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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/26/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 remain pending, and are rejected.
Claims 6 and 16 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 5/26/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive for at least the following rationale:
Applicant’s arguments filed on 5/26/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for claims directed to a judicial exception are not persuasive.
Notably, on pages 15-16 of the Applicant’s Remarks, arguments are made that the limitations of claim 1 as amended integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of a computer system that stores data in a specific non-traditional format in a database (such as the embeddings of item representing item features in the latent space), and uses the non-traditional format to infer correlation between items of one group and items of another group. Arguments are made that the storing embedding of items in the database reduces dimensionality of data as it is known that the dimensionality of the latent space is lower than the dimensionality of the traditional feature space, resulting in a smaller size of the database and thus into a reduced memory requirement for the computer system.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The embeddings do not represent a technical feature of the computer, as much as it represents a mathematical construct for vectorizing information. Additionally, the claims do not recite any particular method of technique of generating, storing, or processing the embeddings, and merely recites that they are included in the database, and performing a nearest neighbor search comparing embeddings with a very high level of generalization. Even if the embeddings were a more technical feature, they are merely being applied to the abstract idea to provide a general link to a computing environment. The specification also does not provide any detailed description of the embeddings and how they are formed. Specification paragraph [0039-0040] discloses a general description that the model uses item embeddings describing items and customer embeddings describing customers, and that they may be generated by separate machine learning models, or may apply natural language processing techniques. It is clear that these are generic techniques that are merely applied to the abstract idea, and the claims do not improve or change how a computer stores and retrieves data, such as in the case of Enfish. The claims merely uses a different generic method of storing data than another generic method, and does not actually claim any improvements to any computing devices or technical field.
On pages 2-3 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Declaration, it is stated that the claims provide a particular solution to data storage suitable for reducing memory size and decreasing computational latency, such as by maintaining an item catalog for each of a plurality of retailers at a plurality of locations including embeddings of items at a database, maintaining information about items purchased by a user at the original retailer including an embedding of each item, determining item similarity for each retailer associated with a new location of the user by performing a nearest neighbor search comparing embeddings for each item, and determining a similarity score for each new retailer using the similarity score for each item. It is stated that the storing of embedding in the database, reduces dimensionality of data as it is known the dimensionality of the latent space is lower than the dimensionality of the feature space, which results in a smaller size of the database and reduced memory requirement for the computer system, and the reduction of dimensionality of the data speeds up operations that use embeddings since the embeddings represent lower dimensionality data in the latent space, resulting in reduced computational latency.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The process of maintaining an item catalog for each of a plurality of retailers at a plurality of locations at a database, maintaining information about items purchased by a user at the original retailer, determining item similarity for each retailer associated with a new location of the user by performing a nearest neighbor search comparing each item, and determining a similarity score for each new retailer using the similarity score for each item does not represent any technical process, and is an abstract idea of sales and marketing activities. The use of embeddings merely use the data such that the calculations may be performed by a computer to provide a general link to a computing environment. Furthermore, the storing of the embeddings within a database, such as to reducing the dimensionality of the data does not provide significantly more. The data is merely stored in a database, and how the computer operates is not affected. The claims do not recite any particular technical abilities of the computer, and merely recites storing the embeddings within a database of the system. How the feature spaces and latent spaces function or any technical changes are not recited or affected in the claims, and any reduced memory requirement or computational latency is not from any technical improvements, but merely an organization of data. The claims also do not recite any of these alleged technical improvements, but only recite the steps of the abstract idea. Storing data in a database that is part of the system does not represent any technical improvement, and merely applies generic computing components to the abstract idea to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
In view of the above, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been maintained 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 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are directed to a method, which is a process. Claims 11-15 and 17-19 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readably medium, which is an article of manufacture. Claim 20 is directed to a system, which is an apparatus. Therefore, claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A (Prong 1):
Taking claim 20 as representative, claim 20 sets forth the following limitations reciting the abstract idea of identifying a new retailer for frequent item purchases in a new location:
maintaining an item catalog for each of a plurality of retailers at a plurality of locations including embeddings of items associated with each of the plurality of retailers;
maintaining information about a plurality of items purchased by a user at a first retailer of the plurality of retailers at a first location including an embedding of each of the plurality of items;
receiving current location information for the user at a second location, wherein the second location is beyond a threshold distance from the first location;
responsive to receiving the current location information for the user at the second location that is beyond the threshold distance from the first location;
determining a repurchase probability for each item in a set of purchased items, wherein the set of purchased items is at least a portion of the plurality of purchased items maintained for the user;
retrieving, using the current location information for the user, information about a set of retailers associated with the second location;
for each retailer associated with the second location,
determining an item similarity score for each item in the set of purchased items purchased by the user at the first retailer by performing a nearest neighbor search that compares an embedding for each item in the set of purchased items and embeddings of items in the item catalog of each retailer of the set of retailers associated with the second location;
determining a retailer similarity score based on each item similarity score weighted by the repurchase probability;
ranking a list of recommended retailers associated with the second location based on the retailer similarity scores;
sending the ranked list of recommended retailers to the user, wherein sending causes to update the display with the ranked list of recommended retailers for selection by the user of each retailer from the ranked list of recommended retailers;
receiving, information about the user selecting a retailer from a ranked list of recommended retailers and placing an order including a set of items associated with the selected retailer;
responsive to the user selecting the retailer and placing the order, assigning a servicing of the order to a picker;
generating collection instructions using information about the set of items in a location of the selected retailer;
upon assigning the servicing of the order, instructing, via the collection instructions, the picker to collect the set of items in the location of the selected retailer;
upon collecting the set of items in the location of the selected retailer, generating navigation instructions using information about the location of the selected retailer and information delivery locations associated with the user;
controlling a movement of the picker from the location of the selected retailer to a delivery location associated with the user;
delivering the set of items to the user at the delivery location.
The recited limitations above set forth the process for identifying a new retailer for frequent item purchases in a new location. These limitations amount to certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial or legal transactions (e.g. agreements in the form of contracts, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, etc.). The claims are directed to determining retailer similarity by item similarity to purchased items weighted by a repurchase probability and recommending retailers for a user in a new location, which is an advertising and marketing activity. Such concepts have been identified by the courts as abstract ideas (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A (Prong 2):
Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 20 recites additional elements, such as:
a computer processor;
a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions;
a database of an computer system;
via a network;
a device associated with the user;
causes the device of the user to update a user interface;
Taken individually and as a whole, representative claim 20 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Furthermore, this is also because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement a judicial exception with a particular machine, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
While the claims recite a computer processor and non-transitory computer-readable medium, these elements are recited at a very high level of generality as executing instructions to perform the abstract idea. The specification also discloses these elements with a very high level of generality, such as in paragraph [0083], which discloses that the computer processor performs any or all of the steps described, and can be one or more processors or processing units. The non-transitory computer-readable medium is disclosed in paragraphs [0083-0084], but do not disclose any detail beyond a general recitation of storing instructions or a computer program. As such, it is evident that these elements are not any particular computer component, and are generic components that are merely applied to the abstract idea to provide a general link to a computing environment. The device of the user is disclosed in paragraph [0015], which only discloses that the customer client device may be any of a smartphone, a tablet, a laptop computer, or desktop computer. The client device also only serves to display information. As such, the device of the user is also a generic device performing generic functions in a general manner to provide a general link to a computing environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (Prong 2), representative claim 20 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see: MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2B:
Returning to representative claim 20, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 20 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). As noted above, the additional elements recited in claim 20 are recited in a generic manner with a high level of generality and only serve to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing device. The claims result only in an improved abstract idea itself and do not reflect improvements to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process ultimately amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 20 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claim 20 does not provide an inventive concept under step 2B, and is ineligible for patenting.
Regarding Claim 1 (method): Claim 1 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 20 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 1 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 20.
Regarding Claim 11 (non-transitory computer-readable medium): Claim 11 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 20 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 11 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 20.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-19 recite further complexity to the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 20, such as by further defining the algorithm of identifying a new retailer for frequent item purchases in a new location, and do not recite any further additional elements. Thus, each of claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-19 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (Prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-19 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-19 rely on at least similar elements as recited in claim 20. Further additional elements are also acknowledged; however, the additional elements of claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-19 are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, this is also because the claims fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement 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) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Taken individually and as a whole, dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-19 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception under step 2A (prong 2).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-19 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. The dependent claims recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and use the computing device to implement the abstract idea, while failing to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The dependent claims fail to confer eligibility under step 2B because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware and generally link the exception to a technological environment.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
Taken individually or as an ordered combination, the dependent claims simply convey the abstract idea itself applied on a generic computer and are held to be ineligible under Steps 2B for at least similar rationale as discussed above regarding claim 20. Thus, dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17-19 do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The claims have been determined to be free of the prior art for the reasons as indicated in the previous Office Action mailed on 2/19/2026.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30am - 7:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maria-Teresa 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.
/T.J.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 7/29/2026
Prosecution Insights