DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
• The following is an office action in response to the communication filed 03/17/2026.
• Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11-12, 15, 17-18, and 21 have been amended.
• Claims 3, 8, 14, 16, and 20 have been canceled.
• Claims 24-25 have been added.
• Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-13, 15, 17-19, and 21-25 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
The examiner acknowledges that the application is a divisional of US Patent No. 11861675, filed 02/07/2020, which claims the benefit of Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 62/837,097 filed 04/22/2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received 01/12/2026 has been reviewed and considered.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 11, 15, 17, 19, 21, and 23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 7-8, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,861,675 B2 (referred to as “‘675”), in view of Caster et al., U.S. 20170193587 A1 (referred to as “Caster”).
Instant Claim 1
‘675
generating a product collection responsive to a user input associated with an anchor product at an electronic user interface, the product collection comprising a set of products of a plurality of products, wherein generating the product collection comprises:
[Claim 1] – associating, by the one or more processors, the anchor product and the most similar product with one another in a product collection
[Claim 7] – receiving a selection of the anchor product from a user electronic device; determining that the most similar product and the third product are both in the product collection with the anchor product
determining a first taxonomy of an anchor product, wherein:
[Claim 1] – determining, by one or more processors of one or more computing devices associated with a retailer website, a first taxonomy of an anchor product, wherein:
the first taxonomy comprises a plurality of levels for classifying products organized from a highest taxonomy level to a lowest taxonomy level
[Claim 1] – the first taxonomy comprises a plurality of levels for classifying products organized from a highest taxonomy level to a lowest taxonomy level
a greater number of products are classified under the highest taxonomy level than under the lowest taxonomy level;
[Claim 1] – a greater number of products are classified under the highest taxonomy level than under the lowest taxonomy level;
determining a plurality of taxonomies for which a predetermined number of the plurality of levels of the plurality of taxonomies is the same as the plurality of levels of the first taxonomy;
[Claim 8] – determining a plurality of taxonomies for which a predetermined number of a plurality of levels of each of the plurality of taxonomies is the same as the plurality of levels of the first taxonomy;
determining a second taxonomy from the plurality of taxonomies that is closest to the first taxonomy by: determining, based on co-purchase data, a percentage for each of the plurality of taxonomies that any product in the first taxonomy has been co-purchased with any product of each of the respective plurality of taxonomies, determining that the second taxonomy has the highest percentage of products that have been co-purchased with products of the first taxonomy, and
[Claim 8] – determining the second taxonomy from the plurality of taxonomies by: determining, based on co-purchase data, a percentage for each of the plurality of taxonomies that any product in the first taxonomy has been co-purchased with any product of each of the respective plurality of taxonomies, and determining that the second taxonomy has the highest percentage of products that have been co-purchased with products of the first taxonomy
determining that at least two highest levels of the first taxonomy and the second taxonomy are exactly the same, wherein each of the first taxonomy of the anchor product and the second taxonomy includes at least three levels, and wherein the first taxonomy and the second taxonomy have at least different lowest taxonomy levels
[Claim 1] – the first taxonomy and the second taxonomy have at least a common highest taxonomy level, each of the first taxonomy of the anchor product and the second taxonomy includes at least three levels…the determination that the second taxonomy is closest to the first taxonomy further comprises determining that at least the two highest levels of the first taxonomy and the second taxonomy are exactly the same, and the first taxonomy and the second taxonomy have at least different lowest taxonomy levels
determining a most similar product to the anchor product from a group of products associated with the lowest level of the second taxonomy, such that the first taxonomy of the anchor product and the second taxonomy of the most similar product have at least two highest levels that are exactly the same and the lowest levels that are different,
[Claim 1] – determining, by the one or more processors, a most similar product to the anchor product from a group of products associated with the lowest level of the second taxonomy…the determination that the second taxonomy is closest to the first taxonomy further comprises determining that at least the two highest levels of the first taxonomy and the second taxonomy are exactly the same, and the first taxonomy and the second taxonomy have at least different lowest taxonomy levels
wherein the determining the most similar product from the group of products further comprises: training a neural network using manually-created sets of similar products; inputting product information of the anchor product and product information of each product of the group of products into the trained neural network; performing, using a cosine similarity layer of the trained neural network, a comparison between product information of the anchor product and product information of each product of the group of products, the comparison comprising applying a cosine similarity function to at least one vector of the anchor product and at least one vector of each product of the group of products; and determining, based on the comparison, that the product information of the anchor product is closest to the product information of the most similar product;
[Claim 1] – wherein the determining the most similar product from the group of products further comprises: training a neural network using manually-created sets of similar products; inputting product information of the anchor product and product information of each product of the group of products into the trained neural network; performing, using a cosine similarity layer of the trained neural network, a comparison between product information of the anchor product and product information of each product of the group of products, the comparison comprising applying a cosine similarity function to at least one vector of the anchor product and at least one vector of each product of the group of products; and determining, based on the comparison, that the product information of the anchor product is closest to product information of the most similar product
associating the anchor product and the most similar product with one another in a product collection
[Claim 1] – associating, by the one or more processors, the anchor product and the most similar product with one another in a product collection
sending, to a user computing device, data structured such that the most similar product is displayed on a display of the user computing device along with the anchor product on the display of the user computing device as part of a single interface or webpage of a retailer website
[Claim 1] – sending, by the one or more processors to a user computing device, data structured such that the most similar product is displayed on a display of the user computing device along with the anchor product on a display of the user computing device as part of a single interface or webpage of the retailer website provided by the one or more computing devices associated with the retailer website
Yet ‘675 does not explicitly disclose a non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer executable instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising:
However, Caster teaches a similar taxonomy method (Caster: [0053]), including
a non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer executable instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising: (Caster: [0013] – “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media, having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon, wherein when executed by at least one processor, the computer-executable instructions cause the processor to operate”; [0035] – “the system 10 includes a hosting server 16, a search engine server 18, a database server 20, a database 22, and one or more user computing (or customer) devices 12 that are each coupled in communication via a communications network 14”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the product determination method, as taught by ‘675, the medium, as taught by Caster, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify ‘675, to include the teachings of Caster, in order to enable a user to access and communicate with the system (Caster: [0036]).
Instant Claim 2
‘675 [Claim 2]
receiving a selection of the anchor product from a user electronic device; determining that the most similar product is in the product collection with the anchor product; and sending, to the user electronic device, information for presenting the most similar product along with the anchor product on a display of the user electronic device responsive to the selection of the anchor product
receiving a selection of the anchor product from a user electronic device; determining that the most similar product is in the product collection with the anchor product; and sending, to the user electronic device, information for presenting the most similar product along with the anchor product on a display of the user electronic device responsive to the selection of the anchor product
Instant Claim 4
‘675 [Claim 3]
wherein the comparison comprises performing a cosine similarity function between text of the product information of the anchor product and text of the product information of each product of the group of products.
wherein the comparison comprises performing a cosine similarity comparison between text of the product information of the anchor product and text of the product information of each product of the group of products
Instant Claim 5
‘675 [Claim 12]
wherein the anchor product and the most similar product are different brands of products
wherein the anchor product and the most similar product are different brands of products
Instant Claim 11
‘675 [Claim 1]
transmitting data structured such that the most similar product is displayed on a display of a user computing device along with the anchor product as part of a single interface
sending, by the one or more processors to a user computing device, data structured such that the most similar product is displayed on a display of the user computing device along with the anchor product on a display of the user computing device as part of a single interface or webpage
Instant Claim 15
‘675
A method comprising:
[Claim 1] – A computer-implemented method, comprising:
generating a product collection responsive to a user input associated with an anchor product at an electronic user interface, the product collection comprising a set of products of a plurality of products, wherein generating the product collection comprises:
[Claim 1] – associating, by the one or more processors, the anchor product and the most similar product with one another in a product collection
[Claim 7] – receiving a selection of the anchor product from a user electronic device; determining that the most similar product and the third product are both in the product collection with the anchor product
determining associated with a retailer website, a first taxonomy of an anchor product, wherein:
[Claim 1] – determining, by one or more processors of one or more computing devices associated with a retailer website, a first taxonomy of an anchor product, wherein:
the first taxonomy comprises a plurality of levels for classifying products organized from a highest taxonomy level to a lowest taxonomy level
[Claim 1] – the first taxonomy comprises a plurality of levels for classifying products organized from a highest taxonomy level to a lowest taxonomy level
a greater number of products are classified under the highest taxonomy level than under the lowest taxonomy level
[Claim 1] – a greater number of products are classified under the highest taxonomy level than under the lowest taxonomy level;
determining a plurality of taxonomies for which a predetermined number of the plurality of levels of the plurality of taxonomies is the same as the plurality of levels of the first taxonomy
[Claim 8] – determining a plurality of taxonomies for which a predetermined number of a plurality of levels of each of the plurality of taxonomies is the same as the plurality of levels of the first taxonomy;
determining a second taxonomy from the plurality of taxonomies that is closest to the first taxonomy by: determining, based on co-purchase data, a percentage for each of the plurality of taxonomies that any product in the first taxonomy has been co-purchased with any product of each of the respective plurality of taxonomies, and determining that the second taxonomy has the highest percentage of products that have been co-purchased with products of the first taxonomy; and
[Claim 8] – determining the second taxonomy from the plurality of taxonomies by: determining, based on co-purchase data, a percentage for each of the plurality of taxonomies that any product in the first taxonomy has been co-purchased with any product of each of the respective plurality of taxonomies, and determining that the second taxonomy has the highest percentage of products that have been co-purchased with products of the first taxonomy
determining that at least two highest levels of the first taxonomy and the second taxonomy are exactly the same, wherein each of the first taxonomy of the anchor product and the second taxonomy includes at least three levels, and wherein the first taxonomy and the second taxonomy have at least different lowest taxonomy levels
[Claim 1] – the first taxonomy and the second taxonomy have at least a common highest taxonomy level, each of the first taxonomy of the anchor product and the second taxonomy includes at least three levels…the determination that the second taxonomy is closest to the first taxonomy further comprises determining that at least the two highest levels of the first taxonomy and the second taxonomy are exactly the same, and the first taxonomy and the second taxonomy have at least different lowest taxonomy levels
determining a most similar product to the anchor product from a group of products associated with the lowest level of the second taxonomy, such that the first taxonomy of the anchor product and the second taxonomy of the most similar product have at least two highest levels that are exactly the same and the lowest levels that are different,
[Claim 1] – determining, by the one or more processors, a most similar product to the anchor product from a group of products associated with the lowest level of the second taxonomy…the determination that the second taxonomy is closest to the first taxonomy further comprises determining that at least the two highest levels of the first taxonomy and the second taxonomy are exactly the same, and the first taxonomy and the second taxonomy have at least different lowest taxonomy levels
wherein the determining the most similar product from the group of products further comprises: training a neural network using manually-created sets of similar products; inputting product information of the anchor product and product information of each product of the group of products into the trained neural network; performing, using a cosine similarity layer of the trained neural network, a comparison between product information of the anchor product and product information of each product of the group of products, the comparison comprising applying a cosine similarity function to at least one vector of the anchor product and at least one vector of each product of the group of products; and determining, based on the comparison, that the product information of the anchor product is closest to the product information of the most similar product
[Claim 1] – wherein the determining the most similar product from the group of products further comprises: training a neural network using manually-created sets of similar products; inputting product information of the anchor product and product information of each product of the group of products into the trained neural network; performing, using a cosine similarity layer of the trained neural network, a comparison between product information of the anchor product and product information of each product of the group of products, the comparison comprising applying a cosine similarity function to at least one vector of the anchor product and at least one vector of each product of the group of products; and determining, based on the comparison, that the product information of the anchor product is closest to product information of the most similar product
associating the anchor product and the most similar product with one another in a product collection
[Claim 1] – associating, by the one or more processors, the anchor product and the most similar product with one another in a product collection
transmitting data structured such that the most similar product is displayed on a display of a user computing device along with the anchor product as part of a single interface
[Claim 1] – sending, by the one or more processors to a user computing device, data structured such that the most similar product is displayed on a display of the user computing device along with the anchor product on a display of the user computing device as part of a single interface
sending, to a user computing device, data representative of the product collection and structured such that the most similar product is displayed on a display of the user computing device along with the anchor product on the display of the user computing device using the electronic user interface, the product collection being displayed as part of a single interface or webpage of the retailer website provided by the server associated with the retailer website
[Claim 1] – associating, by the one or more processors, the anchor product and the most similar product with one another in a product collection, and sending, by the one or more processors to a user computing device, data structured such that the most similar product is displayed on a display of the user computing device along with the anchor product on a display of the user computing device as part of a single interface or webpage of the retailer website provided by the one or more computing devices associated with the retailer website
Yet ‘675 does not explicitly disclose a server-implemented method, where operations are performed by the server.
However, Caster teaches a similar taxonomy method (Caster: [0053]), including
a server-implemented method, where operations are performed by the server (Caster: [0040] – “the system 10 may include a system server 34 that is configured to perform the functions of the hosting server 16, the search engine server 18, and/or the database server 20. In the illustrated embodiment, the system server 34 includes a processing device 36 and the database 22.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the product determination method, as taught by ‘675, the server, as taught by Caster, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify ‘675, to include the teachings of Caster, in order to enable a user to access and communicate with the system (Caster: [0036]).
In regards to claim 17, all the limitations in method claim 17 are closely parallel to the limitations of medium claim 4 analyzed above and rejected on the same bases.
Instant Claim 19
‘675 [Claim 12]
wherein the anchor product and the most similar product are not interchangeable
wherein the anchor product and the most similar product are different brands of products
Instant Claim 21
‘675
wherein the product collection comprises: all items of a same color or finish; or all items used in a same type of room in a home
[Claim 18] – wherein the product collection comprises all items of a same color or finish
[Claim 19] – wherein the product collection comprises all items used in a same type of room in a home
Instant Claim 23
‘675
wherein the product collection comprises: all items of a same color or finish; or all items used in a same type of room in a home
[Claim 18] – wherein the product collection comprises all items of a same color or finish
[Claim 19] – wherein the product collection comprises all items used in a same type of room in a home
Examiner note: The prohibition against nonstatutory double patenting rejections under 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply in instances when the claims of the application under examination and claims of the other application/patent are not consonant with the restriction requirement made by the examiner, since the claims have been changed in material respects from the claims at the time the requirement was made. See MPEP 804.01.
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 1-2, 4-7, 9-13, 15, 17-19, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. See MPEP 2106.03(II). In the instant case, claims 1-2, 4-5, 11-12, 21, and 24 are directed to a manufacture and claims 6-7, 9-10, 13, 15, 17-19, 22-23, and 25 are directed to a process. Therefore, claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-13, 15, 17-19, and 21-25 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong 1 of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong 2 of Step 2A). See MPEP 2106.04.
Taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
generating a product collection responsive to a user input associated with an anchor product, the product collection comprising a set of products of a plurality of products, wherein generating the product collection comprises:
determining a first taxonomy of an anchor product, wherein:
the first taxonomy comprises a plurality of levels for classifying products organized from a highest taxonomy level to a lowest taxonomy level; and
a greater number of products are classified under the highest taxonomy level than under the lowest taxonomy level;
determining a plurality of taxonomies for which a predetermined number of the plurality of levels of the plurality of taxonomies is the same as the plurality of levels of the first taxonomy;
determining a second taxonomy from the plurality of taxonomies that is closest to the first taxonomy by:
determining, based on co-purchase data, a percentage for each of the plurality of taxonomies that any product in the first taxonomy has been co-purchased with any product of each of the respective plurality of taxonomies, and
determining that the second taxonomy has the highest percentage of products that have been co-purchased with products of the first taxonomy;
determining that at least two highest levels of the first taxonomy and the second taxonomy are exactly the same, wherein each of the first taxonomy of the anchor product and the second taxonomy includes at least three levels, and wherein the first taxonomy and the second taxonomy have at least different lowest taxonomy levels;
determining a most similar product to the anchor product from a group of products associated with the lowest level of the second taxonomy, such that the first taxonomy of the anchor product and the second taxonomy of the most similar product have at least two highest levels that are exactly the same and the lowest levels that are different,
wherein the determining the most similar product from the group of products further comprises:
using manually-created sets of similar products;
inputting product information of the anchor product and product information of each product of the group of products;
performing, using a cosine similarity, a comparison between product information of the anchor product and product information of each product of the group of products, the comparison comprising applying a cosine similarity function to at least one vector of the anchor product and at least one vector of each product of the group of products; and
determining, based on the comparison, that the product information of the anchor product is closest to the product information of the most similar product;
and associating the anchor product and the most similar product with one another in a product collection; and
sending data representative of the product collection and structured such that the most similar product is displayed along with the anchor product, the product collection being displayed as part of a single.
The above limitations recite the concept of associating related products with a taxonomy. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Specifically, analyzing obtaining the taxonomy information, analyzing the taxonomy, and associating the products represents mental processes such as observations and evaluations. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. Specifically, determining information about product taxonomy and data in order to associate products is a sales activity. This is further illustrated in paragraph [0002] of the Specification, describing the retailer recommendations to increase retailer sales. Independent claim 6 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and further recites the abstract idea of:
determining, based on predefined product collection data, a percentage for each of the plurality of taxonomies that any product in the first taxonomy is in a same collection as any product of each of the respective plurality of taxonomies, and determining that the second taxonomy has the highest percentage of products that are in a same collection as products of the first taxonomy.
Independent claim 15 recites similar limitations as claim 1. These concepts are similarly encompassed by Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes. Accordingly, independent claims 6 and 15 fall within the same identified groupings of abstract ideas as claim 1. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the MPEP, claims 1, 6, and 15 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the MPEP, claims 1, 6, and 15 recite additional elements, such as a non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer executable instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations; an electronic user interface; training a neural network; the trained neural network; a cosine similarity layer of the trained neural network; a user computing device, a display of the user computing device, a single interface or webpage of a retailer website; a computer-implemented method; one or more processors; a server-implemented method; a server; and transmitting data. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. As such, these computer-related limitations are not found to be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Although these additional computer-related elements are recited, claims 1, 6, and 15 merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Similar to the limitations of Alice, claims 1, 6, and 15 merely recite a commonplace business method (i.e., associating related products with a taxonomy) being applied on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, claims 1, 6, and 15 generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The courts have identified various examples of limitations as merely indicating a field of use/technological environment in which to apply the abstract idea, such as specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer (see FairWarning v. Iatric Sys.). Likewise, claims 1, 6, and 15 specifying that the abstract idea of associating related products with a taxonomy is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the MPEP, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1, 6, and 15 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Since claims 1, 6, and 15 recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 1, 6, and 15 are “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Next, under Step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. The instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for at least the following reasons.
Returning to independent claims 1, 6, and 15, these claims recites additional elements, such as a non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer executable instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations; an electronic user interface; training a neural network; the trained neural network; a cosine similarity layer of the trained neural network; a user computing device, a display of the user computing device, a single interface or webpage of a retailer website; a computer-implemented method; one or more processors; a server-implemented method; a server; and transmitting data. As discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although additional computer-related elements are recited, the claims merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Moreover, the limitations of claims 1, 6, and 15 are manual processes, e.g., receiving information, analyzing information, etc. The courts have indicated that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)). Furthermore, as discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, claims 1, 6, and 15 merely recite the additional elements in order to further define the field of use of the abstract idea, therein attempting to generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such as the Internet or computing networks (see Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC. (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bilski v. Kappos (2010); MPEP 2106.05(h)). Similar to FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., claims 1, 6, and 15 specifying that the abstract idea of associating related products with a taxonomy is executed in a computer merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claim to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. In Alice Corp., the Court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘[a]dd nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’ and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Id. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, viewed as a whole, claims 1, 6, and 15 simply convey the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 6, and 15 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2, 4-5, 7, 9-14, and 17-25, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claims 2, 4-5, 7, 9-14, and 17-25 further fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. The claims also fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, in that they recite marketing or sales activities. Dependent claims 4-5, 9-10, 12, 17-19, and 21-23 fail to identify additional elements and as such, are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Dependent claims 2, 7, 11, 13-14, 20, and 24-25 further identify additional elements such as a user electronic device, a display, a single interface, training a neural network, the trained neural network, a cosine similarity layer of the trained neural network; a first neural network; a second neural network; a first trained neural network; and a second trained neural network. Similar to discussion above the with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although additional computer-related elements are recited, the claims merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, as discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, claims 2, 4-5, 7, 9-14, and 17-25 merely recite the additional elements in order to further define the field of use of the abstract idea, therein attempting to generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As such, under Step 2A, dependent claims 2, 4-5, 7, 9-14, and 17-25 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claims 1, 6, and 15, dependent claims 2, 4-5, 7, 9-14, and 17-25, analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and merely indicate a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Accordingly, under the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-15, and 17-25 are ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-13, 15, 17-19, and 21-25 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and, for some of the claims, the double patenting rejections, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-13, 15, 17-19, and 21-25 incorporate substantially the same limitations as those indicated as containing allowable subject matter in the Office action dated 07/03/2025. Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-13, 15, 17-19, and 21-25 contain allowable subject matter for the same reasons as those discussed in the Office action dated 07/03/2025. For further details, see the Office action dated 07/03/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/17/2026, have been fully considered.
Double Patenting
Applicant argues the double patenting rejection is improper because “the presently rejected claims are patentably distinct over Caster” (Remarks page 12). The examiner disagrees. The examiner notes that Caster is merely cited as teaching a non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer executable instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising, which Caster teaches in [0013], teaching one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media, having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon, wherein when executed by at least one processor, the computer-executable instructions cause the processor to operate and [0035], teaching the system includes a hosting server, a search engine server, a database server, a database, and one or more user computing (or customer) devices that are each coupled in communication via a communications network. And Caster is further cited as teaching a server-implemented method, where operations are performed by the server, which it teaches in [0040], teaching the system may include a system server that is configured to perform the functions of the hosting server, the search engine server, and/or the database server. In the illustrated embodiment, the system server includes a processing device and the database. Thus, Caster teaches all of the elements for which it is cited and the double patenting rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues the double patenting rejection is improper because “[t]here are no exceptions or additional requirements in Section 121” (Remarks pages 13-14). The examiner disagrees. The prohibition against nonstatutory double patenting rejections under 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply in instances when the claims of the application under examination and claims of the other application/patent are not consonant with the restriction requirement made by the examiner, since the claims have been changed in material respects from the claims at the time the requirement was made. See MPEP 804.01. Thus, the double patenting rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues the double patenting rejection is improper because the examiner has cited to a section of the MPEP that was “taken out of context” and claims 11 and 16 were “so significantly amended…so as to have been removed from the earlier application” (Remarks page 13). The examiner disagrees. While the examiner acknowledges that a consonance exists between claims 1 and 15 and certain claims in the originally filed patent application, these claims were not restricted out of the parent application. Furthermore, there is no consonance between these claims and the claims that were restricted out of the parent application. In order to obtain the benefit of 35 U.S.C. 121, claims must be formally entered, restricted in, and removed from an earlier application before they are filed in a divisional application (see MPEP 804.01(A)). The examiner notes that this section of the MPEP is not specific only to a situation when an applicant voluntarily files two or more applications without a restriction requirement by the examiner, but rather is a general principle that just so happens to be mentioned in that context. An examination of the case that was cited, which discusses 121 (Geneva Pharms, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline), shows mention of 121 shielding withdrawn claims (page 11), and no mention of this being limited to only situations when an applicant voluntarily files two or more applications without a restriction requirement by the examiner. Furthermore, the examiner notes that amending claims is different from removing claims in response to a restriction requirement. Thus, the double patenting rejection has been maintained.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible because the claims are not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (Remarks pages 16-17). The examiner disagrees. The MPEP sets forth guidance for evaluating whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception. Specifically, the MPEP enumerates the judicial exceptions recognized various courts to facilitate examination (See MPEP 2101.04). One of the categories of judicial exceptions is “Abstract Ideas,” the groupings of which the MPEP further enumerates. Such groupings include 1) Mathematical Concepts, 2) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and 3) Mental Processes. The Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping includes activity that amounts to commercial or legal interactions, including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). The present claims recite systems and methods for associating related products with a taxonomy. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Specifically, analyzing obtaining the taxonomy information, analyzing the taxonomy, and associating the products represents mental processes such as observations and evaluations. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. Specifically, determining information about product taxonomy and data in order to associate products is a sales activity. This is further illustrated in paragraph [0002] of the Specification, describing the retailer recommendations to increase retailer sales. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes groupings.
Applicant argues the claims are integrated into a practical application because the claims “‘improve[] the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field’” (Remarks pages 18-20). The examiner disagrees. The MPEP provides 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, the MPEP states “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.” The MPEP further states 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,” and that, “conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner…the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology” (see MPEP 2106.04). That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. 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 an 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).
While the examiner acknowledges that improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field may constitute integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), the instant claims do not provide a technical improvement. Rather, the claims provide an improvement to the abstract idea of associating related products with a taxonomy. This is illustrated in [0002] of the Specification, describing the retailer recommendations to increase retailer sales. Although the claims include computer technology such as a non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer executable instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations; an electronic user interface; training a neural network; the trained neural network; a cosine similarity layer of the trained neural network; a user computing device, a display of the user computing device, a single interface or webpage of a retailer website; a computer-implemented method; one or more processors; a server-implemented method; a server; and transmitting data, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. Put another way, these additional elements are merely used to apply the abstract idea of associating related products with a taxonomy in a technological environment without effectuating any improvement or change to the functioning of the additional elements or other technology. 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 technological improvements but are directed to improving the business method of associating related products with a taxonomy. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in more relevant classification, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving any type of technology. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing generic computing components for associating related products with a taxonomy, e.g. a business method, and therefore is merely applying the abstract idea using generic computing components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). As such, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant argues the claims are patent eligible in light of Desjardins (Remarks pages 19-20). The examiner disagrees. In Ex Parte Desjardins, the claims reflected a specific improvement that addressed the technical problem of “catastrophic forgetting” in continual learning systems, while allowing artificial intelligence systems to variously optimize system performance, use less storage capacity and reduce system complexity. By contrast the additional elements in the instant case are merely recited at a high level and does not provide any similar technical improvement to a technical problem specific to learning systems. Thus, Desjardins is not analogous.
Applicant argues claims 6, 15, and the dependent claims are eligible for the same reasons as claim 1 (Remarks page 13). The examiner disagrees. As discussed in the 101 rejection and response to remarks above, claim 1 is ineligible and claims 6, 15, and the dependent claims are ineligible for the same reasons.
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 ANNA MAE MITROS whose telephone number is (571)272-3969. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30-6.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/ANNA MAE MITROS/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/MARISSA THEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689