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 .
This application has PRO 63/400,683 08/24/2022
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-9, 14, 15, 19, and 20 are pending and rejected.
Claim 2, 5, 6, 10-13, and 16-18 are canceled.
Claim Rejection – 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, 3, 4, 7-9, 14, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below. In the instant case, the claims are directed towards mapping company identifiers to user’s purchases and displaying the company identifiers (to influence user to invest in the companies associated with the company identifiers). The concept is clearly related to managing human’s investment behavior, thus the present claims fall within the Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity grouping. The claims do not include limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea because the claims do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Note that the limitations, in the instant claims, are done by the generically recited computer device. The limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, claims 1, 3, 4, 7-9, 14, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: The claims 1, 3, 4, 7-9, 14, 15, 19, and 20 are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition matter.
In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the Supreme Court applied a two-step test for determining whether a claim recites patentable subject matter. First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one or more patent-ineligible concepts, i.e., laws of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract ideas. Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296–96 (2012)). If so, we then consider whether the elements of each claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-9, 14, and 15are directed to a process (method claims).
Claim 19 is directed to a machine (system claim).
Claim 20 is directed to a manufacture (non-transitory computer medium).
Step 2A: The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Prong One
The present claims are directed towards mapping company identifiers to user’s purchases and displaying the company identifiers (to influence user to invest in the companies associated with the company identifiers). The concept comprises retrieving company identifier and transaction history from data repositories, performing data mapping, by a supervised machine learning model, to identify one or more companies represented by one or more company identifiers from which the user made one or more purchases, displaying the one or more company identifiers being associated with one or more feedback buttons, receiving use feedback input, and training the supervised machine learning model, based on the received feedback input. The claims are still directed to analyzing human purchase behavior to assist users “with identifying relevant information and then present that information to them in a manner that facilitates decision making” (see paragraph 0003 of the specification). As such, the amended claims still fall under the grouping of “certain method of organizing human activities”. The performance of the claim limitations using generic computer components (i.e., one or more servers and a supervised machine learning model) does not preclude the claim limitation from being in the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Prong Two
Independent claim 1 recites one or more servers and a supervised machine learning model as additional elements. Dependent claims 3, 4, 7-9, 14, and 15 do not recite any other additional element. Claims 19 and 20 recite a processor and a memory as additional elements. Paragraph 0045 of the specification suggests these computer elements are off-the-shelf computer components. The additional elements are claimed to perform basic computer functions, such as retrieving data from data repositories, performing data mapping using a supervised machine learning model, displaying result with feedback button, receiving user feedback via the feedback buttons, and training the supervised machine learning model based on the received user feedback. One skilled in the art would immediately recognize that supervised machine learning “can be significantly improved by incorporating human feedback…This approach, known as Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), leverages human judgement to guide the learning process, leading to more accurate and aligned AI models”. Such approach was widely used at the effective filing date of the present application. For example, popular social media platforms, such as YouTube and X (formerly known as Twitter), provide “Like” and “Dislike” buttons attached to the content recommended by the platforms. The machine learning models of the platforms can then receive user feedback via the buttons to further understand the preference of the user. The “Like” and “Dislike” buttons are a form of feedback buttons.
To further support the argument that providing user feedback was well-known, Examiner cites the following prior arts. Venkateshwaran et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0177206) teaches “Reinforcement Learning can also be utilized. An end-user feedback loop in implemented in the user interface, using which the end user (claims adjuster/supervisor) can provide feedback on the suggestions provided by expert system, supervised or unsupervised machine learning. The user can provide a positive or negative feedback. Reinforcement learning learns patterns of when the user provided positive versus negative feedback, and accordingly tunes the system to provide more meaningful and targeted suggestions” (see paragraph 0079 and 0099). Horesh et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0138592) teaches “The feedback is provided as additional input to the supervised machine learning model operating in the background to predict features that the user will deem to be relevant. The more the user uses the My Insights Widget (422), and the more feedback the user provides, the more reliable the prediction of relevancy made by the supervised machine learning model” (see paragraph 0121). Igoe et al. (Patent No.: US 8,930,204) teaches “There are several well-known methods for training a neural network (i.e., selecting the values of the bias 126 and weights 122); one of the most common of these is ‘supervised learning’. In one embodiment using supervised learning, the user provides explicit feedback (not shown) indicating the correctness of the recommendations…implicit feedback is utilized to train the network to the user’s preferences” (see col 42 line 22-34). Karakotsios et al. (Patent No.: US 10,541,000) teaches “The feedback that corresponds to the data can take many different forms and can vary in granularity…the user 104 may specify that he/she does or does not generally like the first video summarization 134, which may be indicated by a thumbs up/down, actuating a like/dislike button, and so on” (see col 22 line 15-27). Such feedback buttons are common on social media platforms for machine learning algorithms to obtain user feedback on the recommended contents. Clearly, causing the one or more company identifiers (recommendations) to be displayed with one or more feedback buttons on a graphical user interface of a user device and receiving user feedback via the feedback buttons to train the supervised machine learning model was not an improvement to computer functionality of machine learning technology.
Examiner further points to the recent Federal Circuit decision – Recentive v. Fox. The Federal Circuit ruled the requirements that “the machine learning model be ‘iteratively trained’ or dynamically adjusted in the Machine Learning Training patents do not represent a technological improvement”. The Federal Circuit also suggested that using machine learning in a new environment does not improve the machine learning technology. As such, applying supervised machine learning with feedback buttons to an abstract concept of mapping company identifiers to user’s purchases and displaying the company identifiers, does not improve the machine learning technology or integrate the abstract concept into a practical application.
Moreover, Applicant’s specification states the benefit of the claimed invention is “to assist people with identifying relevant information and then present that information to them in a manner that facilitates decision making” (see Background section). Federal Circuit Court has ruled that “arranging transaction information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly” (Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290) is insufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality. The recitation of the computer elements amounts to mere instruction to implement an abstract concept on computers. The present claims do not solve a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. Rather, the present claims implement an abstract concept using existing computer and machine learning technology in a networked computer environment. The present claims do not recite limitation that improve the functioning of computer, effect a physical transformation, or apply the abstract concept in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract concept to a particular technological environment. As such, the present claims fail to integrate into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As discussed earlier, the present claims only recite a processor coupled with a memory as additional elements. The additional elements are claimed to perform basic computer functions, such as retrieving data from data repositories, performing data mapping using a supervised machine learning model, displaying result with feedback button, receiving user feedback via the feedback buttons, and training the supervised machine learning model based on the received user feedback. According to MPEP 2106.05(d), “performing repetitive calculations”, “receiving, processing, and storing data”, “electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document”, “electronic recordkeeping”, “storing and retrieving information in memory”, and “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data” are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of computer. Also as discussed earlier, applying supervised machine learning with feedback buttons to an abstract concept of mapping company identifiers to user’s purchases and displaying the company identifiers, does not improve the machine learning technology. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer or using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the present claims are ineligible for patent.
Response to Remarks
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
In the response filed on 03/06/2026, Applicant amended independent claim 1 by adding the following limitations – “wherein the electronic commerce transaction history comprises an online purchase transaction history of the user” and “wherein multiple of the company identifiers are displayed in ranked order as determined by the data mapping based on amounts spent at the companies as recorded in the electronic commerce transaction history and/or based on how often the companies appear in the electronic commerce transaction history, wherein each of the one or more stock tickers is displayed with a stock price and price change, and wherein each of the one or more feedback buttons comprises an indication of interest for a respective stock ticker based on the data mapping and an indication of disinterest for the respective stock ticker based on the data mapping”. Examiner argues that these added limitations do not render the claims less abstract.
“wherein the electronic commerce transaction history comprises an online purchase transaction history of the user”
This limitation does not add anything to the claim, since electronic commerce transaction history by default is understood as online purchase transaction history.
“wherein multiple of the company identifiers are displayed in ranked order as determined by the data mapping based on amounts spent at the companies as recorded in the electronic commerce transaction history and/or based on how often the companies appear in the electronic commerce transaction history”
This limitation merely requires simple ranking based on total transaction amount or frequency, which is a basic function of general purpose computer. Displaying a ranked list of companies for user to make investment decision is analogous to “arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly” Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), which is considered insufficient to show an improvement in computer technology.
“wherein each of the one or more feedback buttons comprises an indication of interest for a respective stock ticker based on the data mapping and an indication of disinterest for the respective stock ticker based on the data mapping”
This feature is best described by FIG. 6B. The drawing shows a list of four companies with their stock tickers along with corresponding feedback buttons 613. The feedback buttons 613 consist of a minus sign button and a start sign button, which are interpreted as a dislike/negative feedback button and a like/positive feedback button. Using a dislike/negative feedback button and a like/positive feedback button to provide feedback to machine learning algorithm was a well-understood, routine, and conventional feature. For example, Karakotsios et al. (Patent No.: US 10,541,000) teaches “The feedback that corresponds to the data can take many different forms and can vary in granularity…the user 104 may specify that he/she does or does not generally like the first video summarization 134, which may be indicated by a thumbs up/down, actuating a like/dislike button, and so on” (see col 22 line 15-27). Such feedback buttons are common on social media platforms for machine learning algorithms to obtain user feedback on the recommended contents. Therefore, the recitation of this feature does not improvement supervised machine learning, graphical user interface, or computer function in general.
PNG
media_image1.png
755
333
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that the present claims aim to address the technical challenge of training a foundational machine learning model by providing a GUI through which the user can provide tailored, application-specific feedback, thereby generating the required training data. Examiner disagrees and points out that the amended claim is merely implementing a standard supervised machine learning algorithm with standard positive/negative feedback buttons. Examiner has cited prior arts which teach supervised machine learning with human feedback. Venkateshwaran et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0177206) teaches “Reinforcement Learning can also be utilized. An end-user feedback loop in implemented in the user interface, using which the end user (claims adjuster/supervisor) can provide feedback on the suggestions provided by expert system, supervised or unsupervised machine learning. The user can provide a positive or negative feedback. Reinforcement learning learns patterns of when the user provided positive versus negative feedback, and accordingly tunes the system to provide more meaningful and targeted suggestions” (see paragraph 0079 and 0099). Horesh et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0138592) teaches “The feedback is provided as additional input to the supervised machine learning model operating in the background to predict features that the user will deem to be relevant. The more the user uses the My Insights Widget (422), and the more feedback the user provides, the more reliable the prediction of relevancy made by the supervised machine learning model” (see paragraph 0121). Igoe et al. (Patent No.: US 8,930,204) teaches “There are several well-known methods for training a neural network (i.e., selecting the values of the bias 126 and weights 122); one of the most common of these is ‘supervised learning’. In one embodiment using supervised learning, the user provides explicit feedback (not shown) indicating the correctness of the recommendations…implicit feedback is utilized to train the network to the user’s preferences” (see col 42 line 22-34). While not explicitly teach displaying one or more feedback buttons associated with one or more company identifiers, the cited prior arts provide a user interface for user to provide positive or negative feedback to indicate the correctness of recommendations by machine learning model. Therefore, the present claims do not recite feature which indicates improvement to machine learning technology.
Applicant further argued that the amended claims are analogues to Example 37 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. Examiner disagrees. Example 37 is directed to rearranging icons on a GUI based on the amount of use of each icon over a predetermined period of time. In claim 1 and claim 2 of Example 37, the processor tracks the usage of each icon over a predetermined period of time, then automatically move the icons based on the determined amount of use, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices. Claim 3 of Example 37, however, merely ranks the icons based on determined amount of use without moving the icons. The determining and ranking steps in claim 3 are considered mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, thus claim 3 is ineligible for patent. The present claims are different from claim 1 and 2 or Example 37, because the present claims are not directed to automatically moving icons on a desktop. The present claims recite displaying ranked list of companies based on total transaction amount or how often the companies appear in the electronic transaction history. The claimed servers do not track the transactions of the user, they merely retrieve transaction history. Determining the ranking of companies for investment purpose is also not a problem unique to computer environment. Examiner argues, displaying a ranked list of companies for user to make investment decision is analogous to “arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly” Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), which is considered insufficient to show an improvement in computer technology. Therefore, the amended claims fail to integrate the abstract concept into a practical application and are patent-ineligible.
Furthermore, the amended independent claim 1, 19, and 20 recite supervised machine learning model and the human supervised feedback training in a high level of generality. The machine learning model merely mimics mental processes in identifying company identifiers associated with the user’s commerce transaction history. There is no indication of improvement in machine learning itself. In the Recentive v. Fox Corp decision, the Federal Circuit states that “patents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under 101”. The Federal Circuit also suggested that using machine learning in a new environment does not improve the machine learning technology. As such, applying supervised machine learning with user feedback to an abstract concept of mapping company identifiers to user’s purchases and displaying the company identifiers, does not improve the machine learning technology or integrate the abstract concept into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract concept.
For these reasons, Examiner maintains the ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed on 07/07/2025, with respect to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Examiner agrees the cited prior arts, in particular, Ghosh (Pub. No.: US 2016/0005126) and Mudgil et al. (Patent No.: US 11,410,085), do not teach every limitation in the amended claims. Examiner has conducted updated search, but cannot find a prior art to address the amended features, “(c) causing one or more company identifiers to be displayed on a graphical user interface of a user device, the one or more company identifiers being respectively associated with one or more feedback buttons displayed on the graphical user interface; (d) receiving, from the user device, feedback input via at least one of the one or more feedback buttons indicating a user preference regarding the company represented by the corresponding company identifier; and (e) training the supervised machine learning model, based on the received feedback input, to refine subsequent data mapping operations”. The rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
Examiner notes however, reinforcement learning from human feedback was a known technology in other applications. The present claims do not improve computer functionality or machine learning technology. Simply implementing machine learning in a new environment is not sufficient to improve computer technology. Therefore, the present claims are still ineligible for patent under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 HAO FU whose telephone number is (571)270-3441. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM PST.
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, Christine M Behncke can be reached on (571) 272-8103. 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.
/HAO FU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
MAR-2026