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 the Application
This action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed May 29, 2026. Claims 10-11, 15-17, 21-22 and 26-30 are amended. Claims 14 and 25 are canceled. Claims 33-34 are added. Claims 10-13, 15-17 and 21-34 are pending and have been examined in this application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/29/2026 has been entered.
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 10-13, 15-17 and 21-34 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.
Claims 10-13, 15-17 and 21-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 10-13, 15-17 and 21-34 are directed toward at least abstract idea without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP § 2106, the rationale for this determination is explained below.
Representative claim 10 is directed towards a method, claim 21 is directed towards a system, claim 29 is directed towards a non-transitory medium, which are statutory categories of invention.
Although, claim 10 is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim however, is directed towards a judicial exception namely an abstract idea. The limitations that set forth the abstract idea recites: generating, a first prompt for display in a user interface, the first prompt providing a first option for input of a first set of characteristics; receiving a first profile input, in response to the first prompt the first profile input specifying the first set of characteristics to be used in profile generation; generating, a first candidate profile based on the first profile input, the first candidate profile including a image and text configured for use in conjunction with a listing for a product or service; outputting the first candidate profile for output;
generating, a second prompt providing a second option for input of a second set of characteristics, wherein generating the second prompt is based on processing the first set of characteristics and the first candidate profile; receiving a second profile input generated based on the first candidate profile in response to the second prompt, the second profile input specifying a second set of characteristics to be used in profile generation; generating, a subsequent candidate profile based on the first and second sets of characteristics; and controlling association of a profile with the listing for the product or service implemented using a listing service implemented by a service provider system, the controlling based on selection of the subsequent candidate profile in the user interface. These limitations, comprise commercial interactions including, marketing or sales activities; business relations; and managing personal behavior or interactions between people, including following rules or instructions. As such, the limitations are directed towards the abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed as a whole under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements provided by the claim amount to merely using a computer as a tool to apply an abstract idea, and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. In particular the claim recites the additional elements: by a first machine-learning model implemented by a prompt generator module, entered via a user interface; by a second machine-learning model using generative artificial intelligence and implemented by a profile generator module; digital image; in the user interface; via the user interface; by the second machine-learning model using generative artificial intelligence; by the first machine-learning model, which are recited at a high level of generality and are the mere use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract ideas, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Simply applying the abstract idea by a computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
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 claim recites the additional limitations of a user interface, a machine-learning model using generative artificial intelligence, a digital image, a processor and memory (claim 21), which do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment1. Viewing these limitations as a combination, the additional elements amount to no more than merely applying the exception using generic computer components, executing algorithmic functions of a computer. Merely applying an exception using general computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept). Therefore, the limitations of the claim as a whole, when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
An analysis of dependent claims 11-13, 15-17, likewise, do not recite any limitations that would remedy the deficiencies outlined above. The claims only further add to the abstract idea, with no elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more. While they may slightly narrow the abstract idea by further describing it, they do not make it less abstract and are rejected accordingly. Further still, claims 21-24, 26-34 suffer from substantially the same deficiencies as outlined with respect to claims 10-13, 15-17 and are also rejected accordingly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's filed arguments have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive.
A. Applicant submits regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that the claims do not fit within Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity judicial exception grouping, nor do they recite a mental process. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to abstract ideas grouped under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as they entail commercial interactions including marketing or sales behaviors; business relations, (characteristics to be used in profile generation; candidate profile including a digital image and text for use in conjunction with a listing for a product or service ) as well as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (association of a profile with the listing for the product or service implemented using a listing service implemented by a service provider system). See 101 analysis.
Applicant alludes to McRO, in which the instant claims bear no similarity. In McRO, the Court held the claims were not directed to an abstract idea because the claims were directed to an improvement in computer-related technology (allowing computers to produce “accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters” that previously could only be produced by human animators), and thus did not recite a concept similar to previously identified abstract ideas. The Court analyzed the McRO specification that described the claimed invention as improving computer animation through the use of specific rules to set morph weights (relating to facial expressions as an animated character speaks) and transition parameters between phonemes (relating to sounds made when speaking), which were not used by human artists who instead relied on subjective determinations. The Court relied on the specification's explanation of how the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that “improved [the] existing technological process”, unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process. Unlike McRO, Applicant’s claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas and there is no description in Applicant’s specification of improving a technological process. The claims simply use a computer as a tool to perform an existing process of creating profiles to target product or service offers. As made clear by Applicant’s specification its “profile manager service, for instance, leverages generative AI to generate a profile for an entity based on listings already generated by the entity or other entities as part of a listing service, e.g., to offer products or services for sale” [0019].
