DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a final action in reply to the response filed on September 16, 2025.
Claims 1-2, 6-11, 14-15 and 19-24 have been amended.
Claims 1-3, 6-11, 13-16 and 19-24 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 6-11, 13-16 and 19-24 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “updating the cluster value for the target cluster based on addition of the given custom category by to the target cluster;” There is an additional “by” before “to the target cluster”. The same rationale applies to claims 14 and 20. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Amendments
The rejection of claims 1-3, 6-11, 13-16 and 19-24 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained. Please see the Response to Arguments below.
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 1-3, 6-11, 13-16 and 19-24 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. Per MPEP 2106.03 Eligibility Step 1: The Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter [R-07.2022] Step 1 is directed to determining whether or not the claims fall within a statutory class. Herein, claims 1-11 and 13 falls within statutory class of a process, claims 14-16, 19 and 21-24 falls within statutory category of a machine and claim 20 falls within statutory class of an article of manufacturing. Hence, the claims qualify as potentially eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C §101. With Step 1 being directed to a statutory category, per MPEP 2106.04 Eligibility Step 2A: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception [R-07.2022]. Step 2 is the two-part analysis from Alice Corp. (also called the Mayo test). The 2019 PEG makes two changes in Step 2A: It sets forth new procedure for Step 2A (called “revised Step 2A”) under which a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception unless the claim satisfies a two-prong inquiry. The two-prong inquiry is as follows: Prong One: evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). If claim recites an exception, then Prong Two: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea indicated by non-boldface font and additional limitations indicated by boldface font:
Claims 1, 14 and 20:
[a processor; and
a communications subsystem, wherein the computing device is configured to:]
provide[ing] a standard taxonomy in on a user website;
allow[ing] creation of custom categories by users for use concurrently with categories provided in the standard taxonomy, the custom categories being custom additions to the standard taxonomy;
monitor[ing] creation of the custom categories by the users, wherein the monitoring comprises at least one of performing a scan of items for each user of the electronic platform, or, receiving a notification when a user of the electronic platform uses a custom category;
cluster[ing] the custom categories to form clusters having associated cluster values;
wherein the clusters correspond to groups of two or more of the custom categories, and wherein the clustering includes, for a given custom category:
find[ing]ing a target cluster with a similarity index within a determined threshold of the given custom category; and
update[ing] the cluster value for the target cluster based on addition of the given custom category by to the target cluster;
determine[ing] that a cluster value for a particular one of the custom categories exceeds a threshold;
adapt[ing] the standard taxonomy based on the particular one of the custom categories;
and
modify[ing] a website of at least one of the plurality of users to use the adapted standard taxonomy.
Per Prong One of Step 2A, the identified recitation of an abstract idea falls within at least one of the Abstract Idea Groupings consisting of: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes, or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Particularly, the identified recitation falls within Mental Processes: concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations. Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The processor, communications subsystem and computing device is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic computing devices. This processor, communications subsystem and computing device is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing devices each comprising at least a processor and storage. Further, processor configured to cause receiving/determining/transmitting data is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, since the claims are directed to the determined judicial exception in view of the two prongs of Step 2A, MPEP 2106.05 Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More [R-07.2022] is directed to Step 2B. Therein, the additional elements and combinations therewith are examined in the claims to determine whether the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. It is noted here that the additional elements are to be considered both individually and as an ordered combination. In this case, the claims each at most comprise additional elements of processor, communications subsystem and computing device. Taken individually, the additional limitations each are generically recited and thus does not add significantly more to the respective limitations. Further, executing all the steps/functions by a user/service subsystem is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B (or, looking back to Step 2A, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For further support, the Applicant’s specification supports the claims being directed to use of a generic processor, communications subsystem and computing device type structure at paragraph 0142: “The processor 720 is configured to execute programmable logic, which may be stored, along with data, on the computing device 710, and is shown in the example of FIG. 7 as memory 740. The memory 740 can be any tangible, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, such as DRAM, Flash, optical (e.g., CD, DVD, etc.), magnetic (e.g., tape), flash drive, hard drive, or other memory known in the art.” See also figure 7 and paragraph 0144: “The communications subsystem 730 allows the computing device 710 to communicate with other devices or network elements.”
Taken as an ordered combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or v. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook. The courts have recognized the following computer functions inter alia to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data (e.g., the present claims); electronically scanning or extracting data; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks (e.g., process/machine for performing the present claims); and receiving or transmitting data (e.g., the present claims). The dependent claims 2-11, 13, 16, 19 and 21-24 do not cure the above stated deficiencies, and in particular, the dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea without reciting additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or providing significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2 and 15 further limit the abstract idea by associating values with the creation of the custom categories by the users; and grouping the values based on the custom categories to form the clusters, the clusters having associated cluster values based on the grouped values for that cluster (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 3 and 16 further limit the abstract idea that the clusters correspond to respective ones of the custom categories (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 6 and 19 further limit the abstract idea that the values associated with the adoption of a given custom category by a given user are based on a size of the given merchant (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 7 further limit the abstract idea that the values associated with the adoption of a given custom category by a given user are based on whether a custom category node previously adopted by the given user was previously added to the standard taxonomy (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 8 and 22 further limit the abstract idea by automatically updating the standard taxonomy to include the particular one of the custom categories as a new standard node; and updating product classification for items using the particular one of the custom categories to the new standard node (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 9 and 23 further limit the abstract idea by determining a parent node to the new standard node; identifying items categorized using the parent node; and providing an option to update the identified items to the new standard node (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 10 and 24 further limit the abstract idea by sending a request to the user to use an interim standard taxonomy having the particular one of the custom categories; receiving confirmation from the user; and converting the interim standard taxonomy to the standard taxonomy (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 11 further limit the abstract idea that after the adapting, receiving instructions to delete the particular one of the custom categories and use the adapted standard taxonomy; and updating item classification for items using the particular one of the custom categories to a new standard node (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 13 further limit the abstract idea that the adapting comprises: creating a potential updated standard taxonomy; providing a poll to a plurality of recipients regarding the potential updated standard taxonomy; receiving a response from at least a subset of the plurality of recipients; and based on the response from at least a subset of the plurality of recipients, updating the standard taxonomy (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). And claim 21 further limit the abstract idea that the cluster value is updated based on whether a custom category node previously adopted by the given merchant user previously added to the standard taxonomy (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). The identified recitation of the dependents claims falls within the Mental Processes: concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations. Since there are no elements or ordered combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, the claims are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC §101. Thus, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on September 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant argues that ”the present claims are not directed to the judicial exception.” (Remarks, pages 8-11).
In response to Applicant’s arguments Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites a method for managing an electronic platform for a plurality of users, each of the users providing a website through the electronic platform, a standard taxonomy is provided on a user website which users to allow the users to create custom categories for use concurrently with categories provided in the standard taxonomy. The creation of customs categories is monitored when a user perform at least a scan of items or when a user uses a custom category in order to cluster the custom categories with cluster values. The clusters corresponds to groups of two or more customs categories, which each custom category a target cluster is discovered based on a similarity index within a determined threshold of the given custom category. A cluster value is updated for the target cluster based on the addition of the given custom category. A cluster value is updated for the target cluster based on the addition of the given custom category. A cluster value for a particular one of the custom categories is determined when exceeds a threshold, the standard taxonomy is adapted based on the particular one of the custom categories and a website is modified of at least one of the plurality of users to use the adapted standard taxonomy as described in the Applicant's disclosure in paragraph 0007 "to extending a standard taxonomy for product categories by introducing an adaptive feature to the taxonomy that adds new desirable categories determined through an analysis of the custom categories used by merchants and [0038] which describes “a volume of purchased units within a predetermined time, dollar amount of sales within a period “etc., i.e., sales activities.
Claim 1 recites a concept related to Mental Processes: concepts performed in the human mind, including observation (monitoring the creation of custom categories i.e., scanning of items or using the custom category), evaluation (target cluster with similarity index, threshold analysis), judgement (updating cluster values for the custom categories) and opinion (users adapting the standard taxonomy in their website) and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations, sales activities as described at least in claim 1 items’ custom categorization, scanning items, custom categories for items and claims 8, 11 and 22 updating product/item classification for items. The same rationales applies to claims 14 and 20. The rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NADJA CHONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3939. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 2:00 pm ET. 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, RUTAO WU can be reached on 571.272.6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NADJA N CHONG CRUZ/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623