DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
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 35 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
This action is a Final Action on the merits in response to the application filed on 10/23/2025.
Claims 21, 23, 24, 32, 34, 35, 41, and 44 have been amended.
Claims 21-24, 26-30, 32-38, and 41-44 remain pending in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims in the previous office action have been maintained.
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 21-24, 26-30, 41-44 are directed towards an apparatus; and claims 32-38 are directed towards a non-transitory computer readable medium all of which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites at least one step or act, including applying an machine learning to predict values. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
With respect to claims 21-24, 26-30, 32-38, and 41-44, the independent claims (claims 21, 32, and 44) are directed to managing of collecting data, In independent claim 21, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
cause a robotic data collector to collect information associated with activity of an object;
the data packets in the pool including the information associated with the activity of the object, the first data packet associated with a first time period;
determine a discrepancy value by comparing the predicted values for the first data packet and actual values for the first data packet;
compare the discrepancy value to a first threshold;
classify the first data packet as inaccurate based on the comparison;
cause the robotic data collector to collect first replacement information from a first source based on the classification of the first data packet as an inaccurate data packet;
the determination based on (a) event information associated with an inability to collect the first replacement information from the first data packet source, and (b) a second threshold corresponding to an amount of the data packets in the pool for which the synthetic information is to be generated;
generate second replacement information for the first data packet based on the synthetic information;
these steps fall within and recite an abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes commercial interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; sales activities or behaviors; business relations. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interactions, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, If the identified limitation(s) falls within any of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the MPEP 2106, the analysis should proceed to Prong Two. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim recites the additional elements of memory, processor circuit, robotic data collector, apparatus, machine learning model, machine readable medium. The claims recite the steps are performed by the memory, processor circuit, robotic data collector, apparatus, machine learning model, machine readable medium.
The limitations of
an apparatus comprising:
machine readable instructions; and
at least one processor circuit to be programmed by the machine readable instructions to:
cause a robotic data collector to collect information associated with activity of an object;
execute a first machine learning model to predict values for a first data packet of a pool of data packets,
cause the robotic data collector to collect first replacement information from a first source based on the classification of the first data packet as an inaccurate data packet;
execute a second machine learning model to determine whether to cause generation of synthetic information for the first data packet,
cause the robotic data collector to collect third replacement information from a second source based on an ability to collect the third replacement information from the second source.
are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
Further, the limitations are recited as being performed by memory, processor circuit, robotic data collector, apparatus, machine learning model, machine readable medium. The memory, processor circuit, robotic data collector, apparatus, machine learning model, machine readable medium are recited at a high level of generality. In limitation (a), the machine learning model is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The machine learning model is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, claim 21 recites machine learning model. The general use of a machine learning technique does not provide a meaningful limitation to transform the abstract idea into a practical application.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements are the memory, processor circuit, robotic data collector, apparatus, machine learning model, machine readable medium. The additional elements were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering. Then, the machine learning techniques recited in the claim are disclosed at a high-level of generality (see at least Specification [0019 “ the predicted values are generated by a machine learning model analyzing historical collection information for a corresponding store 104 (e.g., collection information collected during a period of time before the time associated with currently (e.g., most recently) reported collection information). Additionally or alternatively, in some examples, predicted values may be generated by a machine learning model analyzing the historical and/or currently reported collection information for other stores that are similar to a particular store 104 of interest.”]) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of
an apparatus comprising:
machine readable instructions; and
at least one processor circuit to be programmed by the machine readable instructions to:
cause a robotic data collector to collect information associated with activity of an object;
execute a first machine learning model to predict values for a first data packet of a pool of data packets,
cause the robotic data collector to collect first replacement information from a first source based on the classification of the first data packet as an inaccurate data packet;
execute a second machine learning model to determine whether to cause generation of synthetic information for the first data packet,
cause the robotic data collector to collect third replacement information from a second source based on an ability to collect the third replacement information from the second source.
are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to transmitting data and are well understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. 10 As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of a memory, processor circuit, robotic data collector, apparatus, machine learning model, machine readable medium to perform limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 22-24, 26-30, 33-38, and 41-43 do not contain any new additional elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims. In this case, the claims are rejected for the same reasons at step 2a, prong one; step 2a, prong 2; and step 2b. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims, dependent claims 28 , 36 recite processor circuit to collect data; claims 29, 37 recite machine learning to adjust data; claim 42 recite processor circuit to generate data; claim 43 recite processor circuit and machine learning to generate information. The dependent claims 22-24, 26-30, 33-38, and 41-43 recite limitations that are not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment. Claims 22-24, 26-30, 33-38, and 41-43 recites memory, processor circuit, robotic data collector, apparatus, machine learning model, machine readable medium which are considered an insignificant extra-solution activities of collecting and analyzing data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Claims 22-24, 26-30, 33-38, and 41-43 recites memory, processor circuit, robotic data collector, apparatus, machine learning model, machine readable medium, which merely recites an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component; MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, claims 22-24, 26-30, 33-38, and 41-43 recite steps that further narrow the abstract idea. No additional elements are disclosed in the dependent claims that were not considered in independent claims 21, 32, and 44. Therefore claims 22-24, 26-30, 33-38, and 41-43 do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed hereinbelow in the order in which they appear in the response filed 10/23/2025.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, at pg. 11-16 Applicant argues with respect to claims at issue are not directed to an abstract idea
In response to the 35 USC § 101 claim rejection argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner did consider each claim and every limitation both individually and as a whole, since the grounds of rejection clearly indicates that an abstract idea has been identified from elements recited in the claims. Using the two-part analysis, the Office has determined there are no elements, in the claim sufficient enough to ensure that the claims amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As recited, the claims are directed towards:
an apparatus comprising:
machine readable instructions; and
at least one processor circuit to be programmed by the machine readable instructions to:
cause a robotic data collector to collect information associated with activity of an object;
execute a first machine learning model to predict values for a first data packet of a pool of data packets, the data packets in the pool including the information associated with the activity of the object, the first data packet associated with a first time period;
determine a discrepancy value by comparing the predicted values for the first data packet and actual values for the first data packet;
compare the discrepancy value to a first threshold;
classify the first data packet as inaccurate based on the comparison;
cause the robotic data collector to collect first replacement information from a first source based on the classification of the first data packet as an inaccurate data packet;
execute a second machine learning model to determine whether to cause generation of synthetic information for the first data packet, the determination based on (a) event information associated with an inability to collect the first replacement information from the first data packet source, and (b) a second threshold corresponding to an amount of the data packets in the pool for which the synthetic information is to be generated;
generate second replacement information for the first data packet based on the synthetic information; and
cause the robotic data collector to collect third replacement information from a second source based on an ability to collect the third replacement information from the second source.
The claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computer as recited is a generic computer component that performs functions.
Examiner finds the claim recite concepts which are now described in the 2019 PEG as certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular the claims recites limitations for managing of collecting data, which constitutes methods related to commercial interactions which are still considered an abstract idea under the 2019 PEG. The claims are comprised of generic computer elements to perform an existing business process. Examiner finds the claims recite mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea without reciting any improvements to a technology, technological process or computer-related technology.
In regards to Ex Parte Desjardins, the instant claims are not similar to Ex Parte Desjardins, Examiner finds the Board determined the improvements in Desjardins to be directed to addressing problems arising in the context of a technical improvements to machine learning systems, which overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of AI and machine learning inventions. There is no similar technological problem or solution here.
Regarding, the steps and arguments that Applicant points to as “identifies improvements”, solving a technical problem, are merely narrowing the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which has been found to be ineffective to render an abstract idea eligible.
Then, regarding Enfish. Enfish recited claims that asserted improvements in computer capabilities with sufficient support in the specification that the claims were directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts, which shows the claimed invention made improvements in computer-related technology. In contrast, the present claims reciting generic computer elements to perform the functions of collect, predict, compare, and generating analyzed data, do not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they perform generic computer functions. The Examiner finds the claim recite concepts which are described in the MPEP 2106 as certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular the claims recites limitations regarding managing of collecting data, which constitutes methods related to commercial interactions including agreements in the form of contracts; sales activities or behaviors; business relations, which is at the Applicant’s spec. at 0016 that discloses the organizing the interactions of a human auditor, are still considered an abstract idea under the MPEP 2106.
Additionally, the Examiner would like to point the Applicant to the 2019 PEG, in which managing of collecting data will fall under. The 2019 PEG which states:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Su et al., U.S. Pub. 20020026380, (discussing the analysis of ecommerce and in-person shopping. ).
Hsieh et al., W.O. Pub. 2020027950, (discussing the concierge service for online shopping).
He et al., Evolutionary food quality and location strategies for restaurants in competitive online-to-offline food ordering and delivery markets: An agent-based approach, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.05.008, International Journal of Production Economics, 2019 (discussing the shopping online for food and the delivery process.).
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 UCHE BYRD whose telephone number is (571)272-3113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri..
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/UCHE BYRD/Examiner, Art Unit 3624 /PATRICIA H MUNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624