DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to a response filed 8 October 2025 on an application filed 29 November 2021.
The Office notes that the amendment fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.121. For example, claims 21-30 are indicated as “New”, however, the claims were presented in the previous claimset filed with the office on 12 June 2025. As a courtesy to the applicant, the claims have been entered. However, the Applicant is reminded that future correspondence must comply with 37 CFR 1.121.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 19 and 21-30 are currently pending and have been examined.
The independent claims contain novel material and accordingly, the prior art rejection was previously removed.
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 1-5, 7-10, 19 and 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 19 and 21-30 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-5, 7-9 and 21-30 are drawn to a system, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claim 10 is drawn to a method, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claim 19 is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture).
Prong 1 of Step 2A
Claim 1 recites: A system, comprising:
a processor; and
non-transitory memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to:
receive, during a first present period, in electronic form, a request to generate a model in a plurality of models, identify a threshold period wherein the request comprises a name, defined by a user associated with the request;
parse the name to identify a plurality of parameters comprising (i) a target period associated with an occurrence of the name, wherein the target period is associated with an explicit period, an implicit period, or an event, and (ii) a threshold period of a rolling past period contiguous to the first present period;
obtain, in accordance with the plurality of parameters, first historical data captured over the threshold period, the first historical data associated with (i) user engagement with a user interface during the rolling past period and (ii) a value for a set of product types transferred during the rolling past period, wherein the user engagement comprises
a date associated with a capture of the user engagement,
one or more salient terms defined by a respective user associated with a corresponding initial query defined by a respective user, and
a mapping by the respective user of one or more items and the one or more salient terms;
for each product type of the set of product types, compute a first seasonality index value based on at least a first score defined using a first set of the first historical data associated with the target period and a second score defined using a second set of the first historical data associated with the threshold period;
compute a click-through rate for each product type of the set of product types by inputting a plurality of product type and query pairs as a bipartite graph to a clustering model in the plurality of models, wherein each respective product type and query pair of the plurality of product type and query pairs includes the corresponding initial query of a plurality of queries of the first historical data, and wherein the clustering model applies an iterative clustering algorithm that generates feature vectors for each of the plurality of product type and query pairs and clusters each of the plurality of product type and query pairs based on the feature vectors to generate a plurality of click-through rates for each product type cluster, each click-through rate of the plurality of click-through rates being based on a ratio of product selection to product display associated with a respective product type;
generate training data based on a subset of the plurality of click-through rates associated with both the target period and the threshold period;
generate a first model
train the first model using the training data and one or more seasonal patterns, thereby forming a first trained model;
identify, using the first trained model, a subset of product types based on the first seasonality index value determined based on the threshold period and the target period of the query;
identify and store a set of items by indexing each respective item in the set of the set of items to at least one corresponding product type of the subset of product types;
generate filtering training data based on the set of items;
train a second model using using the filtering training data and one or more thematic patterns, thereby forming a second trained model;
filter, using the second trained model, remove one or more non-conforming product types from the subset of product types to generate a filtered set of product types;
update the indexing of the set of items in accordance with the filtered set of product types;
obtain second historical data captured over a rolling second past period contiguous to a second present period, the second historical data associated with a value for the filtered set of product types during the threshold period;
for each product type of the filtered set of product types, compute a second seasonality index value based on at least a third score defined using a first set of the second historical data associated with the target period and a fourth score defined using a second set of the second historical data associated with the threshold period;
identify, using the first model, a first product type based on the second seasonality index value determined based on the threshold period and the second present period;
further update the indexing of the set of items in accordance with the identification of the first product type;
receive a user query from a user interface; and
generate instructions to display, when the user query is received (i) during the second present period and (ii) prior to and during the target period, on a user interface associated with the user query, a first item associated with the first product type.
The underlined limitations as shown above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract ideas of mental process because they recite a process that could be practically performed in the human mind (i.e. observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions – in this case, the calculation of click-through rates through use of the value computation, the graphing, the clustering algorithm, the calculation of click-through rates and the generation and use of training data) or using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. the structural components of the computer), and/or a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case the determination of a set of items to feature based on business rules for a given company and season), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea(s) are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for claims 10 and 19 are identical as the abstract idea for claims 1, because the only difference between claims 1, 10 and 19 is that claim 1 recites a system, whereas claim 10 recites a method and claim 19 recites a non-transitory computer-readable media.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-9 and 21-30 include other limitations, for example claims 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 23 and 25-29 recite processing of the index value or defines data, and claims 3, 4, 21, 22 recite use of a clustering algorithm or generation of models, but these only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04. Additionally, any limitations in dependent claims 2-5, 7-9 and 21-30 not addressed above are deemed additional elements to the abstract idea, and will be further addressed below. Hence dependent claims 2-5, 7-9 and 21-30 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 1.
Prong 2 of Step 2A
Claims 1, 10 and 19 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. any limitations that are not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of the structural components of the computer and the training of the models, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see paragraphs 44-48 of the present Specification, see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the claim language directed to the user interface, see MPEP 2106.05(h); and/or
adding insignificant extrasolution activity to the abstract idea, for example mere data gathering, data display, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, and/or insignificant application (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Additionally, dependent claims 2-5, 7-9 and 21-30 include other limitations, but these limitations also amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (e.g. the instructions to display data of claim 24), generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the recitation of the graphical user interface of claim 30), and/or do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent claims 1, 10 and 19, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1, 10 and 19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the structural components of the computer), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity comprises limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
paragraphs 44-48 of the Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. the one or more processors) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions (i.e. receive and process data ) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare);
Relevant court decisions: The following are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition).
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-9 and 21-30 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, the aforementioned dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent claim 1, and/or the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (e.g. the instructions to display data of claim 24), and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the recitation of the graphical user interface of claim 30), and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-5, 7-10, 19 and 21-30 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 8 October 2025 concerning the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues on pages 12-15 that the claims comprise statutory material because:
A. Step 2A, First Prong. The claimed invention is patentable because they do not recite mathematical concepts;
B. Step 2A, First Prong. The claimed invention is patentable because they do not recite organizing human activity;
C. Step 2A, Second Prong. Any alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application because:
The currently amended independent claims provide precise identification and selection of relevant items related to a threshold period by training models using specific historic user engagement and maintaining the index of product types associated with corresponding items. Thus, by having different training and implementation processes for the first and second models in the plurality of models based on the threshold period, the specific historic user engagement, and maintaining the index of product type, network resources are conserved, and processing efficiency of the computer system is increased. This concept of processing efficiency and conservation of resources is recited in a specific manner that represents a technical improvement over systems that are configured to process and transmit recommended items in an unrestricted manner during the respective session at the website.
D. Step 2B. The claims contain various limitations that amount to statutory material because these limitations recite additional elements that amount to more than the identified judicial exception, specifically the Applciant cites the training of two models.
The Office respectfully disagrees. Please see the updated statutory rejection of the claims above, issued in view of the amendments to the claims, where the claims are shown to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding argument A., the Office notes that the abstract ideas that the claims are directed to are a mehtal process and certain methods of organizing human activities because they recite mathematical concepts and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case the determination of a set of items to feature based on business rules for a given company and season). The claims are not directed to certain methods of commercial or legal interactions as argued.
Regarding argument B., the Office respectfully disagrees. As shown above, the claims recite, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case the determination of a set of items to feature based on business rules for a given company and season), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
MPEP 2106. 04(a)(2)(II) states that a claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity if the identified claim elements contain limitations that encompass fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Office submits that the identified claim elements represent a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons, with or without the aid of a computer, would follow to the determination of a set of items to feature based on business rules for a given company and season. Applicant has not pointed to anything in the claims that fall outside of this characterization. Because the claim elements fall under a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons would follow to make a d the determination of a set of items to feature based on business rules for a given company and season, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding C., the Applicant cites various improvements that amount to mere attorney argument. The Applicant does not cite the claims or even the specification for support for their position. There is no nexus between Applicant’s arguments and the claimed elements.
The Applicant has identified that there is a technical problem relating to computing efficiency; however, there is no indication that the claim actually solves this problem. The claim does not present any indication that the problem is being solved by Applicant’s claimed improvements, as in fact the claims might actually decrease the efficiency fo the computer and the conservation of resources. Because the claim does not explicitly solve this technical problem, a practical application is not present.
Regarding D., the various limitations cited are not additional elements, as shown above, they are actually part of the abstract idea, and therefore do not amount to significantly more. The two models are generically claimed and generically trained and do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the statutory rejection is upheld.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mark Holcomb, whose telephone number is 571.270.1382. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8-5). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi, can be reached at 571.272.6702.
/MARK HOLCOMB/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
6 November 2025
Prosecution Insights