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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on November 10, 2025. The Applicant’s Amendment and Request for Reconsideration has been received and entered.
Claims 1-16, 18-19, and 22-23 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-16 and 18-19 have been amended. Claims 20-21 have been canceled. Claims 22-23 are newly added.
The previous rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 13-16, and 18 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed December 15, 2025, has been considered by the Examiner.
The information disclosure statement fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. The non-patent literature document was not considered because no concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, was provided. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments necessitated any new grounds of rejection.
The previous rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 13-16, and 18 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argue at page 37 of Applicant’s Reply that “the amended claim 1 pre-amble recites the technical application scenario of the method, as ‘a computer-implemented method for optimizing commodity selection in a live-selling environment’. From this the skilled person will immediately realize that due to the nature of and complicated variables in an online selling environment, i.e. where (near) real-time optimization is required, it is not feasible for the human mind, or even with pen and paper, to optimize commodity selection in a time efficient way i.e. in the method of claim 1. This particularly applies to the specific features noted by the Examiner (as ‘acquiring historical commodity information, dividing the historical commodity information, analyzing the commodity information to determine a plurality of features, and generate a commodity list’), which therefore do not cover a mental process.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), examples of claims that do not recite mental processes because they cannot be practically performed in the human mind include: a claim to a method for calculating an absolute position of a GPS receiver and an absolute time of reception of satellite signals, where the claimed GPS receiver calculated pseudoranges that estimated the distance from the GPS receiver to a plurality of satellites; a claim to detecting suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets; a claim to a specific data encryption method for computer communication involving a several-step manipulation of data; and a claim to a method for rendering a halftone image of a digital image by comparing, pixel by pixel, the digital image against a blue noise mask, where the method required the manipulation of computer data structures (e.g., the pixels of a digital image and a two-dimensional array known as a mask) and the output of a modified computer data structure (a halftoned digital image).
In contrast, claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind; claims to "comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations," where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind; a claim to collecting and comparing known information, which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind; and a claim to identifying head shape and applying hair designs, which is a process that can be practically performed in the human mind).
Further, per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.” Thus, merely reciting the use of a computer is not sufficient to recite a technological improvement. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) further indicates “In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.”
With these examples in mind, the Examiner respectfully asserts that the instant claims recite methods that can be done with pen and paper or in the human mind because they recite collecting and comparing known information, i.e., commodity information at different time periods. This has been routinely performed mentally or using pen and paper, i.e. a written inventory and restocking, before the advent of the internet. In this instance, the computer system is used merely as a tool to perform a mental process, i.e., to make inventory management easier.
Further, the Examiner notes that, both in the previous office action and below, the Examiner has identified the recited processor, memory, and computer as being recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). Per paragraph [0075] of Applicant’s published application, the electronic device comprising the processor and memory may be “laptop computers, desktop computers, worktables, personal digital assistants, servers, blade servers, mainframe computers, and other suitable computers. Electronic devices may also represent various forms of mobile devices, such as personal digital processing, cellular telephones, smart phones, wearable devices, and other similar computing devices.” Thus, the electronic device/processor/computer may be any of these generic computer devices. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claimed invention is a concept performed in the human mind and applicants are merely claiming that concept performed on a generic computer.
Applicant further argues at pages 38-39 of Applicant’s Reply that the “claims provide a specific technical solution to the problem of inefficient commodity selection in such environments including by historical temporal division, multi-feature analysis, and a deep learning classification model, which cannot be performed mentally. In more detail, specification para. [0002], discloses a problem known to the inventors as: "Due to a wide variety of candidate products and a high user mobility in live-selling, commodities subjectively selected by a host may vary greatly, and a large amount of time and resources are required in a selection process of the commodities...However, a guidance of the host and personalized requirements of the user are not considered". In summary in conventional live-selling, there is a lot of subjective human-factors involved in the selection of commodities offered for sale. Claim 1 provides a technical solution to this same problem, which involves breaking down the commodity data for the broadcast into levels based on time, extracting three different factors for each level, i.e. a host feature, a commodity feature and a user feature each of which characterize different aspects of the process including the subjective human-factors, and using the trained model to output the commodity list for each level based on the three factors.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Per MPEP 2106.04(d), in order to determine if a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.05 (a)-(c) and (e)-(h) are evaluated. MPEP 2106.04(d) clearly states that “a specific way of achieving a result is not a stand-alone consideration... However, the specificity of the claim limitations is relevant to the evaluation of several considerations including the use of a particular machine, particular transformation and whether the limitations are mere instructions to apply an exception.” The Examiner notes that the considerations include improvements to computer functionality, improvements to any other technology or technical field, and a particular machine or transformation.
Further, per MPEP 2106.05(a), in order to constitute a technical improvement, the specification "must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill 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." Further, per MPEP 2106.05(a), "if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement."
Per MPEP 2106.05(a), improvements to computer functionality include a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage; inventive distribution of functionality within a network to filter Internet content; a method of rendering a halftone digital image; a distributed network architecture operating in an unconventional fashion to reduce network congestion while generating networking accounting data records; a memory system having programmable operational characteristics that are configurable based on the type of processor, which can be used with different types of processors without a tradeoff in processor performance; technical details as to how to transmit images over a cellular network or append classification information to digital image data; a particular structure of a server that stores organized digital images; a particular way of programming or designing software to create menus; a method that generates a security profile that identifies both hostile and potentially hostile operations, and can protect the user against both previously unknown viruses and "obfuscated code," which is an improvement over traditional virus scanning; an improved user interface for electronic devices that displays an application summary of unlaunched applications, where the particular data in the summary is selectable by a user to launch the respective application; a specific interface and implementation for navigating complex three-dimensional spreadsheets using techniques unique to computers; and a specific method of restricting software operation within a license.
Per MPEP 2106.05(a), some examples that the courts have said “may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality” include generating restaurant menus with functionally claimed features; accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer; mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase; recording, transmitting, and archiving digital images by use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any assertion that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combining a camera and a cellular telephone; affixing a barcode to a mail object in order to more reliably identify the sender and speed up mail processing, without any limitations specifying the technical details of the barcode or how it is generated or processed; instructions to display two sets of information on a computer display in a non-interfering manner, without any limitations specifying how to achieve the desired result; providing historical usage information to users while they are inputting data, in order to improve the quality and organization of information added to a database, because "an improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database’s functionality”; and arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly.
With this guidance in mind, the Examiner respectfully asserts that the claims are not directed to a practical application. The stated practical application of breaking down the commodity data for the broadcast into levels based on time, extracting three different factors for each level, i.e. a host feature, a commodity feature and a user feature each of which characterize different aspects of the process including the subjective human-factors, and using the trained model to output the commodity list for each level based on the three factors appears to be most similar to the non-eligible ideas discussed above of accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase.
Thus, the rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but, as they are directed to the instantly amended claims, they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16, 18-19, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-16, 18-19, and 22-23: Claim 1 recites “commodity type popularity.” Nowhere does Applicant’s as-filed disclosure recite this limitation.
Further, claim 1 recites “a degree of adaptability of a commodity to the host which is applied to the input features to generate the commodity list according to the degree of adaptability.” Nowhere does Applicant’s as-filed disclosure recite a “degree of adaptability of a commodity to the host.”
Further, nowhere does Applicant’s as-filed disclosure recite applying the degree of adaptability to the input features.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 2-8, 10-16, 19, and 22-23 inherit the deficiencies of claims 1, 9, and 18.
Claims 6 and 14: Claim 6 recites “wherein the commodity-host adaptability classification model is obtained by training an initial classification model provided with training data using a deep learning algorithm, whereby the commodity-host adaptability classification model is trained to classify adaptability of commodities to take account of factors comprising a host feature representing a host’s relative performance, a commodity feature representing commodity type popularity and similarity to an ideal commodity, and a user feature representing user behavior, and outputs a degree of classification for the commodities as a ranking.” Nowhere does Applicant’s as-filed disclosure recite what the commodity-host adaptability classification model is trained to do. Further, nowhere does Applicant’s as-filed disclosure recite factors comprising a host feature representing a host’s relative performance, a commodity feature representing commodity type popularity and similarity to an ideal commodity, and a user feature representing user behavior, and outputs a degree of classification for the commodities as a ranking.
Claim 14 is rejected for similar reasons.
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 1-16, 19, and 22-23 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.
Claims 1-16, and 22-23: Claim 1 recites “hierarchical data processing” but does not define what that means in the context of the claim. Hierarchical data processing typically refers to a tree-like structure with nested clusters. However, the “plurality of levels” referenced in the claim are not actual levels; instead, they refer to different time periods, i.e., t1 to t2, t2 to t3, etc. Thus, it is unclear what is meant by hierarchical in this context. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is assigning little patentable weight to this portion of claim 1.
Further, claim 1 recites “a relative performance of a host of the live-broadcast process event.” This limitation is unclear. Is this referring to the relative performance of a host relative to hosts of other broadcasts? Is this referring to the relative performance of a host selling a particular type of commodity depicted in each segment relative to other hosts selling such commodity types? Or is this referring to the number of views of a particular host’s broadcasts relative to other hosts’ broadcasts? For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this portion of claim 1 as reciting “a relative performance of a host of the live-broadcast process event regarding number of views relative to other hosts.”
Further, claim 1 recites “stored in a memory of the computer.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the computer. Is the computer intended to be the same as the previously-recited processor? If so, is the memory connected to the processor? For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this portion of claim 1 as reciting “a memory connected to the processor.”
Claim 9 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 22-23 inherit the deficiencies of claims 1 and 9.
Claims 2, 10, 19, and 22: Claim 2 recites “a highest user emotion value in the live-broadcast information.” It is unclear when the user emotion value is determined. Per page 20 of Applicant’s Reply, Applicant appears to be equating the user emotion value to user behavior information which the live-broadcast information comprises. However, it is unclear that emotion value is part of user behavior information. At page 20 of Applicant’s Reply, Applicant refers to paragraph [0040] of the as-filed specification. However, neither paragraph [0040] nor any other portion of the specification equates user emotion value with user behavior information. Thus, it is unclear when the user emotion value is collected or measured or determined and if determining the “highest” value is intended to be part of the recited method. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this portion of claim 2 as reciting “dividing the historical commodity information according to a user emotion.”
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 22 inherits the deficiencies of claim 2.
Claims 4, 12, and 21: Claim 4 recites “determining, by the processor, a commodity similarity of each level corresponding to the commodity feature vector of each level to be the commodity feature of each level, according to the commodity feature vector of each level and an ideal commodity model for each level.” This limitation is unclear. It is unclear what is being determined in this step. The claim limitation indicates that it is the commodity similarity of each level that is being determined. However, this portion also recites “to be the commodity feature of each level.” For purposes of examination, the Examiner is assigning little patentable weight to the limitation “to be the commodity feature of each level” and is interpreting this portion of claim 4 as reciting “determining, by the processor, a commodity similarity of each level corresponding to the commodity feature vector of each level according to the commodity feature vector of each level and an ideal commodity model for each level.”
Claims 12 and 21 are rejected for similar reasons.
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 1-16, 18-19, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites a method for optimizing commodity selection. With respect to claim 1, claim elements acquiring historical commodity information, dividing the historical commodity information into a plurality of levels, analyzing the commodity information of each level to determine a plurality of features of each level, and generate a commodity list, as drafted, illustrate a series of steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a mental process and thus, is not patent eligible.
Claims 9 and 18 recite similar limitations.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites a processor, claim 9 recites a processor and a memory and claim 18 recites a computer. These elements are recited at a high level of generality i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions. 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.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 1 recites a processor, claim 9 recites a processor and a memory and claim 18 recites a computer. These elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, claims 1, 9, and 18 are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-19 and 22-23 depend from claims 1, 9, and 18. Claims 2, 10, and 19 are directed to dividing the historical commodity information and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 3, 11, and 20 are directed to scoring and comparing the commodity information and generating a feature tag and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 4, 12, and 20 are directed to determining commodity types, generating a vector, and determining similarity and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 5, 13, and 21 are directed to acquiring user behavior information and analyzing user information and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 6 and 14 are directed to training a model and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 7 and 15 are directed to determining a target list and generating a candidate commodity list and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 8 and 16 are directed to generating an updated list and are further directed to the abstract idea.
Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16, 18-19, and 22-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
In the event the claims are amended, they will be subject to further examination.
With respect to claim 1, the prior art of record, alone or combined, neither anticipates nor renders obvious, a computer-implemented method for analyzing optimizing commodity selection in an online live-selling environment, the method comprises: acquiring, by a processor from a server, historical commodity information and live-broadcast information corresponding to the historical commodity information, wherein the historical commodity information represents information of historical commodities sold by a host, the live-broadcast information represents recorded information of the host during a live-broadcast process event, and the historical commodity information further comprises a broadcast-starting time point of the historical commodity and a broadcast-ending time point of the historical commodities; dividing, by the processor, the historical commodity information into a plurality of levels, according to the broadcast-starting time point of the historical commodity and the broadcast-ending time point of the historical commodity, to generate commodity information for each level in a plurality of levels, wherein each level corresponds to a temporal segment between the broadcast-starting time point and the broadcast ending-time point; performing, by the processor, hierarchical data processing by analyzing the commodity information of each level and the live-broadcast information corresponding to the commodity information of each level, to determine a plurality of features of each level, wherein the plurality of features of each level comprise: a host feature comprising one or more metrics relating to the relative performance of a host of the live-broadcast process event, a commodity feature representing commodity type popularity and a user feature, and the user feature represents a feature of a user that has accessed to a live-broadcast platform of the host; and inputting, by the processor, the host feature, the commodity feature, and the user feature of each level, into a pre-trained commodity-host adaptability classification model stored in a memory of the computer, to generate a commodity list of different commodity types for each level from in- warehouse commodities, wherein the pre-trained commodity-host adaptability classification model is a model in which commodity classification is performed based on the model having learnt to determine a degree of adaptability of a commodity to the host which is applied to the input features to generate the commodity list according to the degree of adaptability.
With respect to claims 9 and 18, the prior art of record, alone or combined, neither anticipates nor renders obvious an apparatus and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium reciting similar limitations.
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 concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE MARIE GEORGALAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1258 E.S.T.. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached on 571-272-6764. 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.
/Anne M Georgalas/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights