DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response received on 06 February 2026.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are 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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06 February 2026 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
As indicated in the Office Action mailed on 06 November 2025, claims 1-20 recite allowable subject matter and would be allowable if the claims were re-written or amended to overcome the 101 rejection indicated in the Office action 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 claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea without significantly more).
Under step 1, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention (see MPEP 2106.03(II)). In the instant case, claims 1-9 are directed to a method, claims 10-18 are directed to a system, and claims 19-20 are also directed to a method.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites an abstract idea of generating impact data associated with an object. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
receiving, from a user, a user input associated with a first object including one or more features of interest, and the user input being associated with a user;
analyzing to determine data associated with the first object, the data associated with the first object including impact data;
storing, a first data comprising the determined data associated with the first object;
generating, a search query based on the data associated with the first object and the one or more features of interest of the first object;
determining, a second object in an inventory that corresponds to the search query, wherein:
the second object is determined based on the data associated with the first object and the one or more features of interest of the first object; and
the inventory includes a plurality of objects; and
generating for display for the user, including a section displaying the determined second object and automatically updates the second object with the first object;
based on the user selecting, automatically updating a shopping cart with the second object and removing the first object.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in 2106.04(a) of the MPEP. Even in consideration of the analysis, the claims recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of generating impact data associated with an object, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity because it relates to sale activities since the claims specifically recite the activities for generating the impact data associated with object that includes receiving from a user, user input that is associated with determining impact data for an object that includes one or more features of interest of the user, determining data associated with a first object, the data associated with the first object including impact data, storing a first data comprising the determined data associated with the first object, generating a search query based on the data associated with the first object and the one or more features of interest of the user for the first object, determining a second object in an inventory that corresponds to the search query based on the data associated with the first object and the one or more features of interest of the user for the first object, and the inventory further includes a plurality of objects, and generating a display for the user that includes a section displaying the determined second object that automatically updates the second object with the first object, based on the user selection, automatically updating the shopping cart with the second object and removing the first object, thereby making this a sales activity or behavior.
Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements: an interactive graphical user interface (GUI), over an electronic network and via one or more processors and from a user interface, a website, by the one or more processors, source code of the website, the one or more processors, a data packet, a trained machine learning model, the interactive GUI, the user interface, the interactive GUI, an actuator, the actuator, and a virtual shopping cart.
Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., generating data associated with an object) being applied on a general-purpose computer using general purpose computer technology. MPEP 2106.05(f). While the claims recite a trained machine learning model, the recitations are results based in nature and do not include details as to how the machine learning is actually functioning beyond known functions. Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements of an interactive graphical user interface (GUI), over an electronic network and via one or more processors and from a user interface, a website, by the one or more processors, source code of the website, the one or more processors, a data packet, a trained machine learning model, the interactive GUI, the user interface, the interactive GUI, an actuator, the actuator, and a virtual shopping cart, recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘ad[d] nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’… [and] [v]iewed as a whole…[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Independent claims 10 and 19 are similar in nature to representative claim 1, and Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis is the same as above for representative claim 1. It is noted that in independent claim 10 includes the additional elements of at least one memory storing instructions, at least one processor operatively connected to the memory, and configured to execute the instructions to perform operations and a drop down menu, and claim 19 recites the additional element of a button. The Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the claimed additional elements in claims 10 and 19 as being anything other than generic elements. Thus, the claimed additional elements of claims 10 and 19 are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. As such, the additional elements of claim 10 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claims 10 and 19, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer.
As such, claims 10 and 19 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20, depending from claims 1, 10, and 19 respectively, do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claim 1. The claims of 2-9, 11-18, and 20 merely act to provide further limitations of the abstract idea and are ineligible subject matter.
It is noted that dependent claims includes the additional element of the trained machine learning model has been trained (claims 6 and 15). Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the trained machine learning model has been trained and a virtual shopping cart, as being anything other than a generic element. The claimed additional elements, individually and in combination do not integrate into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept because they are merely being used to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claims 6 and 15 are directed towards an abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claims 6 and 15, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. It is further noted that the remaining dependent claims 2-5, 7-14, 16-18, and 20 do not recite any further additional elements to consider in the analysis, and therefore would not provide additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and would not provide an inventive concept.
As such, claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 are ineligible.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 06 February 2026, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on page 11 of the remarks stating “Even if, arguendo, one or more specific limitations in the claims fall within one or more of the subject matter groupings under Prong One of Revised Step 2A, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the claims as a whole integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Prong Two of Revised Step 2A,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims, when considered under Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis, are still directed to the abstract idea of generating impact data associated with an object. The claims recite the activities of generating data associated with object that includes receiving from a user, user input that is associated with determining impact data for an object that includes one or more features of interest of the user, determining data associated with a first object, the data associated with the first object including impact data, storing a first data comprising the determined data associated with the first object, generating a search query based on the data associated with the first object and the one or more features of interest of the user for the first object, determining a second object in an inventory that corresponds to the search query based on the data associated with the first object and the one or more features of interest of the user for the first object, and the inventory further includes a plurality of objects, and generating a display for the user that includes a section displaying the determined second object that automatically updates the second object with the first object, based on the user selection, automatically updating the shopping cart with the second object and removing the first object, which fall into the enumerated grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity, such as sales activities or behaviors. Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the analysis, the additional elements that are beyond the abstract idea, are considered to be generically recited and therefore the claim limitations are still directed to the abstract idea, and the claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on pages 12-15 of the remarks regarding Example 37 and that “Similarly, this application explains issues with conventional methods and systems for determining and displaying electronic content” and “provides a specific technological improvement to computer-implemented user interfaces and transaction systems, rather than merely presenting recommendations,” and further “tying the interface directly to improved computer functionality rather than to a mental process or business practice,” and “Independent claims 10 and 19, as amended herein, while of different scope, set forth the similar or similar elements as independent claim 1” and “Accordingly, the independent claims as a whole are directed to a particular improvement that may not be otherwise provided by prior electronic content providing systems,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, the claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Even when considering the amendments to the claims, the claims still recite additional elements that are generically recited and at a high-level of generality, applying the abstract idea with generic computing components. Even when considering the added features of an actuator (claim 1), a drop down menu (claim 10), and a button (claim 19) of the GUI, are generically recited and when considered in combination with other recited additional elements, do not provide sufficient technical detail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the claims do not reflect an improvement to the technology itself. The MPEP (2106.05(a)) provides further 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, as indicated in 2106.05(d)(1) of the MPEP “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,” and 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.” 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).
In this case, Applicant’s specification provides no explanation of an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology. Rather, the claims focus “on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool”. Id citing Enfish at 1327, 1336. This is reflected in paragraph [0002] of Applicant’s specification, which describe Applicant’s claimed invention is directed toward solving problems regarding online shopping where a user would like to make a purchase with a lower “carbon footprint, but that information is not easily determined and attempting to make that determination may be overwhelming or not apparent for potential buyers” and “often leads to chilling potential buyers’ interest in continuing shopping and/or completing the sale”. Although the claims include computer technology such as an interactive graphical user interface (GUI), over an electronic network and via one or more processors and from a user interface, a website, by the one or more processors, source code of the website, the one or more processors, a data packet, a trained machine learning model, the interactive GUI, the user interface, the interactive GUI, an actuator, and a virtual cart, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. 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 improving the existing technological process but are directed to improving the commercial task of generating data that is associated with an object. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in improvements in providing this information to a buyer, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving the processor and computer components that operate the system. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing different data while still employing the same processor and computer components used in conventional systems to improve generating data associated with an object, e.g. commercial process. As such, the claims do not recite specific technological improvements, or an improvement to the technical field, and therefore the claims as a whole, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, the Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s remarks regarding Example 37. It is noted that the October 2019 Update to the Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, that given examples, such as Example 37, are only hypothetical and exemplary in nature. The examples are intended to be illustrative of the claim analysis under the eligibility analysis, and the examples should be interpreted based on the fact patterns set forth, and is stated that other fact patterns may have different eligibility outcomes. Nonetheless, Example 37 addresses issues regarding software that does not automatically organize icons so that the most used icons are located near the “start” or “home” icon displayed on an interface, which would be more accessible for a user. The issue was addressed by “providing a method for rearranging the icons on a graphical user interface (GUI), the method moves the most used icons to a position on the GUI, specifically, closest to the “start” icon of the computer system, based on a determined amount of use.” The method was achieved by tracking the number of times the icons were selected or how much memory would be appropriated to each processed that would be associated with that specific icon, temporally measured. In this case, even when considering the newly amended features of the independent claims 1, 10 and 19, the analysis of Example 37 and the claimed invention differ. For example, claim 2 in Example 37, under Step 2A, Prong 1, was determined that the computer components recited were not just generic computer components. The processor in Example 37 is performing the steps in an unconventional manner, such as tracking how memory has been allocated to each application associated with each icon over a given period of time and automatically moving icons to the position on the GUI closest to the start icon, which was then determined that the claim does not recite features that fall into the mental process grouping. In the instant case, the processor and the other computing components claimed, are still claimed in a generic manner and would not be considered additional elements that are more than merely applying the abstract idea to the generically recited computing environment. The claims are not similar in nature to those in Example 37 because the claims in this case are directed to an abstract idea, even when considering the added features to the independent claims. Thus, the Examiner maintains that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, do not provide a technological improvement, and therefore maintains the 101 rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4399. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/ASHLEY D PRESTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688