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 .
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but prior to a decision on the appeal. 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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on June 22, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-10 are directed to a process, claims 12-19 are directed to an article of manufacture and claim 20 is directed to a machine. Therefore, the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (Step 1: YES) MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A
It is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception (see MPEP 2106.04). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Prong 1 of Step 2A
It is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception (YES). Taking Claim 1 as representative, the claim recites the following limitations that recite an abstract idea, including:
A method, at a computer system comprising a processor and a computer-readable medium, comprising:
Receiving, by a system, a plurality of requests from customers via customer client devices;
Receiving, by the system, an availability indication from an operator client application associated with the concierge system on an operator client device, the availability indication indicating that a picker is available to fulfill one or more of the plurality of requests;
Causing, by the system, the operator client device to display a user interface including a set of batches that the operator client application that the picker can fulfill in a batch list, wherein each batch of the set of batches includes one or more of the plurality of requests, and wherein user interface includes a set of hide options, wherein each hide option is an interactive element associated with one of the set of batches; and
In response to receiving, by the system and from the operator client application via the user interface, an interaction with a hide option associated with a batch in the batch list;
Updating, by the system, the user interface to remove the batch from view in the batch list;
extracting, by the system, features associated with the batch, storing, by the system, the extracted features labeled with a negative indication of the picker towards the batch, and
Retraining, by the system, one or more models that predict picker acceptance events on the features associated with the batch labeled with the negative indication.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that they recite commercial interactions. Claims 11 and 20 recites similar limitations as claim 1.
Certain methods of organizing human activity include:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risk)
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and business relations)
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
Accordingly, under Prong 1 of Step 2A, claims 1, 11, and 20 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES). MPEP 2106.04(a).
Prong 2 of Step 2A
It is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (NO).
These limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application 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 mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a computer system, a processor, a computer-readable medium, a system, requests, an operator client application, customer client devices, an operator client device, and retraining, by the system, one or more models. Claim 11 recites the additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, a processor, a system, requests, customer client devices, an operator client application, an operator client device, and retraining, by the system, one or more models that predict operator acceptance events. Claim 20 recites the additional elements of a computer system, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, a processor, a concierge system, online orders, customer client devices, a picker client application, a picker client device, and retraining, by the concierge system, one or more models that predict picker acceptance events. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount do no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Additionally, the independent claims merely invoke these additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks). MPEP 2106.05(h). Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application. As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1, 11, and 20 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO). MPEP 2106.04(d).
Furthermore, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, ii) apply the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1, 11, and 20 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO). MPEP 2106.04(d).
Since claims 1, 11, and 20 recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 1, 11, and 20 are “directed to” an abstract idea under Step 2A (Step 2A: YES). MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B
It is determined whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims of the present application do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (NO).
As discussed above under Prong 2 of Step 2A with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the identified additional elements are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claims 1, 11, and 20 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 11, and 20 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO). MPEP 2106.05.-
Dependent claims, 2-10 and 12-19, 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 claims, 2-10 and 12-19, further fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in that they recite sales activities or behaviors. Claims 7 and 17 recite the additional element of a hide prediction model trained to predict a likelihood that batches will be hidden. Claims 2-6, 8-10, 12-16, and 18-19, do not introduce new additional elements and as such are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons discussed above. As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, the dependent claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above. Thus, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 are “directed to” an abstract idea.
Next, under Step 2B, similar to the analysis of claims 1, 11, and 20, the dependent claims analyzed individually, and as an ordered combination, merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
It is further noted, in response to the claim amendments of June 13, 2025, that Takahashi (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0228835) discloses (paragraph 8, emphasis added), “Japanese Patent Application Laid-open No. H11-212694 discloses a conventional method of editing the setting screen. In the conventional method, each item included in the setting screen is set to either a display status or a hide status. If a function corresponding to a hidden status is added, the user will set the item to the display status to display the item on the setting screen.” Hence, the recited interaction with a hide option, and the recited step of updating the user interface to remove the batch from view in the batch list, require only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology.
It is further noted, in response to the claim amendments of June 22, 2026, that Chang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0092969) discloses (paragraph 85, emphasis added), “Any conventional or other training techniques may be applied for any quantity of training sets to train or retrain the machine learning model (e.g., backpropagation, etc.).” Hence, the retraining of machine learning models, and consequently, machine learning models themselves, require only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology.
Therefore, under the Subject Matter Eligibility test, claims 1-20 are ineligible.
Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S. 101, but recite non-obvious subject matter.
Claims 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S. 101, but recite non-obvious subject matter.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S. 101, but recites non-obvious subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of non-obvious subject matter: The closest prior art of record, Demiralp et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0292414), applied as the primary reference in the Office Action of March 13, 2025, discloses a method, at a computer system comprising a processor and a computer-relatable medium, comprising:
receiving, by a system, a plurality of requests from customers via customer client devices (Demiralp, see at least: “the network system can receive service requests for on-demand services (e.g., transport service or delivery service) from requesting users (e.g., a rider)” [0014] and item 2101 in Fig. 2A and “Furthermore, one or more examples described herein may be implemented through the use of instructions that are executable by one or more processors. These instructions may be carried on a computer-readable medium. Machines shown or described with figures below provide examples of processing resources and computer-readable mediums on which instructions for implementing examples disclosed herein can be carried and/or executed. In particular, the numerous machines shown with examples described herein include processors and various forms of memory for holding data and instructions” [0029]);
receiving, by a system, an availability indication from an operator client application with the system on an operator device, the availability indication indicating that a picker is available to fulfill one or more of the plurality of requests (Demiralp see at least: “The plurality of service providers 181 can correspond to the service providers 181 that are available for matching (e.g., in an available state) within the geographic region in which the start location of the request 173 is located.” [0049] and “The GUI 4100 can be presented in response to the service provider 181 interacting with the service provider application 182 to) enter into an active service provider status (e.g., representing the service provider being available to receive invitations 141 to fulfill requests for service 173).”[0088]);
sending, by the system, a set of batches to the operator client application that the picker can fulfill for presentation in a batch list, wherein each batch of the set of batches includes one or more of the plurality of requests. However, Demiralp does not disclose, in response to receiving, by the concierge system and from the operator client application via the user interface, an interaction with a hide option associated with a batch in the batch list. Demiralp discloses declining invitations, e.g. (paragraph 14, emphasis added), “The provider devices of the service providers can present content that allows the service providers to either accept or decline the invitation.” There is nothing in Demiralp about an interaction with a hide option associated with a batch. Koritala (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0118029), applied as a secondary reference in the previous Office Action, does not supply this deficiency of Demiralp.
Correa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0058713) discloses presentation in a user interface, use of a user interface, and updating with some resemblance to what is claimed (paragraph 37, emphasis added), “The recommended items may be embodied in any suitable form or format for presentation in the user interface including, without limitation, links, documents, text, HTNL content, downloadable objects, multimedia content, and so forth. The recommended items associated with a particular item as possible recommendations may be updated from time to time, either manually or automatically (e.g., based on feature similarity, responses to queries of other online resources, etc.), to add recommended items, remove recommended items, or generate a new list of recommended items. It will be understood that not all of the recommended items generated in this step will necessarily or likely be displayed to a user viewing an item. Instead, the recommended items may be ranked as described herein, and a group of the recommended items having a greatest likelihood of being selected by a user viewing the item may be selected for presentation to a user.” However, neither Correa nor any other prior art of record sufficiently teaches or reasonably suggests in response to receiving an interaction with a hide option associated with a batch in the batch list, updating, in system, the user interface to remove the batch from view in the batch list.
This statement applies to each set of claims, as independent claims 1, 11, and 20 are parallel to each other.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 22, 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Examiner has considered the Declaration of Brent Scheibelhut under 37 CFR § 1.132 in full, in addition to the arguments (Applicant’s arguments also quote from the Declaration). As quoted in Applicant’s arguments, Mr. Scheibelhut writes (paragraph 6 of the Declaration), “In many computing systems that learned from user interactions, positive examples were readily available: a user interacting with an item produced an unambiguous positive label.” Mr. Scheibelhut continues (paragraph 7 of the Declaration), “However, negative labels were harder to obtain reliably. Systems commonly generated negative training examples by treating non-interactions as negative labels, on the assumption that a user who did not interact with an item had rejected it. This assumption was often incorrect. A non-interaction could reflect genuine disinterest or could simply reflect the fact that the user had never been exposed to the item.”
In paragraphs 10 through 14 of the Declaration, Mr. Scheibelhut makes a case that the claimed invention provides a particular solution to the negative-label generation problem, and that therefore improves the functionality of machine-learning model training by using an operator’s explicit hide interaction to generate unambiguous negative training examples. Examiner responds both that this is not a technological improvement even if it is of some benefit, and furthermore that the prior art of record discloses examples of negative training labels/examples which arise from deliberate user actions, rather than from the ambiguous absence of an interaction that would have produced a positive label/positive training example. For each hide option to be an interactive element associated with one of the set of batches is not an improvement in technology, but merely an application of known technology in telecommunications and display to carry out a particular operation pertaining to commercial operations (see Takahashi (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0228835), quoted above). One may improve model accuracy and responsiveness based on various kinds of data about the behavior and preferences of users, but including such data in a model or models is not in itself technological.
Specifically regarding prior art disclosures of negative training labels/examples, Ivanov et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0240023) discloses (paragraph 35, emphasis added):
In accordance with a second broad aspect of the present technology, there is provided a system for selecting targeted content by a machine learning algorithm (MLA), the system connected to a plurality of electronic devices via a communication network, the system comprising:
a processor;
a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions, the processor; upon executing the instructions, being configured to cause:
receiving, from the plurality of electronic devices, a first set of indications of blocked targeted content, each indication of the first set of indications having been triggered by a user of an electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices, each indication including a plurality of attributes of a blocked targeted content, the blocked targeted content having been displayed with a first resource on the electronic device;
storing the plurality of attributes of the blocked targeted content as a negative training example;
receiving a second set of indications of targeted content, each indication of the second set of indications comprising a plurality of attributes of a targeted content, the targeted content having been displayed with a second resource on a electronic device;
storing the plurality of attributes of the targeted content as a positive training example;
training the MLA based on the positive training example and the negative training example to determine a type of a to-be-selected targeted content based on the plurality of attributes of the targeted content, the type being one of a positive targeted content or a negative targeted content;
responsive to receiving, from a content provider, the to-be-selected targeted content to be shown to a user of a electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices accessing a resource:
determining, by the MLA, based on the plurality of attributes of the targeted content, the type of the targeted content; and responsive to the type of targeted content being the negative targeted content, causing the electronic device to block the targeted content.
The Abstract of Ivanov is also commended to Applicant for perusal, as are paragraphs 15, 115, 139, 179, and 180, and Figures 8, 10, and 11. Mr. Scheibelhut may have been unaware of the disclosure of Ivanov, but said disclosure demonstrates that acquiring and storing negative training examples from specific indications from users, the indications being made using electronic devices, was known more than four years prior to inventors’ filing date.
Proceeding to page 16 of the Amendment and Remarks of June 22, 2026, Applicant writes, “These authorities contain important reminders to examiners evaluating applications for technical improvements. For example, the MPEP explains that the examiner’s role is not to second-guess the technical rationale, but to confirm that the claims are supported by a coherent explanation of an asserted technical improvement.” With all due respect, Examiner does not believe that he has second-guessed the technical rationale. Instead, Examiner’s position is that the claimed invention is not primarily directed to an improvement in technology, which is a different issue.
As set forth in the previous Office Action, referring back to the Office Action before that, there is also the decision in FairWarning IP, LLC, v. Iatric Systems, Inc., where claims directed to a method of detecting improper access of a patient’s protected health information (PHI) in a computer environment, and to a corresponding system, were found patent-ineligible, despite the recitation of computer technology, and of a computer environment such that the method could not be performed, and the system could not operate, without the use of computers. This is relevant to the instant application, where computer technology is used, but such use is, in Examiner’s judgement, insufficient to raise a method in the field of commercial interactions to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refaat et al. (U.S. Patent 11,873,011) disclose labeling lane segments for behavior prediction for agents in an environment. Cheruku et al. (U.S. Patent 12,073,619) disclose label recognition and notification for streaming video from non-overlapping cameras, and in particular disclose feedback in which a video frame or image on which recognition was based may be flagged as a negative training example to bias a machine learning model during a next training session (column 41, line 58-column 42, line 4).
Ivanov et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0240023) was not directly relied upon in making rejections, but was cited in the Response to Arguments section; paragraph 35 is quoted in full, with other paragraphs and three Figures being mentioned as particularly relevant.
Refaat et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0135078) disclose labeling lane segments for behavior prediction for agents in an environment, and in particular disclose outcome data that can be used to generate a training example, and to label the training example as either a positive training example or a negative training example (see especially paragraphs 47, 70, 71, and 72).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS D ROSEN, whose telephone number is (571)272-6762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM-5:30 PM, M-F. Non-official/draft communications may be faxed to the examiner at 571-273-6762, or emailed to Nicholas.Rosen@uspto.gov (in the body of an email, please, not as an attachment).
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 at 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.
/NICHOLAS D ROSEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 July 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights