DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Applicant has not claimed priority to another application. Application 17/530,631 was filed 11/19/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
No IDS has been submitted.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s response, filed 6/25/2026, have been entered. Claims 1-14 and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application and have been examined.
Indication of Subject Matter Overcoming Prior Art
As noted in the Office Action mailed 6/17/2025, claims 1-20 are novel in view of the prior art and would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the method, as claimed in claims 1-14 and 20, are directed to a process. Additionally, the device, as claimed in claims 15-18, are directed to a machine. Furthermore, the non-transitory computer-readable medium, as claimed in claim 19, is directed to an article of manufacture (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A (prong 1), claim 1, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
responsive to determining that a first item is out of stock, determining a first set of items related to the first item as part of a update process performed to update, wherein a model, has been trained using masked tokens generated by masking portions of training text, and wherein determining the first set of items related to the first item comprises:
inputting first item information associated with the first item to a related items determiner;
generating, by an item name determiner, a first item name corresponding to a core product name of the first item based upon input text associated with the first item and an item category, wherein the first item name generated comprises text that does not appear as a contiguous text span within the input text;
inputting the generated first item name to a matching items determiner;
selecting, by the matching items determiner, an intermediate set of candidate items based upon correspondence between item names of candidate items and the generated first item name and based upon the candidate items being indicated as in stock;
determining, for candidate items in the intermediate set of candidate items, similarity scores based on a representation of the first item and representations of the candidate items; and
inputting the similarity scores to a top-k determiner that selects the first set of items from the intermediate set of candidate items based on the similarity scores;
response to the determining that the first item is out of stock and the determining the first set of items related to the first item, storing information indicating that the first item is out of stock and that the first set of items are related to the first item, wherein the information stored comprises an association between (i) the first item, (ii) the generated first item name, and (iii) identifiers of the first set of items related to the first item;
responsive to receiving, a request for content associated with a user for presentation in one or more serving areas, determining a second set of items targeted to the user;
responsive to the second set of items targeted to the user comprising the first item that is out of stock, generating a set of candidate content items that excludes the first item that is out of stock but includes the first set of items related to the first item, the set of candidate content items generated prior to and for inclusion in an auction associated with selection of content for presentation associated with the user in response to the request for content associated with the user, wherein generating the set of candidate content items comprises analyzing in response to the request for content to identify items of the second set of items that are out of stock and corresponding items of the first set of items related to the out of stock items;
performing the auction, in response to the request for content and by an auction, using the set of candidate content items that excludes the first item that is out of stock but includes the first set of items related to the first item;
selecting, via the auction, a first content item from content items comprising the set of candidate content items;
presenting, for display, on a carousel, the first content item but not the first item that is out of stock, wherein the carousel enables navigation, via user interaction comprising at least one of a selectable input or a swipe across, between a plurality of content items, comprising the first content item but not the first item that is out of stock, selected for being at least one of semantically, visually or behaviorally similar to each other, wherein content items presented via the carousel are ordered based on similarity scores associated with the content items; and
responsive to receiving an item update that is indicative of the first item being back in stock, performing a second iteration of the update process to update such that does not indicate that the first item is out of stock.
These limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity, such as performing commercial interactions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined by MPEP 2106.04 as including “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).” In this case, the abstract ideas recited in representative claim 1 are certain methods of organizing human activity because presenting targeted content item to a user is a commercial interaction because it is a advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Independent claims 15 and 19 recite the same abstract idea as recited in independent claim 1. As such, the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1 is the same for independent claims 15 and 19 as described above for independent claim 1.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), 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 (see MPEP 2106.04). As stated in the MPEP, when “an additional element merely recites the words ‘apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
responsive to determining that a first item is out of stock, determining a first set of items related to the first item as part of a data store update process performed to update a data store, wherein a sequence-to-sequence language model, comprising a bidirectional encoder and a sequence-to-sequence decoder, has been trained using masked tokens generated by masking portions of training text, and wherein determining the first set of items related to the first item comprises:
inputting first item information associated with the first item to a related items determiner;
generating, by an item name determiner comprising the sequence-to-sequence language model, a first item name corresponding to a core product name of the first item based upon input text associated with the first item and an item category, wherein the first item name generated by the sequence-to-sequence language model comprises text that does not appear as a contiguous text span within the input text;
inputting the generated first item name to a matching items determiner;
selecting, by the matching items determiner, an intermediate set of candidate items based upon correspondence between item names of candidate items and the generated first item name and based upon the candidate items being indicated as in stock;
determining, for candidate items in the intermediate set of candidate items, similarity scores based on a representation of the first item and representations of the candidate items; and
inputting the similarity scores to a top-k determiner that selects the first set of items from the intermediate set of candidate items based on the similarity scores;
response to the determining that the first item is out of stock and the determining the first set of items related to the first item, storing in the data store information indicating that the first item is out of stock and that the first set of items are related to the first item, wherein the information stored in the data store comprises an association between (i) the first item, (ii) the generated first item name, and (iii) identifiers of the first set of items related to the first item;
responsive to receiving, from a server, a request for content associated with a user of a client device for presentation in one or more serving areas of an internet resource comprising at least one of a website, an application or an internet game, determining a second set of items targeted to the user;
responsive to the second set of items targeted to the user comprising the first item that is out of stock, generating a set of candidate content items that excludes the first item that is out of stock but includes the first set of items related to the first item, the set of candidate content items generated prior to and for inclusion in an auction associated with selection of content for presentation via the client device associated with the user in response to the request for content associated with the user, wherein generating the set of candidate content items comprises analyzing the data store in response to the request for content to identify items of the second set of items that are out of stock and corresponding items of the first set of items related to the out of stock items;
performing the auction, in response to the request for content and by an auction module comprising a supply-side platform (SSP), using the set of candidate content items that excludes the first item that is out of stock but includes the first set of items related to the first item;
selecting, via the auction, a first content item from content items comprising the set of candidate content items;
presenting, for display, on a carousel interface via the client device, the first content item but not the first item that is out of stock, wherein the carousel interface enables navigation, via user interaction comprising at least one of a selectable input or a swipe across a display of the client device, between a plurality of content items, comprising the first content item but not the first item that is out of stock, selected for being at least one of semantically, visually or behaviorally similar to each other, wherein content items presented via the carousel interface are ordered based on similarity scores associated with the content items; and
responsive to receiving an item update that is indicative of the first item being back in stock, performing a second iteration of the data store update process to update the data store such that the data store does not indicate that the first item is out of stock.
In this case, representative claim 15 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A computing device comprising:
a processor; and
memory comprising processor-executable instructions that when executed by the processor cause performance of operations, the operations comprising:
responsive to determining that a first item is out of stock, determining a first set of items related to the first item as part of a data store update process performed to update a data store;
responsive to the determining that the first item is out of stock and the determining the first set of items related to the first item, storing in the data store information indicating that the first item is out of stock and that the first set of items are related to the first item;
responsive to a request for content associated with a user of a client device, determining a second set of items targeted to the user;
responsive to the second set of items targeted to the user comprising the first item that is out of stock, generating a set of candidate content items that excludes the first item that is out of stock but includes the first set of items related to the first item, the set of candidate content items generated prior to and for inclusion in an auction associated with selection of content for presentation via the client device associated with the user in response to the request for content associated with the user;
performing the auction, in response to the request for content, using the set of candidate content items that excludes the first item that is out of stock but includes the first set of items related to the first item;
selecting, via the auction, a first content item from content items comprising the set of candidate content items;
presenting, for display on an interface via the client device, the first content item but not the first item that is out of stock; and
responsive to receiving an item update that is indicative of the first item being back in stock, performing a second iteration of the data store update process to update the data store such that the data store does not indicate that the first item is out of stock.
In this case, representative claim 19 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A non-transitory machine readable medium having stored thereon processor-executable instructions that when executed cause performance of operations, the operations comprising:
responsive to determining that a first item is out of stock, determining a first set of items related to the first item;
responsive to receiving, from a server, a request for content associated with a user of a client device for presentation in one or more serving areas of an internet resource comprising at least one of a website, an application or an internet game, determining a second set of items targeted to the user;
responsive to the second set of items targeted to the user comprising the first item that is out of stock, generating a set of candidate content items that excludes the first item that is out of stock but includes the first set of items related to the first item, the set of candidate content items generated prior to and for inclusion in an auction associated with selection of content for presentation via the client device associated with the user in response to the request for content associated with the user;
performing the auction, in response to the request for content and by an auction module comprising a supply-side platform (SSP), using the set of candidate content items that excludes the first item that is out of stock but includes the first set of items related to the first item;
selecting, via the auction, a first content item from content items comprising the set of candidate content items; and
presenting, for display on an interface via the client device, the first content item but not the first item that is out of stock.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment (“a computing device comprising a processor and memory comprising processor-executable instructions”, “a non-transitory machine readable medium having processor-executable instructions”, “a data store”, “a sequence-to-sequence language model, comprising a bidirectional encoder and a sequence-to-sequence decoder”, “by a sequence-to-sequence language model”, storing “in the data store”, “from a server”, “of a client device”, an “internet” resource “comprising at least one of a website, an application or an internet game”, an auction “module comprising a supply-side platform (SSP)”, and a carousel “interface via the client device”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (storing information, presenting information). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. This is because the additional elements of claims 1, 15, and 19 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea) (see Figs. 1-3 and 6; paragraphs [0023]- [0039], [0054]-[0055], [0084], [00104], [00106], and [00117]-[00125]). The specification indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. This is most notable with respect to the use of presentation in one or more serving areas of an internet resource comprising at least one of a website, an application or an internet game, an auction module comprising a supply-side platform (SSP), and a carousel interface. Although the serving areas are recited as an internet resource comprising at least one of a website, an application or an internet game, neither the claims nor the specification set forth a particular manner of presenting information in one of these serving areas such that it is distinct from other presentation of information using the internet. That is, as understood in light of the specification, the description of the requesting information to be displayed in one or more serving areas of an internet resource is merely indicative of displaying information using any “platform for viewing and/or downloading content from a server associated with a content system” (note Specification ¶0039). Similar logic applies to the auction module comprising a supply-side platform (SSP), which refer generally to “select content for presentation via the first client device” and may “comprise (and/or may be part of) at least one of a supply-side platform (SSP), a content exchange (e.g., an ad exchange), etc.,”and are merely used to display information (note Specification ¶0084) as well as a carousel interface which refer generally to “an interface with carousel advertising format that enables navigation between content items of the multiple content items” and are merely used to display information (note Specification ¶00104). Further, the sequence-to-sequence language model, comprising a bidirectional encoder and a sequence-to-sequence decoder can be a generic seq2seq model (e.g., a sequence to sequence annotation model) and/or generic bidirectional encoder and/or a sequence to sequence decoder (note Specification [0054]-[0055]). The description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered pair, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional elements are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not transform or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technology environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
In addition to the above, the recited receiving and transmitting/presenting steps (even assuming arguendo they do not form part of the abstract idea, which the Examiner does not acquiesce), are at best little more than extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering, presentation of data) that contributes nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed system (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 1, 15, and 19 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to claims 1, 15, and 19, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 1, 15, and 19 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claims 1, 15, and 19 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
presenting offers
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claims 1, 15, and 19 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 1, 15, and 19 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 3, 8-12, 17, 18, and 20
Dependent claim(s) 3, 8-12, 17, 18, and 20, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claim(s) 3, 8-12, 17, 18, and 20 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim(s) 1, 15, and 19 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claim claim(s) 1, 15, and 19.
Claims 3, 8-12, 17, 18, and 20 set forth:
wherein the representation of the first item and the representations of the candidate items each have a fixed size.
wherein a content item associated with a higher similarity score is displayed more prominently via the carousel interface than a content item associated with a lower similarity score.
wherein the data store update process is performed periodically to update information indicating items that are out of stock and sets of related items associated with the items.
wherein the data store update process is performed in response to receiving an item update from an entity associated with the first item, the item update indicating whether an item associated with the entity is in stock.
wherein the set of candidate content items excludes a content item associated with the first item and includes one or more content items associated with the first set of items in response to the first item being out of stock.
wherein selecting the first content item comprises selecting the first content item based on a content item score determined using a probability of a positive signal associated with the first content item.
wherein selecting the first set of items comprises: including a second item in the first set of items based upon a determination that a second item name associated with the second item matches the item name associated with the first item.
determining a first representation of the first item ;determining second representations of the first set of items; and determining, based upon the first representation and the second representations, a set of similarity scores, wherein: a similarity score of the set of similarity scores is associated with a similarity between the first item and an item of the first set of items; and selecting the second set of items from the first set of items comprises including a second item, of the first set of items, in the second set of items based upon a determination that a similarity score, of the set of similarity scores, associated with a similarity between the first item and the second item meets a threshold similarity score.
wherein the input text and the item category are processed as a source sequence and the first item name is generated as a target sequence, wherein source tokens of the source sequence are processed with one or more bidirectional dependencies, and target tokens of the target sequence are generated autoregressively using one or more self-attention masks.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of presenting targeted content item to a user. The claims do not set forth any further additional limitations, and therefore such abstract embellishments are applied to the additional limitations recited in claim(s) 1, 15, and 19, which do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim(s) 1, 15, and 19.
Thus, dependent claims 3, 8-12, 17, 18, and 20 are ineligible.
Regarding claims 2, 4-7, 13, 14, and 16
Dependent claim(s) 2, 4-7, 13, 14, and 16 sets forth:
wherein determining the similarity scores comprises generating the representation of the first item and the representations of the candidate items using a natural language processing model comprising a language representation model trained through a Siamese network structure.
wherein selecting the first set of items from the third set of candidate items is performed using at least one of Locality Sensitive Hashing or Latent Semantic Hashing.
wherein selecting the first set of items from the third set of candidate items is performed using at least one of Locality Sensitive Hashing or Latent Semantic Hashing.
wherein receiving the request for content comprises receiving, by a server of a content system, a request from the client device in response to the client device accessing an internet resource.
wherein the first content item is transmitted from the server to the client device for presentation via the internet resource.
wherein presenting the first content item comprises presenting, via the client device, information associated with an in stock item related to the first item without opening a separate application or a separate window to obtain the information.
wherein presenting the first content item comprises presenting information associated with an in stock item related to the first item via the carousel interface such that a need for the user to navigate through internet content to locate content associated with items related to the first item is reduced.
wherein determining the second set of items comprises: analyzing user activity information associated with the user to determine that the user is associated with an event in which at least one of: an internet resource associated with the first item is accessed; or the first item is added to a shopping cart; and including the first item in the second set of items based upon the determination that the user is associated with the event.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of presenting targeted content item to a user. While the claim(s) do set forth the additional elements of a natural language processing model comprising a language representation model trained through a Siamese network structure, Locality Sensitive Hashing or Latent Semantic Hashing, a server of a content system, an internet resource, a separate application or a separate window, client devices, internet content, an internet resource, these recitations are similar to the additional limitations in claims 1 and 15, as they do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is these additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment. The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs [0023]- [0039], [0054]-[0055], [0084], [00104], [00106], and [00117]-[00125] indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and thus do not act to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thus, dependent claims 2, 4-7, 13, 14, and 16 are also ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on page 13 of the Remarks filed 6/25/2026, with respect to the previous 35 USC §112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments to the claims. Accordingly the previous 35 USC §112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 13-19 of the Remarks filed 6/25/2026, with respect to the previous 35 USC §101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 11-16 of the Remarks that amended claim 1 is not directed merely to presenting targeted content or replacing an out-of-stock item with another item and now recites a specific computer-implemented processing arrangement for determining related items and using those related items in later content-selection processing. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the argued “processing arrangement for determining related items and using those related items in later content-selection processing” and “a particular ordered data-processing flow among identified determiners, rather than a result-oriented instruction to select related items and that the output of that related-item determination process is persisted and later used in request-time processing” is itself an abstract idea and is encompassed within the abstract idea of “presenting targeted content item to a user” and underscores the Examiner’s findings under Prong One.
Choosing better content to show a user when an item the user was interested in is no longer available by identifying an out-of-stock item based on user activity and determining similar items using the item’s title, description, category, and/or a generated “core” item name so the user can browse related options and avoid showing dead-end content for unavailable products while still serving relevant, likely to be interacted with content (as described within the claims and specification) address a business challenge that is not particular to the Internet/technology.
As noted in the rejection of the claims above, merely implementing the abstract idea using a generic additional elements such as a “sequence-to-sequence language model comprising a bidirectional encoder and a sequence-to-sequence decoder,” “determiner comprising the sequence-to-sequence language model”, and the additional elements recited in the full rejection does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and thus do not act to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. Further, as described in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized storing and retrieving information in memory as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer function when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, Examiner maintains that the claimed data store storing information that is available to be retrieved at a later time is claimed at a high level of generality and storing and retrieving information from the data store is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer function.
