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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s submission filed 12/4/23 has been entered. Claims 6, 7, 14, 15, 18, 19 are cancelled. Claims 1-5,8-13,16-17 and 20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 9, 17 have been amended. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 7 is withdrawn.
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.
STEP 1
Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claims 1-5, 8-13,16-17 and 20 are all directed to a statutory category (e.g., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The answer is YES.
STEP 2A. Prong 1
The claims disclose the abstract idea of grouping retail items based on identifiers.
Exemplary claim 17 recites the following abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea”:
receive item update data identifying at least one attribute of an item;
[…] detect at least one anomaly in a hierarchical structure of a database, […] generate an anomaly score, by:
generating a first word embedding representative of the at least one attribute of the item in the item update data;
generating a second word embedding representative of at least one attribute of the item in the database; and
comparing the first word embedding and the second word embedding to determine a similarity between the at least one attribute of the item in the item update data and the at least one attribute of the item in the database and generate the anomaly score based on the similarity;
generating a hierarchical association between the at least one attribute of the item and the data of the item in the database in response to a difference between a first hierarchical relationship defined in the item update data between the item and the at least one attribute and a second hierarchical relationship defined for the item in the database; and
in response to determining the anomaly score is equal to or below a predetermined threshold, transmitting, [..], item data including the hierarchical association to update at least one marketplace and in response to determining the determining the anomaly score is above the predetermined threshold, determining to not transmit item data to update the at least one marketplace using the network.)
The remaining limitations are no more than computer elements (i.e. a processor, using a network) to be used as a tool to perform this abstract idea.
The recited limitations cover a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter viewed as a certain method of organizing human activity with the additional recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for “the processor is configured to” language, “receive, detect, generate, compare, transmit” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually detecting an anomaly from received data, generate an association from related data based on rules (discrepancy) and upload the data to a marketplace.
The practice of receiving, detecting ,generating, comparing data, as well as transmitting data to a marketplace is a commercial or legal interaction long prevalent in our system of commerce. The claims recite the idea of performing various conceptual steps generically resulting in the modification of item data. As determined earlier, none of these steps recites specific technological implementation details, but instead get to this result by receiving, detecting and determining data. Thus, the claims are directed to a certain method of organizing human activity
STEP 2A, Prong 2
Are there additional elements or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception?
The claim recites: that a machine learning model is trained to perform the steps. (see e.g. training a machine learning model to detect at least one anomaly); machine learning model is trained by a supervised training dataset based on attributes of items, wherein the machine learning model is configured to generate an anomaly score,)
The machine learning model in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B
The next issue is whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer system at each step of the process is purely conventional. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a machine learning model to perform steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicants' claims add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The claimed invention does not focus on an improvement in computers as tools, but rather certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. {Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354). (Step 2B: NO).
There is no indication that indication that the computer system or processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Independent claims 1 and 9 recites similar limitations as claim 17 and are therefore rejected under the same rationale.
The dependent claims when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The claims provide minimal technical structure or components for further consideration either individually or as ordered combinations with the independent claims. As such, additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the identified abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/16/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument:
Further, Applicant submits that the currently amended independent claims recite transmitting item data using a network to update at least one marketplace and determining to not transmit item data, both in response to the anomaly score. It would be apparent to person having ordinary skill in the art that selectively transmitting item data over the network to update at least one marketplace will minimize transmission of item data, conserving network resources and allowing for increased network and computing efficiency. These concepts of minimizing transmission of item data and network efficiency are recited in a specific manner that represents a technical improvement over systems that do not utilize conditional transmission of item data in response to an anomaly score in the claimed manner.
Examiner’s response:
The ground of rejection clearly notes that the claimed computer functions are deemed to be generic computer functions, based on the following analogous functions that courts have already recognized as generic computer functions: receiving, processing, and storing data, electronic recordkeeping, automating mental tasks, and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. See July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, 7, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-july-2015-update.pdf.
Furthermore, relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible. See Alice, (use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions" is not an inventive concept); Bancorp Servs, L.L.C. v Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can -a computer “employed only for its most basic function .. .does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims).
Applicant’s argument:
The Office Action finds that the independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In response, Applicant notes that training a machine learning model, generating a first word embedding, generating a second word embedding, comparing the first word embedding and the second word embedding, transmitting using a network, and determining to not transmit item data .. . using the network represents an unconventional combination of features that confine the claims to a particular useful application under MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, the independent claims amount to significantly more under Step 2B, and are therefore further eligible under 35 USC 101.
Examiner’s response:
The Examiner disagrees. The machine learning model in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, and is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The recited limitations cover a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter viewed as a certain method of organizing human activity with the additional recitation of generic computer components. The Examiner points out that the current invention uses generic computer technology to perform functions of the abstract idea. Training a machine learning model to process data based on rules, and transmitting data via a network are tools used to perform the abstract idea of grouping retail items based on identifiers. Alice teaches that using generic computer technology to perform functions of the abstract idea do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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 LUNA CHAMPAGNE whose telephone number is (571)272-7177. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Florian Zeender can be reached at 571 272-6790. 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.
/LUNA CHAMPAGNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
December 1, 2025