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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/30/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 remain pending, and are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 4/30/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive for at least the following rationale:
Applicant’s arguments filed on 4/30/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for claims directed to a judicial exception are not persuasive.
Notably, on pages 13-14 of the Applicant’s Remarks, arguments are made that the claims have been amended to not recite products or items, and are not directed to any abstract ideas. On pages 14-15, it is argued that the claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application, such as by improving the functioning of a computer or another technology. The Applicant argues that the functioning of a computer and machine learning are improved, and provide significant improvements over conventional approaches that determine similarities between items generally based on transaction history by further taking into account the relationships between product types, using pre-trained machine learning models. On pages 15-17, comparisons are drawn to Bascom as the combination of elements, such as the encoders and decision trees, enable a non-conventional approach that determines similarities by taking into account the relationships between types using pre-trained machine learning models, and conserves computing resources by storing word embeddings in a database and retrieving them from the database instead of re-encoding.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Simply removing the words of product or item from the claim do not direct the claims away from an abstract idea or certain methods of organizing human activity. The removal of these terms do not change what the claims are directed to, which is still determining complementary vectors for a name of each complementary type for an anchor type to produce an output of information regarding an associated type. This merely broadens the concept, but is still directed to identifying some complementary object or concept for an anchor object or concept, and is still a form of outputting some sort of complementary item to an anchor item. The claims also do not recite any particular improvements to machine learning. As discussed in specification paragraph [0003], the present invention is directed towards a problem of users being siloed into one or the other type of categories, and not purchasing across types of categories, which is a sales problem, and unrelated to technology. The claim limitations also do not recite any particular changes or improvements to any underlying technology of machine learning, but merely recite a general training of generic word encoders and the general use of a generic decision tree-based machine learning model in order to perform various calculations to determine associated types based on a similarity score of the complementary types to an anchor type. Any technical ability of machine learning is unaddressed, and generic machine learning concepts are merely applied to the abstract idea to perform various calculations. In Bascom, the combination of elements did not merely apply generic components to an abstract idea, but took advantage of the ability of the ISPs to identify individual accounts that communicate with the ISP server to associate a request for internet content with a specific individual account. As discussed above, the present claims do not leverage technical abilities of the additional items, and merely apply generic machine learning to output values. Furthermore, the assertions of computer improvements of conserving resources are only from storing data to retrieve for use later (i.e. a more efficient algorithm). How a computer processes, stores, or retrieves data at a technical level are not addressed in the claims.
In view of the above, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been maintained 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 claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-10 are directed to a system, which is an apparatus. Claims 11-20 are directed to a method, which is a process. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A (Prong 1):
Taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 sets forth the following limitations reciting the abstract idea of identifying complementary products for an anchor item:
tokenizing, using one or more tokenizers, a name of an anchor type for an anchor;
aggregating, using one or more pooling functions, one or more anchor word embeddings, into an anchor vector for the name;
determining a respective complementary vector for a respective name of each of at least one complementary type, for the anchor type, tokenizing the name of the anchor type, and aggregating using the one or more pooling functions;
determining a respective similarity score between the anchor vector and the respective complementary vector for each of the at least one complementary type;
determining at least one associated type based at least in part on a threshold and the respective similarity score for each of the at least one complementary type;
determining at least one associated output for the anchor based at least in part on the at least one associated type after determining the respective complementary vector and after the respective complementary vector is used to determine the at least one associated type;
transmitting information regarding the at least one associated output to be displayed for the user.
The recited limitations above set forth the process for identifying complementary products for an anchor item. These limitations amount to certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial or legal transactions (e.g. agreements in the form of contracts, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, etc.). The claims are directed to identifying product types of anchor and complementary items and comparing for similarity thresholds to then identify items to display to the user from the determined complementary product type (see specification: [0003] disclosing the problem of users siloed into one type of category and not purchasing across types of categories), which is an advertising and marketing activity.
Such concepts have been identified by the courts as abstract ideas (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A (Prong 2):
Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 recites additional elements, such as:
one or more processors;
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computing instructions;
a computer network;
a user interface;
training a word encoder based on a training dataset that includes one or more tokenized historical search words;
using a decision tree-based machine learning model;
using a Noise-resistant complementary item recommendation CIRS (NEAT) model;
Taken individually and as a whole, representative claim 1 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Furthermore, this is also because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement a judicial exception with a particular machine, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
While the claims recite one or more processors and non-transitory computer-readable media, these elements are recited with a very high level of generalization. They are merely recited in passing as executing the steps of the abstract idea without any further involvement. Specification paragraph [0018] discloses that the processors are any type of computational circuit, not limited to microprocessors, microcontrollers, etc. Specification paragraph [0017] discloses that the memory can be any of USB-equipped electronic devices, hard drives, CD-ROM, DVD, or any other suitable media. As such, it is evident that these elements are any generic computing components that merely implement the abstract idea on a general computing device, such that the abstract idea is performed within a computing environment. The computing network is also any generic networking of devices, such as the internet (specification paragraph: [0029]), and is also recited in passing as the method of transmitting information. The computing network is merely another generic computing element to implement the abstract idea within a computing environment. The user interface is also not disclosed in the specification with any particularity, and is merely disclosed as displaying the items to the user. In specification paragraph [0040], the encoder can be any of word2vec, BM25, GloVe, etc. In paragraph [0037], it is disclosed that a model based on decision trees or other machine learning techniques may be used. The specific functionality of these elements are not vital to the claims, and these elements are only applied to the abstract idea to provide a calculation/output for the abstract idea As such, it is evident that the additional elements are generic computing components that are merely applied to the abstract idea, and provide a general link to a computing/network environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (Prong 2), representative claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see: MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2B:
Returning to representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). As noted above, the additional elements recited in claim 1 are recited in a generic manner with a high level of generality and only serve to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing device. The claims result only in an improved abstract idea itself and do not reflect improvements to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process ultimately amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept under step 2B, and is ineligible for patenting.
Regarding Claim 11 (method): Claim 11 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 11 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 recite further complexity to the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 1, such as by further defining the algorithm of identifying complementary products for an anchor item, and do not recite any further additional elements. Thus, each of claims 2-10 and 12-20 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (Prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 rely on at least similar elements as recited in claim 1. Further additional elements are also acknowledged (e.g., a database (claim 4)); however, the additional elements of claims 2-10 and 12-20 are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, this is also because the claims fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Taken individually and as a whole, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception under step 2A (prong 2).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-10 and 12-20 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. The dependent claims recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and use the computing device to implement the abstract idea, while failing to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The dependent claims fail to confer eligibility under step 2B because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware and generally link the exception to a technological environment.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
Taken individually or as an ordered combination, the dependent claims simply convey the abstract idea itself applied on a generic computer and are held to be ineligible under Steps 2B for at least similar rationale as discussed above regarding claim 1. Thus, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The claims are free of the prior art for the reasons as indicated in the previous Office Action mailed on 2/4/2026.
Conclusion
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 TIMOTHY J KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 - 5:00.
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, Maria-Teresa 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.
/T.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights