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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the Response C (“Response”) on 23 July 2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Reducing the cognitive load on a user is not an improvement to the machine, but an improvement made on a user’s ability to search for a product. Further, identifying data, whether it be data found in tables or different nodes (i.e. leaves) of a taxonomy data structure (i.e. hierarchical tree), encompasses a mental process. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps which could be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement of opinion but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Applicant in the Response makes arguments alongside a Declaration by Aomin Wu (“Declaration”). However, utilizing (‘apply it’) a database which was already categorized corresponding to nodes within a taxonomy data structure (pre-solution activity) does not change the focus of the claims away from the abstract idea and towards a technical improvement. The focus on the claims is on sending a list of items for display and not on the technical improvement of improving a database, whether it be in processing time or computing power. Further, all of Applicant’s arguments toward reducing the ‘cognitive load’ on a user is simply further evidence that the claims are not focused on a technical improvement, but rather on an improvement made on a user’s (mind) ability to search for a product.
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, 4-11 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without “significantly more.” Claims 1, 4-11 and 14-20 are directed to receiving a request, identifying the set of items, generating an availability prediction, determining low availability, generating a generic item and sending a list for display, which is considered an abstract idea. Further, the claim(s) as a whole, when examined on a limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an inventive concept.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claims, the examiner finds the claims are directed to a process or article of manufacture.
Step 2A – Prong One - Abstract Idea Analysis
Exemplary claim 1 (and similarly claim 11) recites the following abstract concepts, in italics below, which are found to include an “abstract idea”:
A method comprising, at a computer system comprising a processor and memory:
receiving, from a user device, a request to present a set of items to a user of the user device, wherein the set of items corresponds to a product category of a plurality of product categories, wherein the plurality of categories correspond to nodes within a taxonomy data structure, wherein the taxonomy data structure is a hierarchical structure of product categories;
querying the set of items from the taxonomy data structure, wherein querying the items from the taxonomy data structure comprises:
identifying a node within the taxonomy data structure corresponding to the product category;
identifying sub-nodes within the taxonomy data structure, wherein the sub-nodes descend from the identified node and correspond to sub-product categories of the product category; and
identifying items within the sub-product categories corresponding to the identified sub-nodes;
retrieving the set of items using the taxonomy data structure;
generating an availability prediction for each item of the set of items by applying a prediction model to each item of the set of items, wherein the availability prediction for each item of the set of items is a prediction of the likelihood that the item is available at a warehouse location, and wherein the prediction model is a machine learning model trained to predict a probability that an item is available at a warehouse location based on the warehouse location and a plurality of characteristics associated with the item;
determining that the product category has low availability based on the generated availability predictions for the set of items;
responsive to determining that the product category has low availability, generating a generic item for the product category, wherein the generic item represents all items within the product category and within the sub-product categories; and
sending a list of items to the user device for display to the user, wherein the list of items includes the generic item as one of the items, wherein sending the list of items causes the user device to display a graphical user interface comprising a subset of the set of items and the generic item, wherein the subset of items and the generic item are arranged in the graphical user interface based on the availability predictions for each of the subset of items.
The claim features in italics above as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity performed by generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer system comprising a processor and memory”, “a machine learning model trained”, “user device” and “a graphical user interface”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or a method of organized human activity. For example, but for the “computer system comprising a processor and memory”, “machine learning model trained”, “user device” and “graphical user interface” language, “querying the set of items from the taxonomy data structure, wherein querying the items from the taxonomy data structure comprises: identifying a node within the taxonomy data structure corresponding to the product category; identifying sub-nodes within the taxonomy data structure, wherein the sub-nodes descend from the identified node and correspond to sub-product categories of the product category; and identifying items within the sub-product categories corresponding to the identified sub-nodes; generating an availability prediction for each item of the set of items by applying a prediction model to each item of the set of items, wherein the availability prediction for each item of the set of items is a prediction of the likelihood that the item is available at a warehouse location, and wherein the prediction model is … to predict a probability that an item is available at a warehouse location based on the warehouse location and a plurality of characteristics associated with the item… determining that the product category has low availability based on the generated availability predictions for the set of items… responsive to determining that the product category has low availability, generating a generic item for the product category, wherein the generic item represents all items within the product category and within the sub-product categories” in the context of this claim encompasses a mental process. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps which could be performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement of opinion but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Even further, “receiving a request to present a set of items to a user, wherein the set of items corresponds to a product category of a plurality of product categories, wherein the plurality of categories correspond to nodes within a taxonomy data structure, wherein the taxonomy data structure is a hierarchical structure of product categories… retrieving the set of items using the taxonomy data structure;… sending a list of items … for display to the user, wherein the list of items includes the generic item as one of the items, wherein sending the list of items causes… to display… interface comprising a subset of the set of items and the generic item, wherein the subset of items and the generic item are arranged in the … interface based on the availability predictions for each of the subset of items” in the context of this claim encompasses certain methods of organizing human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interaction or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two - Abstract Idea Analysis
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites five additional elements – “computer system comprising a processor and memory”, “a machine learning model trained”, “user device”, “user device associated with a picker” (claims 8 and 19) and “a graphical user interface”. The “computer system comprising a processor and memory”, “machine learning model trained”, “user device”, “user device associated with a picker” and “graphical user interface” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)). 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B - Significantly More Analysis
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a computer system comprising a processor and memory”, “a machine learning model trained”, “user device”, “user device associated with a picker” and “graphical user interface” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the background does not provide any indication that the “computer system comprising a processor and memory”, “machine learning model trained”, “user device”, “user device associated with a picker” (claims 8 and 19) and “graphical user interface” are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hunter Wilder whose telephone number is (571)270-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/A. Hunter Wilder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights