where the one or more additional categories and scores are available for immediate use in real-time as the real-time user-selected data records change, thereby making this a sales activity or behavior. Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under revised 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. In this case, representative claim 1 includes the additional elements of one or processors, a user interface, online, an online system, the user interface, using a deep neural network, training of the deep neural network, applying a plurality of training datasets to train the deep neural network, retraining, by the online system, retraining the deep neural network, the deep neural network, precomputing, user interface, precomputed, to precompute, and the user interface. These additional elements individually and in combination do not integrate the exception into the practical application because they are merely being used to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer, as defined in the MPEP 2106.04(d). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. 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 invention concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself), as discussed in MPEP 2106.05. In this case, the additional elements of one or processors, a user interface, online, an online system, the user interface, using a deep neural network, training of the deep neural network, applying a plurality of training datasets to train the deep neural network, retraining, by the online system, retraining the deep neural network, the deep neural network, precomputing, user interface, precomputed, to precompute, and the user interface recited in the independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner and merely apply the abstract idea using a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) . As such, the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept.
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Independent claims 12 and 23 are similar in nature to representative claim 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis is the same as above for representative claim 1. It is noted that in independent claim 12 includes the additional elements of a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions and when executed by a processor, cause the processor to and claim 23 includes the additional elements of a processor and memory configured to store code comprising instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to. The Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the additional elements recited in claims 12 and 23, as being anything other than generic elements. Thus, the claimed additional elements of claims 12 and 23 are merely generic elements and the implement of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. As such, the additional elements of claims 12 and 23 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claim 12, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer.
As such, claims 12 and 23 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-21 do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claims 1, 12, and 23 respectively. The claims of 2-11 and 13-21 merely act to provide further limitations of the abstract idea and are ineligible subject matter.
It is noted that dependent claims 2-11 and 13-21, do not include any other additional elements in the claim language. Therefore, the claims of 2-11 and 13-21 do not integrate into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claims 2-11 and 13-21 is directed towards an abstract idea and are further narrowing the abstract idea noted above.
As such, dependent claims 2-11 and 13-21 are ineligible.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 13 October 2025, have been fully considered but are not considered persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on pages 19-20 of the remarks stating “The claims recite specific improvements to computer functionality that go beyond organizing human activity or making abstract recommendations,” and “the system reduces latency in the interaction pipeline and avoids repeating expensive taxonomy traversal and scoring steps” and “These features collectively enable the system to implement automated, pre-execution of computations that address technical problems unique to online ordering systems, such as database query inefficiencies and real-time availability fluctuations,” and further stating “the automatic precomputation, hierarchical data structures, and predictive modeling provide a concrete technological solution that improve system performance, not merely a business problem,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, the claims are directed to an abstract idea that falls into the enumerated sub-grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity, because the steps recited are related to sales activities or behaviors, as stated in the rejection above. Even when considering the amendments to the claims, the claims are still directed to the abstract idea. Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis, even when considering the amendments, the claims do not recite additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The amended claims include additional elements that are still recited in a generic manner, and are being used to apply the abstract idea with a generically recited computer and computing components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). For example, the amended claims recite one or processors, a user interface, online, an online system, the user interface, using a deep neural network, training of the deep neural network, applying a plurality of training datasets to train the deep neural network, retraining, by the online system, retraining the deep neural network, the deep neural network, precomputing, user interface, precomputed, to precompute, and the user interface, which when considered in combination and individually, the additional elements are still recited in a generic manner, and are being used to apply the abstract idea with a generically recited computer and computing components. Further, the claims do not reflect any type of technological solution to a technical problem, and do not provide an improvement to the computing system. 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 Enfish, the specification provided teaching that the claimed invention achieves benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, in Core Wireless the specification noted deficiencies in prior art interfaces relating to efficient functioning of the computer. Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs. Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed Cir. 2018). With respect to 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).
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. Although the claims include computer technology such as one or processors, a user interface, online, an online system, the user interface, using a deep neural network, training of the deep neural network, applying a plurality of training datasets to train the deep neural network, retraining, by the online system, retraining the deep neural network, the deep neural network, precomputing, user interface, precomputed, to precompute, and the user interface, 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 Enfish, Core Wireless, and McRO. Unlike precedential cases, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention 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 improving the selection of data records by decreasing time expended selecting items. This is reflected in paragraphs [0003]-[0004] and [0062] of the Applicant’s specification, describing the issue of “increased time expended selecting items may decrease a frequency with which a user interacts with the online concierge system or a frequency with which the user subsequently places orders via the online concierge systems” and issues that “prevents the user from identifying additional items that may be more tailored to the user’s preferences or goals for the order” and further addressing the issues to “reduce the amount of time to display additional categories if the user selected a specific item from the displayed category in the order. Such a reduction in latency for determining the one or more additional categories from which items are displayed simplifies use of the interface by the user, further increasing efficiency of order creation by the user.”. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in improved item selection for a user, and also reducing the latency for determining additional categories of items that are displayed, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving the processor or computer components that operate the system. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing different data while still employing the same processor or other computer components used in conventional systems to improve item-selection, e.g. commercial process. As such, the claims do not recite a technical solution to a technical problem.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on page 20 of the remarks stating “the claims present significantly more than a generic recommendation process” and “the combination of automatic precomputing, predictive modeling, and latency-reduction strategies results in a practical application that improves the functioning of the computer system itself,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, the amended claims do not recite features, that when considered as a whole, would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and do not provide an inventive concept. Even when considering the additional elements that have now been added to the claims with the previously recited additional elements, the claimed additional elements are recited in a generic manner, and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, and do not provide an inventive concept because they are being used to apply the abstract idea using a general purpose computer and computing components. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and do not recite an inventive concept, and thus, the Examiner 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