The argued paragraphs within the Specification including [0050], [0052]-[0056], [0057]-[0059], [0061]-[0069], and [0104] fail to describe a technical explanation as to how to implement an improvement upon conventional function of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. The disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Although the specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary sill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)). Applicant’s specification does not provide the requisite detail necessary such that one of ordinary skill in the art could recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Applicant’s specification does not provide sufficient detail with respect to databases/data stores, machine learning models, servers/client devices, internet resources, supply-side platforms, and/or interfaces, etc., and is specific only in their use in facilitating the abstract idea of presenting targeted content item to a user.
Applicant argues on pages 16-17 that claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application because the claim recites a particular computer-implemented item-identification and candidate-selection process that meaningfully limits how related items are determined and how those related items are used in later auction processing. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As an initial matter, Examiner notes “item-identification and candidate-selection process that meaningfully limits how related items are determined and how those related items are used in later auction processing” is itself an abstract idea and is encompassed within the abstract idea of “presenting targeted content item to a user.” Abstract ideas are not patent eligible, therefore this argued limitation cannot provide integration.
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).
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 F3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In this case, Applicant’s specification provides no explanation of an improvement to the functioning of the 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 “a computing device comprising a processor and memory comprising processor-executable instructions”, “a non-transitory machine readable medium having processor-executable instructions”, “a data store”, “a sequence-to-sequence language model, comprising a bidirectional encoder and a sequence-to-sequence decoder”, “by a sequence-to-sequence language model”, storing “in the data store”, “from a server”, “of a client device”, an “internet” resource “comprising at least one of a website, an application or an internet game”, an auction “module comprising a supply-side platform (SSP)”, and a carousel “interface via the client device”, 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 and McRO.
Despite Applicants argument to the contrary, as currently claimed, amended claim 1 relies on generic machine learning techniques to a new data environment. similar to Recentive Analytics, Inc. vs. Fox Corp. Case No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025), the specification of the instant invention and the currently recited claims makes clear that “any suitable machine learning technique” may be employed (see paragraphs [0054]-[0055] describing a generic sequence to sequence (seq2seq) model as a generic language model comprising a bidirectional encoder and/or a sequence to sequence decoder) and merely apply generic machine learning techniques to new data environments or fields of use—without disclosing specific improvements to the machine learning models or methods themselves—are not patent-eligible under § 101. Unlike Desjardins, the instant claims and specification do not constitute an improvement to how the machine learning model itself operates. In Desjardins, the Appeals Review Panel (APR) determined that the specification identified improvements as to how the machine learning model itself operates, including training a machine learning model to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting” encountered in continued learning systems, which was directed to improvements in the machine learning technology itself and these improvements were additionally recited in the claimed invention (see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Here again, the Examiner emphasizes the failure of the disclosure to set forth or describe the amended features, or any improvements that are achieved from or made relative to another technology or technical field. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the improvements manifested by the claimed invention are improvements to the abstract idea itself, not the computer or another technology or technical field.
In review of the claimed invention, and in consideration of the specification as originally filed, the Examiner asserts that:
(i) the claimed invention does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, but instead improves an abstract, commercial process, and,
(ii) the specification, as originally filed, does not provide sufficient discloser or technical explanation such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have determined that the disclosed invention provided an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field.
Further, the instant claims are not directed to improving “the existing technological process” requiring the generic components to operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality or requiring the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces to improve a technical process. As currently recited, the instant claims are directed to improving the business task of presenting targeted content item to a user based on updating data based on stock and similar items (i.e., the abstract idea).
Therefore, the instant claims are unlike the claims in Enfish, McRO, and Ex Parte Desjardins and the Examiner maintains the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception and maintains the rejection Step 2A, Prong Two.
Accordingly, Examiner maintains the claims do not recite specific technological improvements and the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
While Applicant argues on pages 18-19 the dependent claims further recite technical implementation details and these additional limitations further show that the claims are directed to a particular computer-implemented retrieval and selection processes and further reinforce that he claimed process is integrated into a practical application, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above in the full rejection of the claims, such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of presenting targeted content item to a user. While some dependent claims set forth the additional elements, these recitations are similar to the additional limitations in claims 1 and 15, as they do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is these additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment. The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs [0023]- [0039], [0054]-[0055], [0084], [00104], [00106], and [00117]-[00125] indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and thus do not act to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thus, the claimed dependent claims are also ineligible.
Therefore, Examiner maintains the 35 USC §101 rejections of the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY B SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6 EST.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764 and/or the examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
LINDSEY B. SMITH
Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/LINDSEY B SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/MARISSA THEIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights