DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the request for continued examination filed 06 April 2026.
Claims 1, 6, and 7 have been amended.
Claims 1-7 are currently pending.
Claims 1-7 are rejected.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments relating to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “prior art e-commerce systems […] did not have the technical capability of attaching tags to products based on non-textual product descriptions. […] The claim embodiments overcome these problems resulting in a new machine learning model that is configured to attach tags to products based on non-textual product descriptions such as images, video, and audio.” Remarks at 7. The specification does not support a conclusion that the model is anything other than a model known in the art, and does not provide support for a conclusion that the model is new. For example, [0015] indicates “the machine learning model is based on "Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers; J. Devlin, et al., BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding, arXiv:1810.04805v2).” Further, [0017]-[0018] indicates “the machine learning model for use with the information processing apparatus1 embodying the present embodiment is not limited to BERT. The machine learning model to be used by the information processing apparatus 1 of the present embodiment may be some other model as long as it has been machine-trained to be capable of outputting embedded expressions of product information and includes at least one classifier that determines a predetermined output value for each of at least one tag of the product on the basis of the embedded expression (the output value is the probability of matching of each tag with the product information). For example, the machine learning model may include ELECTRA (https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.10555) or ViT (Vision Transformer: https://openreview.net/forum?id=YicbFdNTTy).” The indicated “some other model” is not expanded on, nor are there details of this “some other model” within the specification. Utilizing the specification, one would infer that BERT, ELECTRA, or ViT has the capabilities described in the claims. If the models described in the specification/claims cannot perform the claimed limitations (i.e., cannot attach tags to products based on non-textual product descriptions), there may be enablement issues. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive as there is no support for a conclusion that the model is new.
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.
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more and is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the rationale for finding is explained below:
Regarding claims 1-7, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The Claims 1-7 are directed to a process and/or machine, however 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. Claims 1-7 are directed to sending and receiving data to label content for e-commerce. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claims 1-7 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea by analyzing the individual elements and the combination as explained below:
Independent Claim 1, which is representative of Independent Claims 6 and 7, will be the basis of the following 101 analysis.
STEP 1: Representative claim 1 is directed toward an apparatus, which is a statutory category of invention.
STEP 2a – Prong One: Per MPEP 2106, the claims must be determined if they contain an abstract idea.
Independent Claim 1, recites, in part,
receiving code configured to cause … … to receive product information of one or more products, the product information including a product description of the one or more products in the form of one or more images, one or more videos, and one or more audio files, (additional element performing generic computer functionality of sending and receiving data, processing data and storing data, and/or electronic recordkeeping to perform the abstract idea),
referencing code configured to cause … … to reference a list indicative of a correspondence between a genre of the one or more products in electronic commerce and tags to be attached to the one or more products to determine at least one tag not corresponding to the genre, (additional element performing generic computer functionality of sending and receiving data, processing data and storing data, and/or electronic recordkeeping to perform the abstract idea),
model code configured to cause … … to input into … … including at least one classifier the product information of the one or more products and receive, as an output from the BERT encoder, a classification (CLS) token as an embedded expression of the product information, (additional element performing generic computer functionality of sending and receiving data, processing data and storing data, and/or electronic recordkeeping to perform the abstract idea),
probability determining code configured to cause … … to determine based on an output of a feed-forward network that receives the embedded expression, a probability vector indicating whether one or more candidate tags associated with the product information should be attached to the one or more products, (additional element performing generic computer functionality of sending and receiving data, processing data and storing data, and/or electronic recordkeeping to perform the abstract idea),
masking determining code configured to cause … … to, by referring to the list, removing each candidate tag from the one or more candidate tags that do not match the one or more products and output each remaining candidate tag from the one or more candidate tag as a selected tag, (additional element performing generic computer functionality of sending and receiving data, processing data and storing data, and/or electronic recordkeeping to perform the abstract idea),
loss determining code configured to cause … … to determine a loss function with the probability regarding the selected tags which are selected by referring to the list; and (additional element performing generic computer functionality of sending and receiving data, processing data and storing data, and/or electronic recordkeeping to perform the abstract idea), and
training code configured to cause … … to train … … such that one or more parameters … … are adjusted based on the loss function. (additional element performing generic computer functionality of sending and receiving data, processing data and storing data, and/or electronic recordkeeping to perform the abstract idea),
These limitations set forth a concept of sending and receiving data to label content for e-commerce. This concept falls within the methods of organizing human activity, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) grouping identified by MPEP 2106. As such, the claims are determined to recite an abstract idea.
STEP 2a – Prong Two: Per MPEP 2106, the additional elements of the claims
computer functions discussed above; referencing code configured to, model code configured to, probability determining code configured to, masking code configured to, loss determining code configured to, training code configured to,
an information processing apparatus,
at least one memory,
at least one processor,
a machine learning model,
a non-transitory computer readable
must be considered for whether they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However the computer is recited at an extreme level of generality and is interpreted as a generic computing device, and its incorporation amounts to implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Per MPEP 2106, simply implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Figures 1 and 2 and their related text and Paragraphs 000104-0110 of the specification (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0206294 A1 – hereinafter specification and/or disclosure) detail any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. However, these limitations simply generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Per MPEP 2106, such a general linking does not constitute a practical application of the abstract idea. There are no further additional elements. Therefore, as the additional elements of the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception).
STEP 2b: Per MPEP 2106, the additional elements of the claims must be considered against for whether they constitute significantly more than the abstract idea. As previously noted, the claims describe the additional element of a computer. However, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. As such, these elements do not provide an inventive concept and do not constitute significantly more. As previously noted, the claims recite the additional element of receiving information from a client executing on a device and transmitting information to a user via a client application. However, per MPEP 2106, receiving and transmitting data over a network is a well-known, routine, and conventional computer functionality (Symantec), and processing that data network is a well-known, routine, and conventional computer functionality (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am), and storing data and electronic recordkeeping is a well-known, routine, and conventional computer functionality (Alice Corp).
As such, this limitation does not constitute significantly more either individually or with the above computing devices. There are no further additional elements. Therefore, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements of the independent claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-5 further describe the abstract idea, and do not set forth further additional elements.
Conclusion: Accordingly, because the Applicant's claims reflect claims the Courts have determined to be abstract ideas, the Applicant’s claims likewise are directed to abstract ideas. Therefore, claims 1-7 either alone and/or as an ordered combination of elements are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, as the dependent claims remain directed to an abstract idea and as the additional elements of the dependent claims do not constitute a practical application, the dependent claims or the claims as a whole are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEREDITH A LONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3196. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. 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.
/MEREDITH A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights