DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response received on 08 June 2026.
Claims 1-4, 6, 10-13, 15, and 18-19 are amended.
Claims 5, 7, 14, and 16 are canceled.
Claims 21-24 are new and have been added.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-13, 15, and 17-24 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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
As indicated in the Office Action mailed on 06 November 2025, the claims 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 1-4, 6, 8-13, 15, and 17-24 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 1-4, 6, and 8-9 are directed to a method, claims 10-13, 15, and 17-18 are directed to a system, and claims 19-24 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 the user input being associated with a user;
in response to receiving the user input, extracting data associated with the first object by analyzing the extracted data including impact data;
determining, one or more aspects of the first object, one or more features of interest of the first object;
determining, one or more user preferences based on the features of interest of the first object and relationships therebetween;
generating, a search query based on the extracted data associated with the first object, the one or more features of interest of the first object, and the one or more user preferences;
determining, a second object in an inventory that corresponds to the search query, wherein the second object has lower impact data than the first object;
dynamically generating for display for the user, including a section displaying the determined second object, a section displaying the impact data associated with the first object, a section displaying the impact data associated with the second object, and when selected causes to automatically update a shopping cart by replacing the first object with the second object; and object;
based on the user selecting, automatically updating the 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 associated with a first object, extracting data associated with the first object, determining one or more features of interest of the first object, determining one or more user preferences based on the features of interest of the first object and relationships, generating a search query based on the extract data, determining a second object in an inventory that corresponds to the search query, where the second object has a lower impact data that the first object, displaying a section of the impact data associated with the first object and a section displaying the second impact data associated with the second object, updating a shopping cart based on replacing the first object with the second object, and further 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 or scraping one or both of background data or cookies from the website, a first trained machine learning model comprising one or more convolution neural networks (CNN) configured to process, at least one of a connected layer or a neural network functioning as part of the first trained machine learning model, a second trained machine learning model, interactive GUI, the user interface, an actuator, the actuator, the one or more processors, a virtual shopping cart, the actuator, and the 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 or scraping one or both of background data or cookies from the website, a first trained machine learning model comprising one or more convolution neural networks (CNN) configured to process, at least one of a connected layer or a neural network functioning as part of the first trained machine learning model, a second trained machine learning model, interactive GUI, the user interface, an actuator, the actuator, the one or more processors, a virtual shopping cart, the actuator, and the 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, a drop down menu, and a Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) functioning as part of the first trained machine learning model and configured to process and claim 19 recites the additional elements of a button, a Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) functioning as a part of the first trained machine learning model and configured to process, and the second trained machine learning model has been trained. 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. While the claims recite the Recurrent Neural Network functioning as a part of the first trained machine learning model, the recitations are results based in nature and do not include details as to how the recurrent neural network is actually functioning beyond known functions. 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 2-4, 6, 8-9, 11-13, 15, 17-18, and 20-24, depending from claims 1, 10, and 19 respectively, do not aid in the eligibility of the representative independent claim 1 nor in the eligibility to independent claims 10 and 19. The claims of 2-4, 6, 8-9, 11-13, 15, 17-18, and 20-24 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 second trained machine learning model has been trained (claims 6 and 15), and a Long Short Term Memory (LSTM) model (claim 24). 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, 15, and 24 are directed towards an abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claims 6, 15, and 24 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 2-4, 8-9, 11-13, 17-18, and 20-23 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, dependent claims 2-4, 6, 8-9, 11-13, 15, 17-18, and 20-24 are ineligible.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 08 June 2026, have been fully considered but are not considered to be persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on page 14 of the remarks stating “each of the independent claims has been amended to more clearly reflect the improvement to a technological area described in the original specification,” and “a further challenge is identifying which features of an object are relevant and determining how these features connect,” and further on page 16 of the remarks stating “amended independent claims 1, 10 and 19 demonstrate an integration of a practical application into the subject matter of the claims and reflect a technological improvement to the functioning of machine learning-based data extraction and recommendation systems,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis, when considering the amended claims, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed features and the additional elements in the amended claims are still recited in a generic manner and are being used to apply the abstract idea with generically recited components. Although the claims now recite the features of a first trained machine learning model comprising one or more convolution neural networks (CNN) configured to process, at least one of a connected layer or a neural network functioning as part of the first trained machine learning model, a second trained machine learning model, the additional elements are not recited in a sufficient manner to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are still recited at high-level and it is not known how the machine learning models are functioning beyond their already known functions, such as they are still carrying out general or generic functions of machine learning models. Further, the amended claims do not reflect an improvement to the technological area, nor 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 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 or scraping one or both of background data or cookies from the website, a first trained machine learning model comprising one or more convolution neural networks (CNN) configured to process, at least one of a connected layer or a neural network functioning as part of the first trained machine learning model, a second trained machine learning model, interactive GUI, the user interface, an actuator, the actuator, the one or more processors, a virtual shopping cart, the actuator, and the virtual shopping 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. The dependent claims depending from claims 1, 10, and 19, inherit these deficiencies as noted, and therefore are not eligible for reasons given in the Office Action above. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not reflect any type of technological improvement to a technical issue, and thus, maintains the 101 rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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
Prosecution Insights