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 08/21/2025.
Claim 1 is cancelled.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, and 21 are amended.
Claims 2-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continuation
The present application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/813,081 filed July 18, 2022, now U.S. Patent No. 11,682,061.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-22 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 any 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.
Claim(s) 2-22 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 2-8 are directed to a method, claims 9-15 are directed to system, and claims 16-22 are directed to a manufacture. Claims 2, 9, and 16 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. In the instant case, representative claim 2 recites abstract concepts including: transmitting a notification corresponding to a gift object for a gift recipient, where the gift object is associated with a gift recipient profile, wherein the gift object is not associated with any defined gift selection options; receiving a gift redemption request submission, wherein the gift redemption request is associated with a recipient ... and the gift object; generate different gift selection options for different gift objects based on one or more vectors, wherein the different gift selection options are defined in response to different gift redemption request submissions, … using sample gift selection objects generated using sample gift objects and sample gift selections; generating a set of clusters from the dataset, wherein the set of clusters is generated according to the one or more vectors; processing the gift recipient profile ... to identify a cluster from the set of clusters, wherein the cluster is identified ... according to one or more partial matches along the one or more vectors; defining a set of gift selection options for the gift object, wherein the set of gift selection options is defined according to the cluster; ... provide ... the set of gift selection options; detecting a selection of one or more gift selection options; and dynamically updating the gift selection ... based on the selection and other selections associated with other gift recipients.
When considering the subject matter groupings articulated in the 2019 PEG, the claims recite an abstract idea. As noted above, the claims recite the abstract idea of “defining and providing gift selection options in response to a gift redemption request”. These concepts are considered to be certain methods of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined by the 2019 PEG as including “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)”. In this case, providing a set of selectable gift options after receiving a gift redemption request is a sales/advertising activity because the method recommends gifts, which are understood to be available for sale (Specification ¶ [0087]). The abstract idea can also be characterized as ‘managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people’ because the method assists a user in determining what to gift someone else. Accordingly, claims 2, 9, and 16 recite an abstract idea.
If it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, then in Step 2A, Prong 2 of the SME analysis, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. This is the question of whether a claim is “directed to” a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.05, the evaluation of Prong Two requires the use of the considerations (e.g. improving technology, effecting a particular treatment or prophylaxis, implementing with a particular machine, etc.) identified by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, to ensure that the claim as a whole “integrates [the] judicial exception into a practical application [that] will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.”
In this case, claims 2, 9, and 16 recite the additional elements including: a computer; a gift selection algorithm; training a gift selection algorithm; a recipient computing device; a dataset; updating an interface associated with the recipient computing device to provide a set of user interface elements; detecting selection .... through the interface; dynamically updating the gift selection algorithm ... wherein the gift selection algorithm is updated as the selection and the other selections are simultaneously processed in parallel; one or more processors; memory storing thereon instructions; a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing thereon instructions; and a computer system.
MPEP 2106.05(f) explains that the “use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”. The recited computer and machine learning techniques are invoked merely as tools to perform ordinary functions such as receiving requests and selections through a user interface, and training and updating an algorithm. The claims do not recite limitations describing how the training, dynamic real-time updating, receiving, interface updating, or parallel processing are performed by the computer. As such, these limitations amount to no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or equivalent). 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. Claims 2, 9, and 16 are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, 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). 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 technological environment. The invention as claimed merely automates “defining and providing gift selection options in response to a gift redemption request” (i.e., the abstract idea) and does not add meaningful limitations to the abstract ideas beyond generally linking the process to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers/software (see MPEP 2106.05 (I)(A) and 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the additional elements alone or in ordered combination do not render the claim as being significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Accordingly claims 2, 9, and 16 are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 3-8, 10-15, and 17-22 merely further limit the abstract idea, without reciting any further additional elements. Therefore, claims 3-8, 10-15, and 17-22 are ineligible for the same reasons as identified with respect to claims 2, 9, and 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks, filed 08/21/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant does not make any arguments. As explained in the rejection above, the Examiner is maintaining the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections because the amended claims are still directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more.
The Examiner has withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections as neither the cited prior art, nor the next most relevant references, teach or make obvious all the limitations now recited in the independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Miller (US 2020/0334737 A1) describes a recommendation system using a clustering algorithm and capable of parallel processing in at least ¶ [0035] and ¶ [0049].
S. Kaushik (NPL Reference U) presents an implementation of proposed efficient K-means clustering algorithm which shows experimentally the comparison with the existing collaborative filtering technique and existing k means technique in recommendation systems.
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 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 on 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