Applicant argues that the claims as a whole integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are therefore patent eligible under Prong Two of Step 2A because claim 10 recites a specific dual-model machine-learning architecture, specifically requiring a first machine-learning model that dynamically generates UI prompts to solicit inputs, and a distinct second machine- learning model using generative artificial intelligence that synthesizes the complex candidate profile. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Using two machine learning algorithms does not make the abstract concept not abstract. Applicant’s specification does not describe or provide any technical support as to how these algorithms improve the computer or any other technology. The purported improvement is to the abstract idea and not any additional element. Therefore, even assuming arguendo a technical problem was identified, “the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement” see MPEP 2106.05(a). Repeating a process does not improve a technology or the computer itself; hence a model employing a feedback loop used to synthesize a subsequent candidate profile, is not an improvement to the computer or any technology. See as least Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp, 134 F.4th 1205, 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (“requirements that the machine learning model be “iteratively trained” or dynamically adjusted in the Machine Learning Training patents do not represent a technological improvement”).
Applicant contends that the invention is directly analogous to the eligible claims in the USPTO's AI-specific Example 47 (Anomaly Detection) and Example 48 (Speech Separation). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. These examples are extremely disparate; thus, they are not analogous to each other nor to Applicant’s invention. The instant claimed invention and Example 47 have different claim sets and different fact patterns, and therefore the two are not analogous. Example 47, Claim 3 was deemed eligible because it trained a machine learning model to generate an ANN that was used to detect anomalies in network traffic. Contrary to Example 47, the instant claimed invention, is directed towards the abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (see 101 analysis above) and does not provide a technological solution to a technical problem. Also, there is no technical support/technical description in Applicant’s Specification that the claimed invention, when implemented, improves the functioning of a network, the computing device itself, or that of another technology/technical field.
The instant claims are not analogous to Claim 2 of Example 48 because they have different claim sets, different fact patterns and do not provide any additional elements that integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. The claims for instance do not generate a mixed speech signal that excludes speech signal from a target source, but rather they iteratively generate and update a profile. Not monopolize the idea of creating a profile or marketing, is not a stand-alone test for eligibility (see MPEP 2106.04(I)), and furthermore, does not amount to an improvement to the computer itself or any technology. A computer automation providing an improvement over manual tools, manual interactions, static templates or computational resources is what is to be expected and is similar to “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). As such, there is no technical improvement as provided by Claim 2 of Example 48, and the combined additional elements in the instant claims do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application
Applicant further argues that the claims recite an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea by providing a technical feedback loop where the system receives a second profile input that is generated based on a first candidate profile. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Using a machine-learning model to apply the abstract idea does not amount to significantly more. This amounts to using an algorithm to implement the creation of a profile via a computer, which addresses an entrepreneurial problem rather than a technological one. See TLI at 613, 1748 (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept). Even assuming arguendo, the invention automates the manual process by using a new, non-conventional interaction model where the first candidate profile is technically linked to and drives the subsequent refinement input, it still would not constitute significantly more. As even newly discovered judicial exceptions are still exceptions, despite their novelty. For example, the mathematical formula in Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, (1978), the laws of nature in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 73-74, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968 (2012), and the isolated DNA in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116, 106 USPQ2d 1972, 1978 (2013) were all novel, but were considered by the Supreme Court to be judicial exceptions.
Applicant also contends that claim 10 is directly analogous to BASCOM. The Examiner respectfully. In BASCOM, the court agreed that the concept of filtering content was an abstract idea; however, the claims were found to be significantly more since they did not merely recite the abstract idea along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet, or on a set of generic computer components. The inventive concept was found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces, because although, filtering content on the Internet was already a known concept, the patent described how its particular arrangement of elements was a technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering content. Thus, like BASCOM, Applicant’s claims are directed to an abstract concept but unlike BASCOM, they do not improve any technology neither are they unconventional. Employing modules in an iterative sequence/feedback loop is not unconventional. See also TLI at 613, 1748 (“It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea”)
As such, the claims as a whole, in view of Alice, do not connote an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Errol CARVALHO whose telephone number is (571)272-9987. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30-7:00 Alt Fri
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571- 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E CARVALHO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
1 See, Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2360 (2014) (noting that none of the hardware recited “offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,’ that is, implementation via computers” (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010))).
