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 .
Prosecution Status
Applicant’s amendments filed 4/15/2026 have been received and reviewed. The status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Specification
Applicant’s amendment of the Title is acknowledged. The new title is acceptable.
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;
in response to the determination of the potential issues, 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;
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.
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
by the processor set
by the processor set using large language model processing
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”). 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) has 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 prior art rejections of the claims have been fully considered, and they are persuasive in light of the present amendments. Accordingly, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considers, and are not persuasive. Applicant initially argues:
Claim 1 recites a specific technical process rooted in computer technology. The technical process related to identifying replacement components for device repair using machine learning models. Specifically, identifying replacement components and corresponding replacement subsets or supersets for devices in need of repair or replacement, using a regression model to identify root cause and large language model processing to generate one or more replacement components subsets or supersets.
In response, the Examiner notes that reciting “a specific technical process rooted in computer technology” has not been shown to impart eligibility. In DDR, the courts found claims to be eligible because the claims were “necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” As noted in the rejection above, the present claims are not necessarily rooted in computer technology. Instead, they merely use existing technologies as a tool to implement the abstract idea.
Applicant further argues:
Claim 1 addresses the technical problem associated with conventional technologies where product or component identification, purchase, replacement, or repair may be time-consuming, costly, and inefficient if unidentified alternative components are available at a lower cost or with higher ease of repair or replacement. Further, a purchaser may find it difficult to reliably source components with a desired cost, efficacy, and ease of repair or replacement due to the vast volume of suitable replacement components, component supersets, and component subsets. See ¶ [0014] of the as filed specification.
The features of amended independent claim 1 address the above-mentioned technical problem using machine learning operations performed by the computing system that includes identifying a replacement component for a device component. Further, applying a regression model to perform predictive analysis on user input data to identify a root cause that the device component would need to be replaced. The root cause analysis is performed using search queries and product metadata to determine potential issues relating to the device component. In response to determining potential issues, large language model processing is used to generate one or more replacement subsets or one or more replacement supersets. The one or more replacement subsets or one or more replacement supersets each correspond to the replacement component. See ¶¶ [0043]- [0044] of as filed specification.
Thus, the features of claim 1 help in replacing a component in need of replacement or repair without replacing or repairing a larger assembly.
Applicant here argues that the claims provide a solution to a commercial problem: “where product or component identification, purchase, replacement, or repair may be time-consuming, costly, and inefficient if unidentified alternative components are available at a lower cost or with higher ease of repair or replacement. Further, a purchaser may find it difficult to reliably source components with a desired cost, efficacy, and ease of repair or replacement due to the vast volume of suitable replacement components, component supersets, and component subsets.” There is no precedent for a solution to a commercial problem rendering an otherwise ineligible claim eligible. That the claimed invention uses machine learning operations performed by a computer does not serve to necessarily root the solution in computer technology.
Applicant further argues:
Therefore, independent claim 1 recites a technically grounded solution to a practical problem, which cannot be performed mentally, and hence not directed to abstract idea. For example, a human mind cannot use a regression model to perform predictive analysis on user input data to identify a root cause that the device component would need to be replaced. Further, the human mind cannot directly apply the large language model processing to generate one or more replacement subsets or one or more replacement supersets. The features of claim 1 are computer based and cannot be performed in the human mind due to the complexity and massive amounts of calculations involved including machine learning model computations involving large numbers of parameters and training operations as described in T [0019] of the specification.
Accordingly, claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regression analysis has been applied for centuries; long before computers existed. An argument that a human mind could not use a regression model to perform analysis is therefore unpersuasive on it’s face. Further, the courts have repeatedly stressed that "[m]erely using a computer to perform [*14] more efficiently what could otherwise be accomplished manually does not confer patent-eligibility." See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 964 F. Supp. 2d 331, 336 (D. Del. 2013) (citing Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012)), aff'd, 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant further argues, with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim features are implemented in the context of computerized system configured to analyse device component replacement using machine learning processing. Independent claim 1 integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application related to identifying replacement components and corresponding replacement component subsets or supersets for devices requiring repair or replacement.
In particular, claim 1 provides an improved technical solution related to determining, device maintenance metrics over time corresponding to the replacement component and the one or more replacement subsets and the replacement supersets; ranking a list of product alternatives corresponding to the replacement component and the one or more replacement subsets and the replacement supersets based on an optimization of the device maintenance metrics over time and in response to determining device maintenance metrics over time, communicating, by the processor set, a ranked list of product alternatives.
Thus, the claim features help improve the ability of the computing system to generate one or more replacement components using the large language model processing to identify the replacement component subsets, i.e., smaller sets of replacement components that make up a portion of a specific component to be repaired or replaced may be suitable for a task or repair because they may be used to replace a component in need of replacement or repair without replacing or repairing a larger assembly. Additionally, the claim features help to recommend the replacement components based on machine learning analysis of user input data and product metadata, where large-scale machine learning computations and model inference are performed by the computing system.
The claim features compare replacement component, and replacement component subsets to determine a ranked list of replacement component alternatives. In this manner, a device repair analysis is performed based on search data and product metadata, determine alternative products for purchase, and prompt a user with product alternatives and relevant information comparing the intended product purchase to alternatives which thus imposes meaningful limit on any alleged abstract idea and integrates such alleged abstract idea into a practical application by providing an improvement that is necessarily rooted in computational technology.
Thus, claims do not merely provide a generic ranking of products but instead generate and present replacement component subsets and supersets derived using machine learning processing and root cause analysis and prompt the user with product alternatives and relevant information comparing the intended product purchase to alternatives.
Accordingly, amended independent claim 1 the requirements of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Step 2A, Prong Two.
However, the application of the various analyses set forth in the claims and described here by the applicant do not alter the functioning of any inherent computer process. The claimed processor set functions solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting the idea to be achieved. The claims at issue here do not rise to overriding the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily performed by the computer, nor do they set forth with any specificity the interactions of the machine itself. Conversely, the claims are only specific in how the computer is used to facilitate the judicial exception itself, and are silent as to any detail or property that would transform the otherwise generic computer into a specialized or special purpose machine. Not unlike the analysis in Content Extraction v. Wells Fargo, there is no inventive concept in the use of the generic processor set. The inventive concept within the claims at issue resides solely in the manner in which the exception is performed.
For the above reasons, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the claims are held to be ineligible.
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 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, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571272-6763. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights