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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 remain pending, and are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 1/7/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive for at least the following rationale:
Applicant’s arguments filed on 1/7/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for claims directed to a judicial exception are not persuasive.
Notably, on pages 12-13 of the Applicant’s Remarks, arguments are made that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, but are directed to a computer-implemented system and method that dynamically analyzes software repositories and execution contexts, predicts contextual computational requirements using trained models, generates and deploys microservices in real time based on the predicted requirements, and integrates the generated microservices into an executing environment without human intervention, and cannot be practically performed by a human mind. Comparisons are drawn to McRO in that claims requiring real-time computational analysis, prediction, and automated system reconfiguration are not mental processes. On pages 13-14, further arguments are made that the claims are directed to a specific technological improvement. The Applicant’s specification discloses that conventional software systems suffer from static service architectures, inefficient resource allocation, inability to adapt dynamically to unanticipated execution contexts, and excessive latency and developer intervention when deploying new services, and the claimed invention solves these problems by introducing a predictive, AI-driven microservice generation and deployment engine.
The present claims do not recite any analyzing of software repositories, microservices, or static service architectures. The specification also does not disclose any of these features. While pages 10-12 of the Applicant’s Remarks are directed to the present application, it seems that the remaining arguments are directed to another application. The claims recite receiving the moving locations, images of the living space, and analyzing the images to extract features of the items to calculate a respective value based on the extracted features, and determining/comparing the costs of moving the item and replacing the item to provide a recommendation to move or forego the item. There is no recitation of any accessing of repositories, much less the analyzing of software repositories. There is nothing that resembles any microservices or static service architectures. The specification is also silent to any of these features or any of the alleged improvements to the problems of static service architectures, inefficient resource allocation, inability to adapt dynamically to unanticipated execution contexts, and excessive latency and developer intervention when deploying new services, or any AI-driven microservice generation and deployment.
In view of the above, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been maintained 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-8 are directed to a method, which is a process. Claims 9-14 are directed to computer program product comprising a non-transitory tangible storage device, which is an article of manufacture. Claims 15-20 are directed to system, which is an apparatus. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A (Prong 1):
Taking claim 15 as representative, claim 15 sets forth the following limitations reciting the abstract idea of determining a cost to move items and determining whether to move or forego the item:
receive a current location and a destination location;
receiving a plurality of images of a living space in the current location;
analyzing the plurality of images to identify one or more items belonging to the user and to extract item-specific visual features comprising size, shape, and condition indicators;
calculating a respective value of the one or more identified items in the plurality of images;
determining a first cost to move the one or more identified items from the current location to the destination location and a second cost to forego moving the one or more identified items and replacing the one or more identified items using an automated cost comparison algorithm;
responsive to determining that the first cost exceeds the second cost, generating and transmitting a recommendation to forego moving the one or more identified items and replacing the one or more identified items;
responsive to determining that the first cost is less than the second cost, generating and transmitting a recommendation to move the one or more identified items from the current location to the destination location.
The recited limitations above set forth the process for determining a cost to move items and determining whether to move or forego the item. These limitations amount to certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial or legal interactions (e.g. advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, etc.). The claims are directed to determining a cost for a service (moving) for items and generating recommendations based on the cost (see specification [0002-0003] disclosing the problem of keeping track of which items to keep or get rid of and knowing the value of the items to reduce the costs of moving), which is a sales and marketing activity.
Such concepts have been identified by the courts as abstract ideas (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A (Prong 2):
Examiner acknowledges that representative Claim 15 does recite additional elements, such as:
one or more computer devices each having one or more processors and one or more tangible storage devices;
a program embodied on at least one or more storage devices;
using s trained computer vision model;
Taken individually and as a whole, representative claim 15 does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception as the additional elements merely serve to implement the abstract idea in a computing environment.
Furthermore, this is also because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement a judicial exception with a particular machine, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
While there is recitation of one or more computer devices and storage devices, these elements are recited with a very high level of generality, and is only recited as performing the steps of the abstract idea. Specification paragraph [0021] and [0037] discloses the devices may take the form of a desktop computer, laptop computer, smart phone, or any other form of computer or mobile device now known. The storage device is disclosed in paragraph [0018] as any tangible device that can retain and store instructions. As such, it is evident that these elements are any generic elements that are merely applied to the abstract idea to provide a general link to a computing environment. The computer vision analysis is also disclosed with a very high level of generality. The computer vision analysis is disclosed in specification paragraph [0058-0059] as using AI technology to mimic the capabilities of the human brain for object recognition and object classification. However, there is no further detail regarding the computer vision analysis, such as the underlying technology of how the computer vision analysis works. The claims merely apply it to provide a data output from the images without any further detail, essentially acting as a black box that is input with data and outputs an analysis.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (Prong 2), claim 15 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application (see: MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2B:
Returning to claim 15, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 15 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). As noted above, the additional elements recited in representative claim 15 are recited in a generic manner with a high level of generality and only serve to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing device. The claims result only in an improved abstract idea itself and do not reflect improvements to the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process ultimately amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 15 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claim 15 does not provide an inventive concept under step 2B, and is ineligible for patenting.
Regarding Claim 1 (method): Claim 1 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 15 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 1 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 15.
Regarding Claim 9 (computer program product comprising a non-transitory tangible storage device): Claim 9 recites at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 15 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 9 is rejected under at least similar rationale as provided above regarding claim 15.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 recite further complexity to the judicial exception (abstract idea) of claim 15, such as by further defining the algorithm for determining a cost to move items and determining whether to move or forego the item. Thus, each of claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 are held to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A (Prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 rely on at least similar elements as recited in claim 11. Further additional elements are also acknowledged (e.g. e-commerce sites (claim 3)); however, the additional elements of claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, this is also because the claims fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Taken individually and as a whole, dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception under step 2A (prong 2).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. The dependent claims recite additional functions that describe the abstract idea and use the computing device to implement the abstract idea, while failing to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The dependent claims fail to confer eligibility under step 2B because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware and generally link the exception to a technological environment.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
Taken individually or as an ordered combination, the dependent claims simply convey the abstract idea itself applied on a generic computer and are held to be ineligible under Steps 2B for at least similar rationale as discussed above regarding claim 15. Thus, dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The following is a restatement of the reasons for indicating subject matter free of prior art in the previous Office Action mailed on 10/8/2025:
Claims 1-20 are determined to have overcome the prior art of rejection and are free of the prior art, however the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101, as set forth above.
Claims 1-20 are found to overcome the prior art rejection for the reasons set forth below.
Claim 1 recites the claimed features of determining a first cost to move the one or more identified items from the current location to the destination location and a second cost to forego moving the one or more identified items and replacing the one or more identified items;
The closest prior art was found to be as follows:
Ben-Harosh (US 20140074744 A1) recites [0050] – “a move plan is being defined, an estimated price for the move is shown to a consumer. This may be performed in any of numerous ways. One example, in which an estimated price is calculated based at least in part on a total volume of the items included in an inventory, is illustrated on representative screen interface 1100 (FIG. 11A). Specifically, representative screen interface 1100 includes display portion 1102, which shows an estimated price for a move which is based on a volume (shown in display portion 1104) of items included in an inventory defined using representative screen interfaces 600-1000 (described above in relation to FIGS. 6-10) and a distance over which those items are to be transported (shown in display portion 1106). In some embodiments, while a consumer defines a move plan and adds items to, or deletes items from, an inventory, the estimated price for the move may be updated in real time, so as to give the consumer a sense for how the inclusion or non-inclusion of certain items affects the estimated price”.
Nienaber (US 201580269501 A1) recites [0021] – “the system interfaces with a mobile device camera to facilitate estimation of the resource allocation to move an object or group of objects from point A to point B. A photograph, or collection of photographs, or video are recorded using a mobile device, and machine inputs captured from the mobile device about the move and the objects applied to produce estimates of packaging and move costs”.
Tama (US 20160055506 A1) recites [003] – “Process P1 can also include estimation system 206 calculating a metric, such as an estimated moving cost or an estimated amount of moving time, for each object of interest 50 of the inventory generated in step S1-4. Optionally, these calculated metrics can be included in the generated inventory, and/or may be presented separately as descriptive of all objects of interest 50 in environment 10. Although modules 220 can estimate both an estimated moving cost and an estimated moving time for objects of interest 50 in a single video feed, only one metric may be needed in some circumstances. Modules 220 with can determine, e.g., whether a user or other party has requested for only particular metrics (e.g., only a time or a cost) to be calculated”.
Rattner (US 20210065268 A1) recites [0061] – “an AI algorithm may ask targeted questions based on images/videos sent by the user to perform further analysis. An AI improvement engine may give a dollar amount estimate for various rooms and/or locations. Itemized lists may include paint costs based on square footage and number of coats, setup costs based on time and/or work involved, cleanup costs based on type of work requested (e.g., for a painting related example); moving costs based on a quantity of items, a size and/or shape of the items, an amount of disassembly/assembly required, an accessibility of a building or house (e.g., for a moving related example), and/or other items”.
NPL Reference U (see PTO-892 Reference U mailed on 10/8/2025) discloses identifying items from an image and scraping ecommerce sites on the web to compare prices so the user can purchase the most cost-effective option.
It was found that no references alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonable teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of Applicant’s invention. The features of claim 1 in combination that overcome the prior art are:
determining a first cost to move the one or more identified items from the current location to the destination location and a second cost to forego moving the one or more identified items and replacing the one or more identified items;
Therefore, none of the cited references disclose or render obvious each and every feature of the claimed invention and the claimed invention is determined to be free of the prior art. Although individually the claimed features could be taught, any combination of references would teach the claimed limitations using a piecemeal analysis, since references would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant's disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e., hindsight reasoning). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The examiner emphasizes that it is the interrelationship of the limitations that renders these claims free of the prior art/additional art.
Therefore, it is hereby asserted by the Examiner that, in light of the above, that claims 1-20 are free of prior art as the references do not anticipate the claims and do not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 - 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maria-Teresa 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.
/T.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 3/4/2026