DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/25/2026 has been entered.
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 2/25/2026, which refer to the previously submitted amended claims filed 1/22/2026, have been entered. Claims 1 and 15 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.
Interview
Examiner invites the representative of this application to contact the Examiner to schedule an interview to expedite prosecution of this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3-10 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein determining the first set of items related to the first item comprises: generating an item name associated with the first item;” in lines 1-3. It is unclear if the generated “item name associated with the first item” is the same or different from the generated “first item name corresponding to a core product name of the first item” in claim 1, from which claim 3 depends. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret the “item name associated with the first item” in claim 3 as being the same as the “first item name corresponding to a core product name of the first item” in claim 1. Claims 4-9 depend from claim 3 and inherit the rejections of claim 3. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein: generating the item name is performed using a sequence to sequence model” in lines 1-2. It is unclear if the “generating the item name is performed using a sequence to sequence model” is the same or different from the “generating, by a sequence-to-sequence language model, a first item name corresponding to a core product name of the first item” in claim 1, from which claim 5 depends. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret the “item name is performed using a sequence to sequence model” in claim 5 as being the same as the a first item name corresponding to a core product name of the first item generated by the sequence-to-sequence language model in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “determining the first set of items related to the first item comprises generating an item name for the first item using a sequence-to-sequence machine learning model” in lines 2-3. It is unclear if the “generating an item name for the first item using a sequence-to-sequence machine learning model” is the same or different from the “generating, by a sequence-to-sequence language model, a first item name corresponding to a core product name of the first item” in claim 1, from which claim 10 depends. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret the “item name for the first item using a sequence-to-sequence machine learning model” in claim 10 as being the same as the a first item name corresponding to a core product name of the first item generated by the sequence-to-sequence language model in claim 1. 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 1-20 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, 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 claims 19 and 20, are 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 data update process performed to update a data, wherein a model, comprising a encoder and a 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:
generating, by a model, a first item name corresponding to a core product name of the first item based on input text associated with the first item and an item category, wherein the first item name generated by the model comprises text that does not appear as a contiguous text span within the input text; and
selecting the first set of items based at least in part on correspondence between item names of candidate items and the generated first item name;
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 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 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;
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, 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; 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 update process to update the data such that the data 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:
generating, by a sequence-to-sequence language model, a first item name corresponding to a core product name of the first item based on 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; and
selecting the first set of items based at least in part on correspondence between item names of candidate items and the generated first item name;
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;
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, 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; 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 2-10, 12, 14, 16-18, and 20
Dependent claim(s) 2-10, 12, 14, 16-18, 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) 2-10, 12, 14, 16-18, 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 2-10, 12, 14, 16-18, and 20 set forth:
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.
wherein determining the first set of items related to the first item comprises: generating an item name associated with the first item; selecting a third set of items associated with the item name; and selecting, from the third set of items, the first set of items.
wherein selecting the third set of items comprises: including a second item in the third 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.
wherein: generating the item name is performed using a sequence to sequence model.
wherein the first set of items is determined based upon first item information comprising at least one of: an indication of an item title of the first item; or one or more indications of one or more attributes of the first item.
wherein: the first item information comprises an indication of an item category of the first item.
determining a plurality of sets of item information associated with the third set of items, wherein: a set of item information of the plurality of sets of item information is associated with an item of the third set of items; and selecting the first set of items from the third set of items is based upon first item information associated with the first item and the plurality of sets of item information.
determining a first representation of the first item based upon the first item information; determining second representations of the third set of items based upon the plurality of sets of item information; 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 third set of items; and selecting the first set of items from the third set of items is based upon the set of similarity scores.
determining the first set of items related to the first item comprises generating an item name for the first item using a sequence-to-sequence machine learning model and selecting one or more candidate items from a plurality of items whose item names correspond to the generated item name.
determining a first positive signal probability corresponding to a probability of receiving a positive signal associated with a second content item in response to presenting the second content item via the internet resource on the client device; determining a second positive signal probability corresponding to a probability of receiving a positive signal associated with a third content item in response to presenting the third content item via the internet resource on the client device; and determining a plurality of content item scores based upon a plurality of positive signal probabilities comprising the first positive signal probability and the second positive signal probability.
wherein: the positive signal associated with the second content item corresponds to an indication of one or more interactions with the second content item; and the positive signal associated with the third content item corresponds to an indication of the third content item being presented for longer than a threshold duration of time.
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.
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 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. 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 2-10, 12, 14, 16-18, and 20 are ineligible.
Regarding claims 11 and 13
Dependent claim(s) 11 and 13 sets forth:
wherein: determining the first set of items related to the first item comprises computing, by a trained natural language processing model, similarity scores between a representation of the first item and representations of a plurality of other items, and selecting one or more items whose similarity score with the first item meets or exceeds a threshold.
wherein: determining the first positive signal probability is based upon a first positive signal rate indicative of a relationship between a quantity of instances that the second content item is presented via client devices and a quantity of instances that positive signals associated with the second content item are received; and determining the second positive signal probability is based upon a second positive signal rate indicative of a relationship between a quantity of instances that the third content item is presented via client devices and a quantity of instances that positive signals associated with the third content item are received.
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 trained natural language processing model and client devices, these recitations are similar to the additional limitations in claim 1, 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 11 and 13 are also ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response, filed 2/25/2026, which refer to the previously submitted arguments, filed 1/22/2026, with respect to the previous 35 USC §101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 11-13 of the Remarks that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea as claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded that in Prong One examiner evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Despite Applicant’s assertion to the contrary, the Examiner maintains that the claims clearly set forth or describe abstract idea(s) for those reasons set forth previously. Therefore, the instant claims are unlike the claims in Enfish and McRO, as the instant claims recite an abstract idea. Further, presenting targeted content item to a user based on updating data based on stock and similar items is an abstract idea known from the pre-Internet world and the claimed solution is not necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. Therefore, the instant claims are unlike the claims in DDR Holdings.
Moreover, Applicant’s own assertion that the claims are directed towards responsive to determining out-of-stock status and related items, storing information indication out-of-stock status and relatedness, where the stored information comprise an association between (i) the out-of-stock item, (ii) the generated item name, and (iii) identifiers of the related items, and then uses that stored association when a content request is received to generate a candidate set for an auction that excludes the out-of-stock item and includes related items (Remarks page 14) is itself an abstract idea and underscores the Examiner’s findings under Prong One. Examiner notes the arguments directed to practical applications and computer improvements is analyzed under Step 2A, Prong Two and not within Step 2A, Prong One.
Accordingly, Examiner maintains the claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant argues on pages 13-14 that the amended claim integrates any abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the Examiner agrees that the amended limitations including “a particular ML technique (seq2seq with bidirectional encoder/decoder and masked-token training)” (Remarks page 13) do not fall within the abstract idea, the Examiner disagrees that these elements impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception. As claimed, these elements represent the mere use of generic computing components to facility the abstract idea. Notably, the specification provides only a brief description of the seq2seq with bidirectional encoder/decoder and masked-token training (paragraphs [0054]-[0055]).
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional function of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, 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, interfaces, etc., and is specific only in their use in facilitating the abstract idea of presenting targeted content item to a user.
The manner in which the currently pending claims are written is akin to ineligible decisions such as Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2016) (the court relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible), or, Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claims contained no restriction on the manner in which the additional elements perform these claimed functions). The alleged improvement by Applicant is at best a bare assertion of an improvement sans sufficient detail to demonstrate that Applicant has provided the alleged improvement to the technical field.
While Applicant argues the instant claims are similar to the eligible claims in Enfish, McRO, and Ex Parte Desjardins. Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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). 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)). More 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.
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.
The character of the claims as a whole is not directed to improving computer performance and do not recite any such benefit. The claims of the instant application, however, merely represent the use of generic computing technology used as a tool to perform the abstract idea in an online environment. The claims lack any restriction on the manner in which the computing operations are to be performed. The manner in which the currently pending claims are written is much more akin to the myriad of ineligible court decisions that employed generic computer components at a high-level to achieve improvements in commercial processes.
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.
Even assuming a relationship of the claimed invention to another technology or technical field, if it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological process, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure most provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Even when a specification explicitly asserts an improvement, examiner should not determine a claim improves technology when only a bare assertion of an improvement is present without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
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.
Therefore, Examiner maintains the 35 USC §101 rejections of the claims.
Conclusion
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, Jeff 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.
LINDSEY B. SMITH
Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/LINDSEY B SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688