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 claims foreign priority to Korean Patent Application No. 10-2021-0168413, filed 11/30/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDSs submitted on 2/17/2022 and 11/22/2023 were previously considered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amended claims, filed 1/02/2026, have been entered. Claims 1-5, 9, and 10 have been amended. Claims 6-8 were previously canceled. Claims 11-20 were previously withdrawn without traverse in the reply filed on 6/20/2024. Claims 1-5 and 9-20 are currently pending in this application and claims 1-5, 9, and 10 have been examined.
Indication of Potential Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 9, and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections and claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the reasons set forth in the Office Action mailed 6/18/2025.
Interview
Examiner invites the representative of this application to contact the Examiner to schedule an interview to expedite prosecution of this application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5, 9, and 10 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitations “…display, on the screen of the kiosk…” in line 25 and should recite “…display, on [[the]]a screen of the kiosk…” Claims 2-5, 9, and 10 inherit the objection of 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 1-5, 9, and 10 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 system, as claimed in claims 1-5, 9, and 10 are directed to a machine (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:
receive a current input vector including one or more current input attributes representing a context feature of a current order status;
generate a weight vector, each component corresponding to a respective current input attribute;
compute a similarity vector by reading past input attributes stored at a plurality of locations; for each current input attribute, multiplying a similarity score between the current input attribute and each past input attribute by a corresponding component of the weight vector; and accumulating the multiplied results into components of the similarity vector;
compute a pre-read vector by component-wise multiplying the similarity vector with column vectors read from the plurality of locations;
compute a read vector including an orderer's past ordered product by summing columns of the pre-read vector to obtain the read vector; and
display a product based on the past ordered product included in the read vector, and
store a pair of the current input vector and the product displayed,
store the pair of the current input vector and the product displayed at a first location at which the matching vector is stored, when the current input vector matches any one of the one or more vectors, and
store the current input vector and the product displayed at a second location, when none of the one or more vectors match the current input vector, wherein, the second location is a location other than the first location, and wherein maintains a recently used vector having components respectively corresponding to the plurality of locations, the recently used vector representing a number of accesses for each location, and wherein the second location corresponds to an index of a minimum component in the recently used vector stored, and
wherein the recently used vector is updated according to u(t+1) = T*u(t) with 0≤T< 1 and a component corresponding to the stored location is set to a maximum value, where u(t) denotes a recently used vector used at the time of the current order (t), u(t+1) denotes a recently used vector updated after the current order, t, T denotes a time decay parameter, and
update the recently used vector and store the updated recently used vector.
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 displaying a product based on the past ordered product (i.e., a recommendation) is considered a commercial interaction is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
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):
A kiosk comprising:
at least one processor;
at least one memory storing instructions executable by the at least one processor;
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the kiosk to:
receive a current input vector including one or more current input attributes representing a context feature of a current order status;
generate a weight vector, each component corresponding to a respective current input attribute;
compute a similarity vector by reading, from the memory, past input attributes stored at a plurality of memory locations; for each current input attribute, multiplying a similarity score between the current input attribute and each past input attribute by a corresponding component of the weight vector; and accumulating the multiplied results into components of the similarity vector;
compute a pre-read vector by component-wise multiplying the similarity vector with column vectors read from the plurality of memory locations;
compute a read vector including an orderer's past ordered product by summing columns of the pre-read vector to obtain the read vector; and
display, on a screen of the kiosk, a product based on the past ordered product included in the read vector, and
wherein the kiosk further comprises a storage configured to store a pair of the current input vector and the product displayed on the screen into the memory,
the storage is configured to store the pair of the current input vector and the product displayed on the screen at a first location at which the matching vector is stored in the memory, when the current input vector matches any one of the one or more vectors in the memory, and
the storage is configured to store the current input vector and the product displayed on the screen at a second location, when none of the one or more vectors in the memory match the current input vector, wherein, the second location is a location in the memory other than the first location, and wherein the kiosk maintains, in the memory, a recently used vector having components respectively corresponding to the plurality of memory locations, the recently used vector representing a number of accesses for each memory location, and wherein the second location corresponds to an index of a minimum component in the recently used vector stored in the memory, and
wherein the recently used vector is updated according to u(t+1) = T*u(t) with 0≤T< 1 and a component corresponding to the stored location is set to a maximum value, where u(t) denotes a recently used vector used at the time of the current order (t), u(t+1) denotes a recently used vector updated after the current order, t, T denotes a time decay parameter, and
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the kiosk to update the recently used vector and store the updated recently used vector back into the memory.
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 kiosk comprising at least one processor; at least one memory storing instructions executable by the at least one processor; wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor”, “a screen of the kiosk”, and “storage”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (receiving information, displaying information, storing information, update information). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 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) (Figs. 1-3; pages 9-11, 15-16, and 19-20 of the Specification which describe the additional elements as generic devices such as hardware or software operating on a generic computer such as a computer). 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. 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/transmitting, storing, and displaying 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), claim 1 does 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 representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 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 claim 1 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 claim 1 does not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 10
Dependent claim(s) 2, 9, and 10, 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, 9, and 10 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim(s) 1 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claim claim(s) 1.
Claims 2, 9, and 10 set forth:
wherein the one or more current input attributes include at least some of the orderer's facial identity, look, emotion, age, gender, time when the orderer is detected and weather at the time of current order, and wherein the each past input attribute includes at least some of the orderer's facial identity, look, emotion, age, gender, time when the orderer is detected and weather at the time of past order.
wherein the recently used vector is updated by multiplying the recently used vector by a parameter having a value of 0 or greater and less than 1 to reduce a component included in the recently used vector over time, when the current input vector is stored in the memory, and
wherein the component of the recently used vector corresponding to the location of the memory at which the current input vector is stored is updated to a maximum value.
wherein the storage is configured to store the current input vector and the orderer's actually selected product into the memory, when the orderer's actually selected product is different from the product displayed on the screen.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of displaying a product based on the past ordered product (i.e., a recommendation). 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, 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.
Thus, dependent claims 2, 9, and 10 are ineligible.
Regarding claim 3-5
Dependent claim(s) 3-5 sets forth:
wherein the memory stores a pre-trained model to calculate the weight vector, wherein the weight vector is configured to represent the weight for each current input attribute as each component, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the kiosk to: calculate a the similarity vector by applying the weight vector to each similarity calculation result between each current input attribute and each past input attribute, and read the read vector based on a calculation result between the similarity vector and the one or more vectors stored in the memory.
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the kiosk to: calculate the similarity vector based on the calculation result of multiplying each similarity calculation result between each current input attribute and each past input attribute by each element of the weight vector, and read the read vector based on the calculation result of multiplying the similarity vector by each component of the one or more vectors stored in the memory.
wherein the pre-trained model is trained to minimize a difference between the product displayed on the screen and the orderer's actually selected product based on a preset loss function.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of displaying a product based on the past ordered product (i.e., a recommendation). While the claim(s) do set forth the additional elements of “pre-trained model”, these recitations are similar to the additional limitations in claim(s) 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 and 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. Further, the “pre-trained model” is recited at a high level and amounts to merely applying 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 3-5 are also ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on page 9 of the Remarks filed 1/2/2026, with respect to the previous claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the currently amended claims. Accordingly, the previous claim objections of the claims are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 9-10 of the Remarks filed 1/2/2026, with respect to the previous 35 USC §112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the currently amended claims. Accordingly, the previous 35 USC §112 rejections of the claims are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 10-15 of the Remarks filed 1/2/2026, with respect to the previous 35 USC §101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because claim 1 has been restricted to emphasize a concrete technical implementation, is integrated into a practical application, and improves the functioning of a technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, on pages 12-13 Applicant argues the claims (1) do not recite an abstract idea, and (2) the claims integrate their respective features into a practical application. 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. Further, displaying a product based on the past ordered product (i.e., a recommendation) 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. Examiner notes performing all of the limitations “mentally” is not the test for claims that recite certain methods of organizing human activity. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) notes that certain methods of organizing human activity encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.
Accordingly, Examiner maintains the claims recite an abstract idea.
As to the arguments directed to Step 2A, Prong Two on pages 12-13 of the Remarks, the Examiner again disagrees with the Applicant. Applicant argues on pages 12-13 that the amended claim integrates any abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the Examiner agrees that the amended limitations including the argued additional elements of a kiosk, memory, and a display 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 these additional elements (Figs. 1-3; pages 9-11, 15-16, and 19-20). 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 a kiosk, memory, and a display, or technical improvements to the argued data retrieval, associative memory, caching/replacement polices, etc., and is specific only in their use in facilitating the abstract idea of displaying a product based on the past ordered product (i.e., a recommendation). 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.
Further, the specification as filed does not reveal to one of ordinary skill in the art the Applicant has provided an improvement to a kiosk, memory, and a display, or technical improvements to the argued data retrieval, associative memory, caching/replacement polices, or the like. Nor does the specification provide technical detail of how a kiosk, memory, and a display provides technical improvements to the argued data retrieval, associative memory, caching/replacement polices differently than from generic devices executing software. Additionally, while Applicant argues on pages 13-15 the amendments to the claims have replaced prior claim language, Examiner notes these amendments are merely a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception and do not add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter (see MPEP 2106.05(e)).
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.
Therefore, 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, the rejection under 35 USC 101 is hereby maintained.
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, 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