DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/11/2026 has been entered.
Prosecution Status
Applicant’s amendments filed 8/21/2026 have been received and reviewed. The status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
1. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to determining product purchase alternatives, which is considered a commercial interaction. Commercial interactions fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claim 1-9 recite a method and at least one step. Claims 10-18 recite a computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage media explicitly defined by the disclosure as non-transitory. Claims 19-20 recite a system comprising a processor set and one or more computer readable storage media. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, manufacture, apparatus).
Under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim sets forth a process in which product purchase alternatives are determined for a consumer in the following limitations:
Identifying a replacement component for a device component;
performing, using a regression model, predictive analysis on user input data to identify a root cause that the device component would need to be replaced, wherein the root cause is identified using search queries and product metadata to determine potential issues relating to the device component;
correlating user search query data with product purchase metadata to generate a search-to-purchase ratio corresponding to the replacement component
generating, one or more replacement subsets or one or more replacement supersets, wherein the one or more replacement subsets or one or more replacement supersets each correspond to the replacement component,
wherein the large language model processing is trained using text data relating to the replacement component, the one or more replacement subsets, and the one or more replacement supersets;
determining device maintenance metrics over time corresponding to the replacement component, the one or more replacements subsets, and the one or more replacement supersets based at least on the pricing data, and the option-time alternative data;
ranking a list of product alternatives corresponding to the replacement component, the one or more replacements subsets, and the one or more replacement supersets based on an optimization of the device maintenance metrics over time; and
in response to determining the device maintenance metrics over time, communicating the ranked list of product alternatives based on an optimization of the device maintenance metrics over time.
The above-recited limitations establish a commercial interaction with a consumer to determine and communicate product purchase alternative determinations. This arrangement amounts to both a sales activity or behavior; and business relations. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claim 1 does recite additional elements:
by a processor set
querying, by the processor set, a commercial hierarchy product database using the root cause, wherein the commercial hierarchy product database is iteratively updated by;
by the processor set
by the processor set using large language model processing
retrieving, by the processor set, from the commercial hierarchy product database, pricing data and option-time alternative data corresponding to the replacement component, the one or more replacement subsets, and the one or more replacement supersets;
retrieved from the commercial hierarchy product database
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (“by a processor set”, “using large language model processing”, “querying…a…database”, “retrieving…from the…database). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs 22-37 indicate that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). In the instant case, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) and storing and retrieving information in memory (e.g., a database) have been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Independent Claims 10 and 19 are parallel in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Regarding Claims 2-5, 9, 11-14, 18
Claims 2-5, 9 set forth:
wherein the ranked list of product alternatives comprises one or more product alternatives selected from a group consisting of the replacement component, the one or more replacement subsets, and the one or more replacement supersets.
wherein the identifying the replacement component occurs based on user data selected from a group consisting of a user search query, a user purchase research, and a user purchase attempt, wherein the user data corresponds to the replacement component for a device.
wherein the identifying the replacement component occurs based on feedback and consensus from historical user reviews of the replacement component.
wherein the device maintenance metrics are selected from a group consisting of expectations of repair time, install time, and overall interaction time of a user.
wherein the device maintenance metrics comprise metrics selected from a group consisting of cost, repair time, installation time, repair time, and installation difficulty.
.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of determining product purchase alternatives. The claims do not set forth any additional limitations beyond those recited in claim 1. As such, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claims 11-14, and 18 are parallel in scope to claims 2-5, and 9 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Regarding Claims 6-8, 15-17, 20
Claims 6-8 set forth:
performing predictive analysis on user data selected from a group consisting of a user search query, a user purchase research, and a user purchase attempt to identify a root cause that the device component would need to be replaced.
wherein the generating the one or more replacement subsets or the one or more replacement supersets occurs based on the root cause.
identifying one or more complimentary components based on the one or more replacement subsets or the one or more replacement supersets; and in response to identifying the one or more complimentary components, communicating, by the processor set, a recommendation of the one or more complimentary components.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of determining product purchase alternatives. While the claims do set forth the additional limitations of “by the processor set using a generative pretrained transformative model” and “by the processor set”, these recitations are similar to the additional limitations in claim 1, as they do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As such, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claims 15-17 are parallel in scope to claims 6-8 and are ineligible for similar reasons. Claim 20 is parallel in scope to claims 6 and 15, and is ineligible for similar reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if amended to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection set forth above without broadening their scope.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant initially asserts, with respect to Step 2A, Prong One:
When properly considered as a whole, independent claim 1 is not directed to a method of organizing human activity, but instead to a specific technical architecture.
Specification, in [0014], clearly mentions:
"... a purchaser may find it difficult to reliably source components with a desirous cost, efficacy, and ease of repair or replacement due to the vast volume of suitable replacement components, component supersets, and component subsets... replacing 3D printer components, supersets, and subsets may create unsustainably high repair costs and manufacturing downtime ..."
In view of above, [0018] describes a problem-solution approach, in which conventional systems require exhaustively searching and correlating unstructured user data against product metadata without a structured retrieval mechanism, resulting in unreliable or generic root cause identification. The claimed features solve this problem by determining the root cause using search queries and product metadata retrieved from a commercial hierarchy product database, wherein the commercial hierarchy product database is:
"... predefined or learned based on product search queries including historical user navigation, a third-party search query and navigation relating to root causes, product supersets and subsets, pricing, and option-time alternatives." See, specification [0018]
For example, instead of exhaustively searching unstructured data sources to infer a root cause, only the structured commercial hierarchy product database is queried to retrieve relevant metadata correlating search frequency data with product purchase frequency data, thereby reducing the computational burden of root cause identification. See, specification 1[0018], [0043].
Therefore, in view of the above amended claim 1 presents a computer-centric improvement. The process in amended claim 1 requires "... querying, by the processor set, a commercial hierarchy product database using the root cause, wherein the commercial hierarchy product database is iteratively updated by correlating user search query data with product purchase metadata to generate a search-to-purchase ratio corresponding to the replacement component..."
Hence, this is a computer centric technical solution to a technical problem.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to a technological solution to a technological problem, not to an abstract mental process, and therefore does not recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong One.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The problem set forth in the specification, and reproduced by the applicant, of “a purchaser may find it difficult to reliably source components with a desirous cost, efficacy, and ease of repair or replacement due to the vast volume of suitable replacement components, component supersets, and component subsets” is very clearly a commercial problem. This recitation is completely silent as to any problems specifically arising in any technological field, but instead describes a problem that a consumer may have in finding products to purchase. Even assuming the claimed querying of a commercial database solves this problem, such a problem-solution approach would not render the claims eligible, as no judicial precedent exists for a solution to a commercial problem rendering an otherwise ineligible claim eligible.
Additionally, the assertion that the claimed methodology reduces “the computational burden of root cause identification” is ungrounded, as applying a root cause identification process (i.e., a commercial enquiry process) to a computer system creates a computation burden by computerizing an otherwise manually-performable process.
Accordingly, applicant’s arguments that the claims set forth a technical solution to a problem necessarily rooted in technology are unpersuasive, and the claims are not found to be rendered eligible in Step 2A, Prong One of the Alice/Mayo framework.
Applicant further asserts, with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim therefore applies an alleged abstract idea into a practical application by an efficient, targeted mechanism for generating relevant replacement component recommendations, rather than merely reciting generating replacement subsets or supersets using an unspecified, generic large language model.
Claim 1 recites, in part, "... querying, by the processor set, a commercial hierarchy product database using the root cause, wherein the commercial hierarchy product database is iteratively updated by correlating user search query data with product purchase metadata to generate a search-to-purchase ratio corresponding to the replacement component; ... retrieving, by the processor set, from the commercial hierarchy product database, pricing data and option- time alternative data corresponding to the replacement component, the one or more replacement subsets, and the one or more replacement supersets; determining, by the processor set, device maintenance metrics over time corresponding to the replacement component, the one or more replacements subsets and the one or more replacement supersets based at least on the pricing data, and the option-time alternative data retrieved from the commercial hierarchy product database ... " which is analogous to Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), in which the Federal Circuit held claims directed to a specific improvement in the way a computer stores and retrieves data there (a self-referential table structure) to be patent- eligible because the claims were directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, not simply an abstract idea implemented on a computer. As in Enfish, the amended claim 1 here is directed to a specific manner of querying a commercial hierarchy product database, namely by iteratively updating the commercial hierarchy product database by correlating user search query data with product purchase metadata to generate a search-to-purchase ratio corresponding to the replacement component and using it to condition subsequent retrieval, rather than merely storing and retrieving data using conventional database techniques.
Applicant respectfully submits that this case is distinguishable from Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2025). In Recentive, the Federal Circuit held ineligible claims that did no more than apply an established machine- learning technique (iterative training of a model to identify relationships between event parameters and outcomes) to a new data environment (event scheduling and network-map generation), without reciting any improvement to the machine-learning technology or the underlying computer system itself, and without reciting any technical steps beyond feeding data into a generic model. By contrast, claim 1 as amended does not merely recite the application of a generic regression model or LLM to the new field of replacement- component recommendations. It recites specific, ordered technical steps directed to how the underlying database is restructured (iterative correlation of search and purchase data into a new derived value) and how that restructuring conditions both the database retrieval and the LLM's processing (attention directed to the root-cause-relevant portion of the input).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the claims indicate that the commercial database is updated to establish data correlations, the Examiner emphasizes that the assertion that the querying of the commercial hierarchy product database is performed “by iteratively updating the commercial hierarchy product database” is erroneous, as the claims do not set forth such a direct linkage between the querying and the iterative updating of the database. The claimed limitation merely sets forth a general “querying” operation, and recites that the database is updated via the data correlation process. That is, there is no causal relationship claimed between the querying of and the iteratively updating of the database. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that the argued “specific manner of querying” is not actually claimed. Instead, the claim only indicates that the database is updated to create data correlations, and that this database is also queried. The manner of storing the data correlations, or creating a specific linkage between data records/structures that represent the correlations is not claimed. The specific database querying and retrieval mechanisms are not claimed. Thus, amended claim 1 is not analogous to the claims in Enfish.
With regard to applicant’s commentary on Recentive, the Examiner notes that the present amendments do not further specify any operations of the LLM. The claimed “generating” step is not further limited by the updating of the database recited in the present amendments. Additionally, as indicated above, nothing in the claims specifies “how the underlying database is restructured”. Creating correlations between data, without specifying how such correlations are established in the database storage structure, amounts to an abstract action, as correlating stored data to other stored data is a long-performed, manually-performable task (such as in paper records). Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Step 2B are contingent on the arguments with respect to Step 2A, and are therefore not persuasive for the same reasons set above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A MISIASZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-6961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday. 8:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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.
/MICHAEL MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
