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 06/15/2023.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9, and 18 are amended.
Claims 19-20 are cancelled.
Claims 21-22 are newly added.
Claims 1-18 and 21-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 and 21-22 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 the 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.
Claims 1-18 and 21-22 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 1-18 and 21-22 are directed to methods. Claims 1 and 9 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. Claim 1, as exemplary, recites abstract concepts including: receiving user data of a user of a product recommendation system, the user data including at least one style preference of the user; determining a first style bucket for the user, the first style bucket being selected from a plurality of predefined style buckets based on the at least one style preference of the user; selecting, from a plurality of products, at least a first recommended product, the first recommended product being selected based on one or more style bucket tags associated with the first recommended product, wherein at least one of the one or more style bucket tags is associated with the first style bucket, and wherein the at least one of the one or more style bucket tags has been generated by: providing the first recommended product ... to generate at least one of the one or more style bucket tags based on one or more attribute of the product, and receiving, from an administrative user of the product recommendation system, an instruction to revise at least one or the one or more style bucket tags; adding the first recommended product to a recommendation queue of the user; generating an instruction to send a first recommendation message to the user, the recommendation message including at least one attribute of the first recommended product, ... receiving a first textual review associated with a first reaction message indicating a first reaction of the user to the first recommendation message... selecting at least a second recommended product based at least in part on the first textual review; and adding the second recommended product to the recommendation queue of the user.
These identified limitations set forth an abstract method for selecting a recommended product for a user based on an analysis, providing a message to the user including the recommendation, and selecting a second recommended product based on a user reaction to the message. This abstract idea, characterized as “managing product recommendations for a user”, describes a marketing activity which included in the subgrouping of commercial interactions within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1 and 9 recite an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04.
In Step 2A, Prong Two Examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Instant claims 1 and 9 recite additional elements including: a trained classification model; wherein the first recommendation message is one of a simple messaging service (SMS) message or a multimedia messaging service (MMS) message; and wherein the first reaction message is one of a simple messaging service (SMS) message or a multimedia messaging service (MMS) message. The claims do not recite specific details of the SMS or MMS technology, and amount to no more than generally linking the marketing activity to a particular technological environment. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(f), limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 1 and 9 are thus directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the SME 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).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. For the same reason, the elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the abstract idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more. See MPEP2106.05(H). Accordingly, the additional elements, alone or in ordered combination, provide no inventive concept, thus claims 1 and 9 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2-3 and 15-16 recites additional elements including: generating a first graphical user interface (GUI) accessible from a user device. The claims recite the GUI at a high level of generality and in its ordinary capacity (“configured to display”), without details as to how the computer configured the GUI to display. In other words, the GUI is generic in form and function. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Accordingly, claims 2-3 and 15-16 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 4 and 17 recite additional elements including: writing, to a first database. Similar to the GUI, the database is recited at a high-level of generality and used in its ordinary capacity to store data. 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. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, claims 4 and 17 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 5-7 and 18 recite additional elements including: a trained classification model and retraining the trained classification model based on the training data set. The model and machine learning technology (“retraining ... based on the training data”) described in the claims is conventional, as the specification demonstrates (¶ [0041] “using machine learning algorithms, including, for example, logistic regressions, random forest classifications, generative adversarial networks, etc.”). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application in step 2a prong two or add significantly more in step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, claims 5-7 and 18 are ineligible.
Dependent claim 8 and 22 recite additional elements including: wherein the first reaction comprises an iMessage Tapback and information generated from a visit of the user to a webpage. These limitations generally link use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (iMessage tapback and the internet), which does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, claims 8 and 22 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 10-14 and 21 further describe the abstract recommendation determination, and do not recite additional elements to consider in prong two or step 2B. Because a judicial exception alone is not eligible subject matter, if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Claims 10-14 and 21 are therefore ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 with respect to the § 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 11 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “By receiving instructions from an administrative user of the disclosed product recommendation system to revise style bucket tags, the disclosed classification model exhibits improved (e.g., more accurate) functioning”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements, or the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology. Similarly, a claimed process covering embodiments that can be performed on a computer, as well as embodiments that can be practiced verbally or with a telephone, cannot improve computer technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
The limitation, “receiving, from an administrative user of the product recommendation system, an instruction to revise at least one of the one or more style bucket tags” is an abstract mental judgement that does not require a computer. Accordingly, this revision cannot improve computer or machine-learning functionality as demonstrated in MPEP 2106.05(a). The claims do not recite training or further training the machine learning model based on the revision, as suggested by Applicant’s arguments. Even if the claims effectively recited training the model, as in Fig. 3 #404, iteratively training a machine-learning model is not a technological improvement because it is incident to machine learning (see Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2025)).
Accordingly, the Examiner is maintaining the § 101 rejection because the claims are directed to an abstract idea and do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
L. De Divitiis, F. Becattini, C. Baecchi and A. Del Bimbo (NPL Reference U) propose a garment recommendation system that leverages a trained style classifier to give recommendations that adhere to a desired style.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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.
/K.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights