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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 03/04/2026.
Claims 1, 14, and 20 are amended.
Claim 10 is cancelled.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/04/2026 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility (SME) analysis described in MPEP 2106.03, the instant claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention identified by 35 U.S.C. 101. In the instant case, claims 1-9 and 11-13 are directed to a method, claims 14-19 are directed to an apparatus, and claim 20 is directed to a manufacture. Claims 1, 14, and 20 are parallel in nature, therefore, the analysis will use claim 1 as the representative claim.
In Step 2A Prong One, it must be considered whether the claims recite a judicial exception. Claim 1, as exemplary, recites abstract concepts including: obtaining an account entity relation between a target account entity and a neighbor account entity of the target account entity from a knowledge graph, and an item entity relation between a target item entity and a neighbor item entity of the target item entity, the target account entity and the neighbor account entity being included in a plurality of account entities, the target item entity and the neighbor item entity being included in a plurality of item entities; converting the plurality of account entities into a plurality of account embedding vectors, the account entity relation into an account relation embedding vector, the plurality of item entities into a plurality of item embedding vectors, and the item entity relation into an item relation embedding vector; based on a target item embedding vector of the plurality of item embedding vectors associated with the target item entity, fusing a target account embedding vector of the plurality of account embedding vectors associated with the target account entity and a neighbor account embedding vector of the plurality of account embedding vectors associated with the neighbor account entity through the account relation embedding vector to obtain a target account representation; based on the target account embedding vector of the plurality of account embedding vectors associated with the target account entity, fusing the target item embedding vector of the plurality of item embedding vectors associated with the target item entity and a neighbor item embedding vector of the plurality of item embedding vectors associated with the neighbor item entity through the item relation embedding vector to obtain a target item representation; based on a distance between the target account representation and the target item representation, determining a plurality of recommendation scores, each of the plurality of recommendation scores indicating a degree of matching between a target account of the target account entity and a respective target item of the target item entity; and determining a target item for the target account of the target account entity from the target item entity according to the plurality of recommendation scores; and presenting ... the determined target item to a user associated with the target account of the target account entity when the user sends an inquiry for commodity recommendation ... recommendation accuracy of the determined target item presented to the user being improved based on the target account representation of features of the target account and the target item representation of features of the target item.
These recited limitations recite the abstract idea of “determining a target item for a target account” which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of sales activities or behaviors. The claimed method generates an item recommendation which is sales activity. Accordingly, claims 1, 14, and 20 recite an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04.
In Step 2A, Prong Two Examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Instant claims 1, 14, and 20 recite additional elements including: an input embedding layer of an artificial intelligence (AI) model; an interactive attention layer of the AI model; a prediction layer of the AI model; a terminal; processing circuitry and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions executable by at least one processor.
One consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.
The AI model including the input embedding model, interaction attention layer, and prediction layer; processing circuitry; terminal; non-transitory computer readable storage medium; and at least one processor are each recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic devices performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than “apply it” or mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Rather than confining the judicial exception to a particular, practical application, the claims contain no restriction on how these elements perform the abstract limitations and no description of the elements themselves. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instruction to apply an exception with a generic computer. Accordingly, even in combination, 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. See MPEP 2106.05. Claims 1, 14, and 20 are thus directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the SME analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the 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).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) individually and in combination are merely being used to apply the abstract idea to a general computer components. For the same reason, the elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in ordered combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus claims 1, 14, and 20 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-7, 11, 13, and 15-19 do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claims. These claims merely further define the abstract idea and abstract mathematical concepts without reciting any further additional elements. Thus dependent claims 2-7, 11, 13, and 15-19 are also ineligible.
Dependent claim 8-9 and 12 recite additional elements including: a convolutional network; an item recommendation model; and training the item recommendation model. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Even in combination, these additional elements do not act to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus claims 8-9 and 12 are also ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/2026 with respect the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 13 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “as amended, the computed recommendation results are applied in a specific, operative way by providing a recommended commodity, via a terminal, to a particular user tied to a particular account context based on a plurality of recommendation scored determined in Claim 1”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983.
Presenting the commodity recommendation “via a terminal” is mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Paragraph ¶ [0034] demonstrates that the terminal is a generic device (“The terminal 120 is at least one of smart phone, a tablet computer, an e-book reader, an MP3 player, an MP4 player, a laptop portable computer, and a desktop computer”). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, 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. In response to Applicant’s arguments referencing MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), Examiner points to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer”. Although the “presenting” limitation is claimed as being performed “via a terminal”, a human with pen and paper can present a target item to a user associated with a target account when that user sends an inquiry for commodity recommendation. Accordingly, the Examiner is not persuaded that this limitation provides a meaningful limit to practicing the abstract idea.
On page 14 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “Claim 1 recites that recommendation accuracy of the determined target item presented to the user is improved based on the target account representation of features of the target account and the target item representation of features of the target item”, which is allegedly a claimed improvement to computer technology.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. MPEP 2106.05(a). Improving the commodity recommendation accuracy is an improvement to the abstract sales activity itself, and not an improvement in computer technology.
For at least these reasons, the Examiner is maintaining the 101 rejections of claims 1-9 and 11-20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Z. Yang and Z. Guiyun (NPL Reference U) presents a collaborative filtering recommendation algorithm that fuses semantic nearest neighbors based on a knowledge graph.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNEDY A GIBSON-WYNN whose telephone number is (571)272-8305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 PM.
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, Jeffrey 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.
/K.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights