DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response received on 26 March 2026.
Claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 21 April 2026 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
As indicated in the Office Action mailed on 26 January 2026, claims 1-20 recite allowable subject matter and would be allowable if the claims were rewritten or amended to overcome the 101 rejection indicated in the Office Action 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea without significantly more).
Under step 1, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention (see MPEP 2106.03(II)). In the instant case, claims 1-8 are directed to a method, claims 9-16 are directed to a product of manufacture (non-transitory computer-readable medium), and claims 17-20 are directed to a system.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites an abstract idea of monitoring user purchase making activity. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
logging, by a user, a potential user purchase and purchase communications corresponding to a potential option available for purchase by a user;
analyzing, user activities, comprising interface search process, selected filters, and questionnaires corresponding to the user decision from collected interaction logs of the user to predict whether loss aversion is a factor in a purchase making process of the potential option available for purchase by the user using predictive analytics;
determining the purchase recommendation in response to a notification from the user that the loss aversion is the factor in the potential purchase making process of the potential option available for purchase by the user; and
displaying the purchase recommendation, received, based on a use frequency of the option purchased by the user.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in 2106.04(a) of the MPEP. Even in consideration of the analysis, the claims recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of monitoring user purchase making activity, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “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).” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity because it relates to sale activities since the claims specifically recites monitoring user purchase making activity that comprises the steps of logging by a user, a potential user purchase and purchase communications for a potential option for purchase, analyzing, user activities, comprising interface search process, selected filters, and questionnaires corresponding to the user decision from collected interaction logs of the user to predict whether a loss aversion is a factor in the purchase making process of the potential option to purchase, determine a purchase recommendation in response to a notification from the user that the loss aversion is the factor in the potential purchase making process, and displaying the purchase recommendation based on a use frequency of the option purchased by the user, thereby making this a sales activity or behavior.
Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements: a user device, training, by a computer, a convolution neural network (CNN) based on non-language communication and selected predictive analysis training algorithm to generate a trained CNN, comprising a loss aversion purchase identification model and a purchase advice determination model, the loss aversion purchase identification model, computer user activities, online interactive search, the purchase advice determination model on a server computer, and the user device.
Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., monitoring purchasing activity) being applied on a general-purpose computer using general purpose computer technology. MPEP 2106.05(f). While the claims recite training a machine- learning model, the recitations are results based in nature and do not include details as to how the machine learning is actually functioning beyond known functions. Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility 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). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements of a user device, training, by a computer, a convolution neural network (CNN) based on non-language communication and selected predictive analysis training algorithm to generate a trained CNN, comprising a loss aversion purchase identification model and a purchase advice determination model, the loss aversion purchase identification model, computer user activities, online interactive search, the purchase advice determination model on a server computer, and the user device, recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘ad[d] nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’… [and] [v]iewed as a whole…[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Independent claims 9 and 17 are similar in nature to representative claim 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis is the same as above for representative claim 1. It is noted that in independent claim 9 includes the additional elements of program code to train, a non-transitory computer-readable medium having program code recorded thereon, the program code being executed by a processor and comprising, and program code, and independent claim 17 includes the additional elements of a compute train, a purchase logging module, a loss averse purchase identification model, a purchase advice determination model, and a purchase advice display module. The Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of additional elements, as being anything other than generic elements. Thus, the claimed additional elements of claims 9 and 17 are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. As such, the additional elements of claims 9 and 17 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claim 9 and 17, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer.
As such, claim 9 and 17 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20, depending from claims 1, 9, and 17 respectively, do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claim 1. The claims of 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 merely act to provide further limitations of the abstract idea and are ineligible subject matter.
It is noted that dependent claims include the additional elements of a natural language processor and the trained CNN (claims 7, 15, & 19). Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the additional elements as being anything other than a generic element. The claimed additional elements, individually and in combination do not integrate into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept because they are merely being used to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claims 7, 15, and 19 are directed towards an abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claim 7, 15, and 19 considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. It is further noted that the remaining dependent claims 2-6, 8, 10-14, 16, 18, and 20 do not recite any further additional elements to consider in the analysis, and therefore would not provide additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and would not provide an inventive concept.
As such, dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are ineligible.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the claim objection regarding claim 1, and in light of the Applicant’s amendment to the claim, the objection is withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 26 March 2026, have been fully considered but are not considered persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on page 10 of the remarks stating that “applicants submit claim 1 is not directed to an abstract concept and is believed to be patent eligible under Step 2A Prong Two,” and “attempting to mentally perform each of elements a)-d) would go well beyond using the type of pen-and-paper mental aids that are contemplated and permitted by the MPEP and caselaw as being part of a non-statutory mental process,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. When considering the amendments to the claims, under Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis, the claims recite and are directed to the abstract idea. The abstract idea in this case, is not indicated by the Examiner to fall into the grouping of a mental process. However, the claimed abstract idea does fall into the grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity. The activities involved in the claim language are related to sales activities or behaviors because the claims recite steps needed for monitoring user purchase making activities that include the steps of logging by a user, a potential user purchase and purchase communications for a potential option for purchase, analyzing user activities, user search processes, selected filters, and questionnaires corresponding to the user decision from collected interaction logs of the user to predict whether a loss aversion is a factor in the purchase making process of the potential option to purchase, determine a purchase recommendation in response to a notification from the user that the loss aversion is the factor in the potential purchase making process, and displaying the purchase recommendation based on a use frequency of the option purchased by the user. Therefore the Examiner maintains that the claims are directed to an abstract idea that falls into the enumerated grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity, where the specific steps recited in the claims are related to sales activities or behaviors.
In response to the Applicant’s argument found on page 10 of the remarks stating “the claimed invention includes additional elements that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception,” and “additional elements a)-c), taken alone and/or in combination integrate the potential exceptions into a practical application of providing a purchase recommendation based on user device and server computer interaction,” and further “one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as pertaining to an improvement in technology of providing separating model complexity between a user device and a server computer utilizing components of a non-conventional, trained CNN including a loss aversion purchase identification model and a purchase advice determination model to provide improved prediction functionality,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Even when considering the amended claims, the claims are still directed to an abstract idea of monitoring a user purchase making activity. Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis, even when considering the amendments to the claims, the claims do not recite limitations and additional elements alone nor in combination, that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The representative claim 1 now recites the additional elements of a user device, training, by a computer, a convolution neural network (CNN) based on non-language communication and selected predictive analysis training algorithm to generate a trained CNN, comprising a loss aversion purchase identification model and a purchase advice determination model, the loss aversion purchase identification model, computer user activities, online interactive search, the purchase advice determination model on a server computer, and the user device. Although the claim now recites such additional elements, they are still described within the claims in a generic manner and merely being used to apply the abstract idea with generic computing components and a generic user device. Although the claims recites the CNN and the models, the features are described at a high-level of generality and recited in a manner that is generic, and would not be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, the claims do not reflect a technological improvement to machine learning model functionality. The MPEP (2106.05(a)) provides further guidance on how to evaluate whether claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For example, as indicated in 2106.05(d)(1) of the MPEP “the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement,” and that “[t]he specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Looking to the specification is a standard that the courts have employed when analyzing claims as it relates to improvements in technology. For example, in Enfish, the specification provided teaching that the claimed invention achieves benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, in Core Wireless the specification noted deficiencies in prior art interfaces relating to efficient functioning of the computer. Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs. Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed Cir. 2018). With respect to McRO, the claimed improvement, as confirmed by the originally filed specification, was “…allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters…’” and it was “…the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks”. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In this case, Applicant’s specification provides no explanation of an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology. Rather, the claims focus “on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool”. Id citing Enfish at 1327, 1336. Although the claims include computer technology such as a user device, training, by a computer, a convolution neural network (CNN) based on non-language communication and selected predictive analysis training algorithm to generate a trained CNN, comprising a loss aversion purchase identification model and a purchase advice determination model, the loss aversion purchase identification model, computer user activities, online interactive search, the purchase advice determination model on a server computer, and the user device, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the courts in cases such as Enfish, Core Wireless, and McRO. Unlike precedential cases, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement to computer capabilities. The instant claims are not directed to improving the existing technological process but are directed to improving the commercial task of providing a purchase recommendation based on monitoring user purchase making activity. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in improved purchase recommendations, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving the processor and/or computer components that operate the system. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing different data while still employing the same processor and/or computer components used in conventional systems to improve purchase recommendations, e.g. commercial process. As such, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not recite nor reflect specific technological improvements, and therefore the claims are not eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis, and the Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4399. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/ASHLEY D PRESTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights