DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response received on 25 June 2026.
Claims 1, 9, and 10 are amended.
Claims 11-20 were previously withdrawn.
Claims 1-10 are pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 recite allowable subject matter and the claims would be allowable if they were amended or re-written to overcome the 101 rejection indicated in the Office Action below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea without significantly more).
Under step 1, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention (see MPEP 2106.03(II)). In the instant case, claims 1-10 are directed to a system.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites an abstract idea of identifying a plurality of recommended products. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
providing a product listing system having a seed product;
accessing the seed product;
identifying a plurality of candidate products associated with the seed product using a product knowledge graph,
wherein the product knowledge graph is generated using a graph service by receiving product knowledge graph generation data at the graph service, and by generating nodes and edges of the product knowledge graph upon executing one or more prompts derived from the product knowledge graph generation data,
wherein nodes represent one or more products separate from the product listing system, and wherein the edges represent one or more relationships between the one or more products, and
wherein the product knowledge graph is mapped to a plurality of product instances in a product listing data based on product identifiers associated with the nodes and product identifiers associated with the plurality of product instances in the product listing data;
identifying a plurality of recommended products, wherein the plurality of recommended products are a subset of the plurality of candidate products; and
communicating the plurality of recommended products to cause generation of the plurality of recommended products to a user.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in 2106.04(a) of the MPEP. Even in consideration of the analysis, the claims recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of identifying a plurality of recommended products, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity because it relates to sale activities since the claims specifically recite the steps of providing a product listing system having a seed product, accessing the seed product, identifying candidate products associated with the seed product using the product knowledge graph, where the knowledge graph service receives the data the including nodes that represent products separate from the product listing system, where the edges represent a relationship between the one or more products, where the product knowledge graph is mapped to a plurality of product instances within the product listing data based on identifiers of products associated with nodes and product identifiers associated with the plurality of product instances in the product listing data, identifying a plurality of recommended products to provide to a user, and communicating the recommended products that are a subset of the candidate products to the user, thereby making this a sales activity or behavior.
The Examiner additionally notes that that the steps of identifying a plurality of candidate products associated with the seed product using a product knowledge graph and identifying a plurality of recommended products that are a subset of the plurality of candidate products, would fall into the enumerated grouping of mental processes. A mental process is defined as and includes “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion)” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). In this case, the steps of identifying, would be considered a concept performed in the human mind, such as an observation or an evaluation. Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea that also falls into the grouping of mental processes.
Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements: one or more computer processors, computer memory storing computer-useable instructions that, when used by the one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations, a generative AI knowledge graph service, the generative AI knowledge graph service, a database, the database, and a graphical user interface.
Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., identifying a plurality of recommended products) being applied on a general-purpose computer using general purpose computer technology. MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Additionally, the Examiner notes that the claim recites the step communicating the plurality of recommended products to cause generation of the plurality of recommended products on a graphical user interface, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. Extra-solution activity can be understood as activities that are incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In this case, the activity of communicating the plurality of recommended products to cause generation of the plurality of recommended products on a graphical user interface, is merely nominal or tangential additions to the primary process of recommending products to a user.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements of one or more computer processors, computer memory storing computer-useable instructions that, when used by the one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations, a generative AI knowledge graph service, the generative AI knowledge graph service, a database, the database, and a graphical user interface recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘ad[d] nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’… [and] [v]iewed as a whole…[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Further, the step communicating the plurality of recommended products to cause generation of the plurality of recommended products on a graphical user interface, does not provide significantly more than the judicial exception because they are merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry of data management and processing. The courts have recognized the computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a generic manner or as insignificantly extra-solution activity. Receiving or transmitting data (i.e., communicating the plurality of recommended products) over a network (e.g., using the Internet to gather data) and storing and retrieving information in memory are recognized computer functions that are considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). This is similar to the steps and additional elements that are recited in the claims. For example, the step of communicating the recommended products to the graphical user interface, would be the same as the activity of transmitting and receiving data over a network and is the same as the function of transmitting and receiving the data over a network, such as the internet. For examples of court cases, see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F. 3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 do not aid in the eligibility of representative independent claim 1. The claims of 2-10 merely act to provide further limitations of the abstract idea and are ineligible subject matter.
It is noted that dependent claims include the additional elements of node and a node (claims 2, 4, & 6), a database (claims 2 & 9), edges and edge (claim 4), an edge-node prediction and a generative AI model (claim 5), and one or more application (claim 8). Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the claimed additional elements, as being anything other than a generic element. The claimed additional elements, individually and in combination do not integrate into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept because they are merely being used to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claim 2, 4-6, and 8-9 are directed towards an abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claims 2, 4-6, and 8-9, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. It is further noted that the remaining dependent claims 3, 7, and 10 do not recite any further additional elements to consider in the analysis, and therefore would not provide additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and would not provide an inventive concept.
As such, the dependent claims 2-10 are ineligible.
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
Prior Art Considerations:
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is concluded that the totality of evidence in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the Applicant’s invention.
Regarding the independent claims, the features are as follows:
wherein the nodes represent one or more products separate from the product listing system, and wherein the edges represent one or more relationships between the one or more products, and
wherein the product knowledge graph is mapped to a plurality of product instances in a product listing database based on product identifiers associated with the nodes and product identifiers associated with the plurality of product instances in the product listing database
The most apposite prior art of record includes Feller, D., et al. (Patent No. US 9,824,152 B2), in view of Skarphedinsson, N., et al. (Patent No. US 12,563,071 B1), and Bayless, S., et al. (PGP No. US 2025/0112878 A1) to teach a knowledge graph system.
The reference of Feller discloses generating candidate items for a user by identifying seed items, where in this case the items are recipes, where the identifying the candidate items is based on user actions (Feller, see: Col. 7, ln. 23-26, 30-31; and FIG. 3). Feller describes the system for providing recommendations of candidate recipes that includes using all of the user interaction data to generate the recommendations, and a knowledge graph that establishes the relationships within the recipes as well as information not related to the recipes (Feller, Col. 8, ln. 47-48 and Col. 9, ln. 6-7), and then selects a certain number of candidates with highest ranking as the recommended recipes (Col. 8, ln. 54-59). The recommendations are then provided to the client device for display (Feller, see: Col. 14, ln. 30-32). Although Feller does describe the knowledge graph for recognizing relationships within recipes, Feller does not disclose any type of generative AI knowledge graph service, and does not describe the allowable features indicated above.
The reference of Skarphedinsson describes a platform for creating graphs that have identified relationships between entities, and a generative artificial intelligence model with a graph service that allows a user to request information, where the model then can generate output based on the request, such as generate text, graphics, video, or any type of response to a prompt of a user (Skarphedinsson, see: Col. 18, ln. 1-4 and 103, ln. 46-55). Although Skarphedinsson describes the AI knowledge graph service, the reference of not specifically describe the allowable features as indicated above.
Next, the reference of Bayless describes a knowledge graph for providing output to a user based on a request query from the user, where a chatbot is relied upon to determine specific answers to a query from the user, where the chatbot queries the knowledge graph to identify the language to provide the specific answer (Bayless, see: paragraphs [0134]-[0137]). Although Bayless does describe features of providing answers to a user query using a knowledge graph and LLM, Bayless does not describe the specific allowable features as indicated above.
The Examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. Moreover, the combination of features of independent claims, would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias and resulting in an inappropriate combination.
It is hereby asserted by the Examiner, that in light of the above and in further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims recite allowable subject matter as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner’s Comment
The Examiner notes that the non-patent literature (NPL) document, titled Building product graphs automatically, Automated system tripled the number of facts in a product graph, published on amazon.science/blog (2023) documented on PTO-892 form as reference U, and hereinafter referred to as ‘Building’, describes and renders a website for describing how automatically product knowledge graphs is more difficult in retail environments, but by increasing the number of facts in the product graph, the accuracy also increased. Although ‘Building’ describes such features, the reference does not disclose or teach the allowable features that are stated above, and does not remedy the deficiencies of the noted prior art.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the claim objections, and in light of the Applicant’s amendments made to the claims, the objections are now withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 25 June 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on pages 3-4 and 6 of the remarks stating that “claim 1 is not directed merely to recommending products. Rather, claim 1 is directed to a specific technological architecture for generating and integrating a product knowledge graph in a product listing system” and “Applicant submits that the claims should be found patent eligible,” and “The Claims Are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, the claims recite and are directed to an abstract idea of identifying a plurality of recommended products. The abstract idea in this case falls into the enumerated sub-grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity, where the limitations are related to sales activities or behaviors. The claim specifically recites the steps of providing a product listing system having a seed product, accessing the seed product, identifying candidate products associated with the seed product using the product knowledge graph, where the knowledge graph service receives the data the including nodes that represent products separate from the product listing system, where the edges represent a relationship between the one or more products, where the product knowledge graph is mapped to a plurality of product instances within the product listing data based on identifiers of products associated with nodes and product identifiers associated with the plurality of product instances in the product listing data, identifying a plurality of recommended products to provide to a user, and communicating the recommended products that are a subset of the candidate products to the user, making them related to commercial activities. The limitations of identifying a plurality of candidate products associated with the seed product using a product knowledge graph and identifying a plurality of recommended products that are a subset of the plurality of candidate products, would fall into the enumerated grouping of mental processes because the identifying steps are considered steps that can be performed in the human mind and would not require a computer. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that claims are directed to an abstract idea and fall into the category of a certain method of organizing human activity and fall into the category of a mental process.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on pages 2-4 and 6-7 of the remarks stating “the claim recites how the underlying product knowledge graph is technically integrated with product instances maintains in a product listing database,” and “The claim therefore addresses a technical problem in item listing systems” and “amended claim recites a specific graph-generation and graph-mapping architecture that improves the operation of the product listing system by enabling generated product relationships to be integrated with actual product records in the product listing database,” and further “The claim address a technological problem” and “The amended limitations provide the technological solution” and “The claim includes meaningful limitations that go beyond generic computer implementation” and “mapping step integrates the generated graph with actual database records,” and further “The Claims Are Integrated Into a Practical Application,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. When considering the additional elements recited in the claims individually and in combination, the additional elements of one or more computer processors, computer memory storing computer-useable instructions that, when used by the one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations, a generative AI knowledge graph service, the generative AI knowledge graph service, a database, the database, and a graphical user interface, are recited in a general or genic manner, and are being used to apply the abstract idea. There is not enough sufficient detail given to the additional elements for the additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the claims do not reflect any type of technological solution to a technical problem. The MPEP (2106.05(a)) provides further guidance on how to evaluate whether claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For example, as indicated in 2106.05(d)(1) of the MPEP “the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement,” and that “[t]he specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Looking to the specification is a standard that the courts have employed when analyzing claims as it relates to improvements in technology. For example, in Enfish, the specification provided teaching that the claimed invention achieves benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, in Core Wireless the specification noted deficiencies in prior art interfaces relating to efficient functioning of the computer. Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs. Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed Cir. 2018). With respect to McRO, the claimed improvement, as confirmed by the originally filed specification, was “…allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters…’” and it was “…the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks”. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In this case, Applicant’s specification provides no explanation of an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology. Rather, the claims focus “on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool”. Id citing Enfish at 1327, 1336. This is reflected in paragraphs [0026] of Applicant’s specification, which describe Applicant’s claimed invention is directed toward solving problems such as issues in providing item listing services. Although the claims include computer technology such as one or more computer processors, computer memory storing computer-useable instructions that, when used by the one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to perform operations, a generative AI knowledge graph service, the generative AI knowledge graph service, a database, the database, and a graphical user interface such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the courts in cases such as Enfish, Core Wireless, and McRO. Unlike precedential cases, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement to computer capabilities. The instant claims are not directed to improving the existing technological process but are directed to improving the commercial task of identifying recommended products. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in improved representation of relationships between items is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving the processor and computer components that operate the system. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing different data while still employing the same processor and computer components used in conventional systems to improve the identified plurality of recommended products, e.g. commercial process. As such, the claims do not recite specific technological improvements and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on page 8 of the remarks stating “The Claims Recite an Inventive Concept,” and “Even if claim 1 were found to be directed to an abstract idea, the claim includes significantly more than the alleged abstract idea,” and “The ordered combination therefore provides significantly more than the abstract idea alleged by the Office,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As mentioned above, the claimed additional elements are recited in a generic manner and are merely being used to apply the abstract idea. When considering the additional elements as an ordered combination, they are still recited at a high-level of generality and are generic in nature, and do not provide any type of improvement to the technology itself that would be reflected in the claim language, and therefore the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and do not provide an inventive concept, and thus, the Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 103, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 25 June 2026, and in light of the Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the independent claim now recites allowable subject matter as indicated above, and thus, the 103 rejection is withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4399. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ASHLEY D PRESTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights