DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/18/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
• The following is an office action in response to the communication filed 05/18/2026.
• Claims 1-2, 4-5, 13-15, and 20 have been amended.
• Claims 3, 8-10 and 17-19 have been canceled.
• Claims 1-2, 4-7, 11-16, and 20 are currently 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 .
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 1-2, 4-7, 11-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. See MPEP 2106.03(II). In the instant case, claims 1-2, 4-7 and 11-12 are directed to a process, claims 13-16 are directed to a manufacture, and claim 20 is directed to a machine. Therefore, claims 1-2, 4-7, 11-16, and 20 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong 1 of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong 2 of Step 2A). See MPEP 2106.04.
Taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
receiving a search query associated with a user, information about the search query communicated;
searching, using the search query, maintains information about a plurality of items to retrieve a set of candidate items;
accessing a multi-objective ranking model to generate a plurality of weights for each candidate item in the set of candidate items, each of the plurality of weights associated with a respective objective of a plurality of objectives;
applying the multi-objective ranking model to the search query and one or more features of the user to generate the plurality of weights for each candidate item in the set of candidate items;
accessing a revenue adjustment model to adjust a weight of the plurality of weights that is associated with a revenue objective of the plurality of objectives, wherein the weight associated with the revenue objective as generated by the multi-objective ranking model is static with respect to information about a current session of the user, and wherein the revenue adjustment model dynamically adjusts the weight associated with the revenue objective based on information about the current session of the user;
applying the revenue adjustment model to content of a cart of the user for a current order and information about a defined number of previous searched conducted by the user to generate the adjusted weight for each candidate item in the set of candidate items, wherein the adjusted weight is generated by applying a decay function to the weight associated with the revenue objective based on a total monetary value of the content of the cart and an estimated budget for the current order;
generating a ranking score for each candidate item in the set of candidate items by applying the plurality of weights comprising the adjusted weight to a plurality of objective scores, each of the plurality of objective scores associated with the respective objective of the plurality of objectives;
selecting, using the ranking score for each candidate item, one or more items from the set of candidate items; and
causing to display the one or more items for recommendation to the user for inclusion in a cart.
The above limitations recite the concept of recommending items for purchase based on an objective and budget analysis. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. Specifically, the providing of recommendations for inclusion in a cart represents marketing and sales behaviors. Further, these limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Specifically, the analysis of data to determine recommendations are observations, evaluations, and judgements. These limitations are similar to the mental process of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. Claims 13 and 20 recite the same abstract ideas as claim 1 and accordingly fall within the same grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the MPEP, claims 1, 13, and 20 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the MPEP, claims 1, 13, and 20 recite additional elements, such as a computer system comprising a processor and a computer-readable medium; a network; a device; a search interface; executing an application running on the device; an application programming interface; a database; multi-objective ranking model, wherein the multi-objective ranking model is a machine-learning model trained; a revenue adjustment model, wherein the revenue adjustment model a machine-learning model trained; a user interface; a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions encoded thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform steps; and a computer system comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computer system to perform steps. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. As such, these computer-related limitations are not found to be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Although these additional computer-related elements are recited, claims 1, 13, and 20 merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Similar to the limitations of Alice, claims 1, 13, and 20 merely recite a commonplace business method (i.e., recommending items for purchase based on an objective and budget analysis) being applied on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, claims 1, 13, and 20 generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The courts have identified various examples of limitations as merely indicating a field of use/technological environment in which to apply the abstract idea, such as specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer (see FairWarning v. Iatric Sys.). Likewise, claims 1, 13, and 20 specifying that the abstract idea of recommending items for purchase based on an objective and budget analysis is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the MPEP, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1, 13, and 20 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Since claims 1, 13, and 20 recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 1, 13, and 20 are “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Next, under Step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. The instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for at least the following reasons.
Returning to independent claims 1, 13, and 20, these claims recite additional elements, such as a computer system comprising a processor and a computer-readable medium; a network; a device; a search interface; executing an application running on the device; an application programming interface; a database; multi-objective ranking model, wherein the multi-objective ranking model is a machine-learning model trained; a revenue adjustment model, wherein the revenue adjustment model a machine-learning model trained; a user interface; a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions encoded thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform steps; and a computer system comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computer system to perform steps. As discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although additional computer-related elements are recited, the claims merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Moreover, the limitations of claims 1, 13, and 20 are manual processes, e.g., receiving information, sending information, etc. The courts have indicated that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)). Furthermore, as discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, claims 1, 13, and 20 merely recite the additional elements in order to further define the field of use of the abstract idea, therein attempting to generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such as the Internet or computing networks (see Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC. (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bilski v. Kappos (2010); MPEP 2106.05(h)). Similar to FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., claims 1, 13, and 20 specifying that the abstract idea of recommending items for purchase based on an objective and budget analysis is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claim to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. In Alice Corp., the Court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘[a]dd nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’ and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Id. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, viewed as a whole, claims 1, 13, and 20 simply convey the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 13, and 20 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2, 4-7, 11-12, and 14-16, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. Dependent claims 2, 4-7, 11-12, and 14-16 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. Further, these claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Dependent claims 4-5, 7, 12, and 15 fail to identify additional elements and as such, are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Dependent claims 2, 6, 11, 14, and 16 further identify additional elements, such as a budget prediction computer model trained, browsing activity, re-training the revenue adjustment computer model. Similar to discussion above the with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although additional computer-related elements are recited, the claims merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such, under Step 2A, dependent claims 2, 4-7, 11-12, and 14-16 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claims 1, 13, and 20, dependent claims 2, 4-7, 11-12, and 14-16 analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and merely indicate a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Accordingly, under the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1-2, 4-7, 11-16, and 20 are ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 11-16, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the evidence obtained and made of record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of applicant’s invention as the noted features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art.
The most relevant prior art made of record includes previously cited Sewak et al. (US 20190355041 A1), hereafter Sewak, previously cited Li et al. (US 20220269678 A1), hereinafter Li, previously cited Kirkby et al. (US 20140067597 A1), hereinafter Kirkby, previously cited Martin (US 20160292773 A1), hereinafter Martin, and previously cited NPL reference U, initially cited in the Office action dated 01/06/2026.
Although individually the references teach concepts such as a multi-objective ranking model, weights, and decay functions, none of the references teach nor render obvious the specific multi-objective ranking model, where information about a defined number of searches is applied and weights are statically or dynamically adjusted based on a current user session and a decay function in order to provide recommendations.
Previously cited Sewak discloses a shopping system (Sewak: [0041]). Sewak further discloses a fashion product recommendation process that may associate one or more fashion products on a website with a user accessing the website. One or more recommendations may be provided to the user for fashion products based upon, at least in part, one or more fashion-ability scores representative of the one or more fashion products associated with the user on the web site, where fashion products with higher fashion-ability scores from the same category or sub-category of fashion products on the second website may be recommended (Sewak: [0040]; [0086]). Sewak additionally discloses assigning different weights to the one or more recommendations based upon, at least in part, how the recommendation is generated, such as one or more marketing objectives associated with cognitive fashion product recommendation process. A marketing objective as implemented by cognitive fashion product recommendation process may define how various weights are assigned to the one or more recommendations for fashion products on the website to emphasize e.g., customer engagement on a website as a marketing objective. This marketing objective may include the goal of increasing the number of users accessing the website with less emphasis on converting the user activity into immediate purchases (Sewak: [0079]). Sewak additionally discloses a trained neural network (Sewak: [0058]). Yet Sewak does not explicitly disclose all of the limitations pertaining to the search query, the current order, applying weights a plurality of objective scores, and the decay function.
Previously cited Li teaches a recommender system (Li: [0021]). Li further teaches a system that executes a search and filtering operation on the data corpus of information items to determine a subset of the information items to present to the user (Li: [0023]). Li additionally teaches training a machine learning model based on the historical query information, which may be limited to a predefined number of queries (e.g., the 100 most recently submitted queries) and/or a particular time period (e.g., queries submitted in the preceding six months) (Li: [0021]; [0043]). However, Li does not explicitly teach all of the limitations regarding multi-objective model, the weights, and the current order.
Previously cited Kirkby teaches a recommender system (Kirkby: [abstract]). Kirkby further teaches that product attributes along with product ratings (if available) or sales can be used to perform attribute weight analysis and estimate the importance of every attribute to the revenue of the retailer (Kirkby: [0028]). Kirkby further teaches dynamic data such as products in a shopping cart (Kirkby: [0065]). However, Kirkby does not teach the limitations regarding the multi-objective model, the defined number of queries, or the budget.
Previously cited Martin teaches a recommender system (Martin: [0038]). Martin further teaches estimating a budget for an order (Martin: [0052]). Martin further teaches a total for multiple items in an order (Martin [0118]). However, Martin does not teach the limitations regarding the multi-objective model, the weights, or the decay function.
Previously cited NPL reference U, initially cited in the Office action dated 01/06/2026, teaches recommendations for products. Products may be recommended based on current items in a cart. Recommendations are personalized to a user. However, U does not teach all of the limitations regarding the multi-objective model, the weights, or the decay function.
While these references arguably teach the claimed limitations using a piecemeal analysis, these references would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant's disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e., hindsight reasoning). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Accordingly, claims 1, 13, and 20, taken as a whole, are indicated to be allowable over the cited prior art. The examiner emphasizes that it is the interrelationship of the limitations that renders these claims allowable over the prior art/additional art. Claims 2, 4-7, 11-12, and 14-16 depend from claims 1 and 13, and therefore the dependent claims are also indicated as containing allowable subject matter.
The examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as combining various references from the totality of the evidence to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of the Applicant's claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
It is thereby asserted by the examiner that, in light of the above and in further deliberation over all the evidence at hand, that the claims are allowable as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/18/2026, have been fully considered.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant argues the claims do not recite an abstract idea because “[t]his is not a mental process” (Remarks page 11). The examiner disagrees. As shown in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 above, the limitations directed to the abstract idea are directly quoted and concepts within the identified as belonging to the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes groupings of abstract ideas. Furthermore, the claims being directed to an abstract idea of recommending items for purchase based on an objective and budget analysis is not a description of the claims at a high level of abstraction untethered from the language of the claim. The MPEP highlights that a claim recites a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea) when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. Claims can “describe” an abstract concept without ever explicitly stating the abstract concept, e.g., the claims in Alice “described” the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words “intermediated” or “settlement.” see MPEP 2106.04(II). With respect to the instant claims, a computer system comprising a processor and a computer-readable medium; a network; a device; a search interface; executing an application running on the device; an application programming interface; a database; multi-objective ranking model, wherein the multi-objective ranking model is a machine-learning model trained; a revenue adjustment model, wherein the revenue adjustment model a machine-learning model trained; a user interface; a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions encoded thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform steps; and a computer system comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computer system to perform steps have been analyzed as additional elements and accordingly are not analyzed under Step 2A, Prong 1. The claims further recite performing an analysis to rank items. These claims fall into the Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping, which includes activity that falls within the enumerated sub-grouping of commercial or legal interactions, including subject matter relating to advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. Specifically, these claims recite marketing and advertising. These claims further fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Specifically, determining the weights and ranking the items are evaluations, obtaining the information is an observation. The limitation recite the Mental Process of collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant argues the claims are integrated into a practical application because the claims recite “a concrete technical improvement to the functioning of the search ranking system itself” (Remarks pages 11-12). The examiner disagrees. The MPEP provides 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, the MPEP states “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.” The MPEP further states 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,” and that, “conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner…the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology” (see MPEP 2106.04). That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. 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).
While the examiner acknowledges that improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field may constitute integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), the instant claims do not provide a technical improvement. Rather, the claims provide an improvement to the abstract idea of recommending items for purchase based on an objective and budget analysis. This is illustrated in specification paragraph [0002] which discusses that the predicted business outcomes might provide improvements to usefulness of recommendations. With respect to Applicant’s argument regarding the static and dynamic weights, the examiner notes that statically and dynamically determining weights is not a technical improvement, but rather an improvement to the abstract idea.
Although the claims include computer technology such as a computer system comprising a processor and a computer-readable medium; a network; a device; a search interface; executing an application running on the device; an application programming interface; a database; multi-objective ranking model, wherein the multi-objective ranking model is a machine-learning model trained; a revenue adjustment model, wherein the revenue adjustment model a machine-learning model trained; a user interface; a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions encoded thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform steps; and a computer system comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computer system to perform steps, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. Put another way, these additional elements are merely used to apply the abstract idea of recommending items for purchase based on an objective and budget analysis in a technological environment without effectuating any improvement or change to the functioning of the additional elements or other technology. 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 technological improvements but are directed to improving the business method of recommending items for purchase based on an objective and budget analysis. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in a more accurate process for recommendations, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving the server and/or computer components that operate the system. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing data sets related to products and objectives while still employing the same server and/or computer components used in conventional systems to improve recommending items for purchase based on an objective and budget analysis, e.g. a business method, and therefore is merely applying the abstract idea using generic computing components. As such, the claims are not integrated into practical application.
Applicant argues claims 13, 20, and the dependent claims are eligible for the same reasons as claim 1 (Remarks page 12). The examiner disagrees. As discussed in the 101 rejection and response to remarks above, claim 1 is ineligible and claims 13, 20, and the dependent claims are ineligible for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA MAE MITROS whose telephone number is (571)272-3969. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30-6.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/ANNA MAE MITROS/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights