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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on February 23, 2026, which paper has been placed of record in the file.
2. Claims 2-21 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 2, which is analyzing as the following:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a method for predicting and providing similar items. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim recites a method for predicting and providing similar items across multiple retailers. The Specification, para [0014] described that “barcoded item codes for multiple retailers are mapped into a culture-specific vector space based on transactions processed by the multiple retailers. Retailer-specific item codes for a given retailer are mapped into a given retailer-specific vector space. A non-barcoded item code is identified from the retailer-specific item codes mapped within the given retailer-specific vector space. A select retailer-specific item code that is most similar to the non-barcoded item code within the given retailer-specific vector space is determined. The non-barcoded item code is linked to the select retailer-specific item code; the select retailer-specific item code is a particular barcoded item code that is mapped in the culture-specific vector space. The barcoded item codes are clustered within the culture-specific vector space into product categories.” The claim recites the following steps: defining a culture-specific vector space that spans multiple retailers based transaction data from the multiple retailers within a given geographical region…; mapping barcoded item codes from multiple retailers into the culture-specific vector space…; mapping retailer-specific item codes for a given retailer into a retailer-specific vector space…; determining similarities between non-barcoded items and barcoded items within the retailer-specific vector space…; linking the non-barcoded items to most similar barcoded items…; clustering the barcoded items within the culture-specific vector space into product categories, and providing the product categories to catalog managers to avoid costs of hiring catalog experts while enabling the catalog managers to build merchandise hierarchies and detect wrong item assignment, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Moreover, the claim recites the steps of: defining a culture-specific vector space that spans multiple retailers based transaction data from the multiple retailers within a given geographical region…; mapping barcoded item codes from multiple retailers into the culture-specific vector space…; mapping retailer-specific item codes for a given retailer into a retailer-specific vector space…; determining similarities between non-barcoded items and barcoded items within the retailer-specific vector space…; linking the non-barcoded items to most similar barcoded items…; and clustering the barcoded items within the culture-specific vector space into product categories, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor/automatically”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Moreover, the claim recites mapping barcoded item codes from multiple retailers into the culture-specific vector space…; mapping retailer-specific item codes for a given retailer into a retailer-specific vector space…; and clustering the barcoded items into product categories using a clustering algorithm, which are directed to mathematical relationships, falls within “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does not recite any additional element to perform the method.
Therefore, the claim does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the claim does not recite any additional element to perform the method.
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding independent claim 13, which is analyzing as the following:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a method for improving product categorization. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim recites a method for improving product categorization across multiple retailers. The Specification, para [0021] described that “system 100A provides a retail-service platform that provides culture-based product categorization. The platform hosts multiple tenants (customers or retailers and their business/transaction environment). This provides a large enough number of customers with extensive data (transactions, catalogs, product/item prices, and promotions/discounts) of retail stores spread across the globe. For example, in a specific region, such as Atlanta, GA, the platform holds the above data for every store within the Atlanta region who is connected to its? platform. Data will include multiple stores across multiple cultures across multiple retailers. The majority of items in the product/item catalog already include manufacturer barcodes (Universal Product Codes (UPCs)).” The claim recites the following steps: filtering the transaction data to identify culture-based transactions associated with a given geographical region; defining a fist vector space from the culture-based transactions…; defining second vector spaces for the multiple retailers using filtered transaction data associated with corresponding retailers…, generating first item vectors for barcoded items…, generating second item vectors for non-barcoded items…, matching non-barcode items to closed barcoded items based on calculated distances…; clustering the barcoded items into product categories; and enabling e-commerce site managers to leverage the product categories to build e-commerce websites more accurately and increase sales in an online channel, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Moreover, the claim recites the steps of: filtering the transaction data to identify culture-based transactions associated with a given geographical region; defining a fist vector space from the culture-based transactions…; defining second vector spaces for the multiple retailers using filtered transaction data associated with corresponding retailers…, generating first item vectors for barcoded items…, generating second item vectors for non-barcoded items…, matching non-barcode items to closed barcoded items based on calculated distances…; and clustering the barcoded items into product categories, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor/automatically”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Moreover, the claim recites matching non-barcode items to closed barcoded items based on calculated distances; and clustering the barcoded items into product categories using a clustering algorithm that operates in the first vector space, which are directed to mathematical relationships, falls within “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional elements of “obtaining transaction data from multiple transaction system associated with multiple retailers”, which are mere data gathering and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, improving the multiple transaction system, they are just merely used as general means for collecting and outputting data.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The additional elements “obtaining transaction data from multiple transaction system associated with multiple retailers” were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and outputting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the additional elements of “obtaining transaction data from multiple transaction system associated with multiple retailers” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to gathering and outputting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely genetic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding independent claim 20, which is analyzing as the following:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a system for cross-retailer product categorization. Thus, the claim is to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim recites a system for cross-retailer product categorization. The Specification, para [0021] described that “system 100A provides a retail-service platform that provides culture-based product categorization. The platform hosts multiple tenants (customers or retailers and their business/transaction environment). This provides a large enough number of customers with extensive data (transactions, catalogs, product/item prices, and promotions/discounts) of retail stores spread across the globe. For example, in a specific region, such as Atlanta, GA, the platform holds the above data for every store within the Atlanta region who is connected to its? platform. Data will include multiple stores across multiple cultures across multiple retailers. The majority of items in the product/item catalog already include manufacturer barcodes (Universal Product Codes (UPCs)).” The claim recites the following steps: define culture-specific vector spaces based on filtered transaction data associated with customer segments within a given geographical region…; map barcoded item into the culture-specific vector spaces…; map non-barcoded item into retailer-specific vector spaces…; match non-barcode items to closed barcode items based on calculated vector distances; clustering the barcoded items into product categories, and enable catalog managers to use the product categories on an ongoing basis to detect wrong item assignments and better tune merchandise hierarchies while avoiding costs of hiring catalog experts, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Moreover, the claim recites the steps of: define culture-specific vector spaces based on filtered transaction data associated with customer segments within a given geographical region…; map barcoded item into the culture-specific vector spaces…; map non-barcoded item into retailer-specific vector spaces…; match non-barcode items to closed barcode items based on calculated vector distances; and clustering the barcoded items into product categories, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor/automatically”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Moreover, the claim recites map barcoded item into the culture-specific vector spaces…; map non-barcoded item into retailer-specific vector spaces…; and clustering the barcoded items into product categories using a clustering algorithm that operate in the culture-specific vector spaces, which are directed to mathematical relationships, falls within “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional elements of “obtaining transaction data from multiple transaction system associated with multiple retailers.” The claim also recites that the steps of “obtaining transaction data from multiple transaction system associated with multiple retailers; define culture-specific vector spaces based on filtered transaction data associated with customer segments within a given geographical region…; map barcoded item into the culture-specific vector spaces…; map non-barcoded item into retailer-specific vector spaces…; match non-barcode items to closed barcode items based on calculated vector distances; and clustering the barcoded items into product categories”, are performed by a processor.
The additional elements “obtaining transaction data from multiple transaction system associated with multiple retailers” are mere data gathering and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering, transmitting and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, improving the multiple transaction system, they are just merely used as general means for collecting and outputting data.
Further, the steps of “obtaining transaction data from multiple transaction system associated with multiple retailers; define culture-specific vector spaces based on filtered transaction data associated with customer segments within a given geographical region…; map barcoded item into the culture-specific vector spaces…; map non-barcoded item into retailer-specific vector spaces…; match non-barcode items to closed barcode items based on calculated vector distances; and clustering the barcoded items into product categories”, are recited as being performed by the processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality. In the limitations “obtaining transaction data from multiple transaction system associated with multiple retailers”, the processor is using as a tool to perform the function of gathering and outputting data. In the limitations “define culture-specific vector spaces based on filtered transaction data associated with customer segments within a given geographical region…; map barcoded item into the culture-specific vector spaces…; map non-barcoded item into retailer-specific vector spaces…; match non-barcode items to closed barcode items based on calculated vector distances; and clustering the barcoded items into product categories”, the processor is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite generic computer components the processor, a memory, and software programming instructions that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The additional elements “obtaining transaction data from multiple transaction system associated with multiple retailers” were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and outputting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the additional elements of “obtaining transaction data from multiple transaction system associated with multiple retailers” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to gathering and displaying data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely genetic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of the processor to perform limitations “obtaining transaction data from multiple transaction system associated with multiple retailers; define culture-specific vector spaces based on filtered transaction data associated with customer segments within a given geographical region…; map barcoded item into the culture-specific vector spaces…; map non-barcoded item into retailer-specific vector spaces…; match non-barcode items to closed barcode items based on calculated vector distances; and clustering the barcoded items into product categories”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding dependent claims 3-12, 14-19 and 21, the dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claim. The dependent claims rather further narrow the abstract idea and the narrower scope does not change the outcome of the two-part Mayo test. Narrowing the scope of the claims is not enough to impart eligibility as it is still interpreted as an abstract idea, a narrower abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claim 3, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting wherein mapping the barcoded item codes further includes generating barcoded item code vectors for each of the barcoded item codes and plotting the barcoded item code vectors within the culture-specific vector space, that fall under the category of Mental process and Mathematical Concepts groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 2. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 4, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting wherein mapping the retailer-specific item codes further includes generating retailer-specific item code vectors for each of the retailer-specific item codes and plotting the retailer-specific item code vectors within the retailer-specific vector space., that fall under the category of Mental process and Mathematical Concepts groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 2. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 5, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting wherein determining similarities further includes determining a first distance between a select retailer-specific item code and a non-barcoded item code within the retailer-specific vector space., that fall under the category of Mental process and Mathematical Concepts groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 2. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 6, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting wherein determining similarities further includes determining second distances between the non-barcoded item code and other retailer-specific item codes within the retailer-specific vector space, that fall under the category of Mental process and Mathematical Concepts groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 2.Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 7, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting wherein determining similarities further includes selecting the first distance based on the first distance being less than each of the second distances., that fall under the category of Mental process and Mathematical Concepts groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 2. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 8, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting wherein determining similarities further includes determining the first distance based on the select retailer-specific item code being a closest first barcoded item code when compared to the retailer-specific item codes associated with the second distances, that fall under the category of Mental process and Mathematical Concepts groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 2.Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 9, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting wherein linking further includes recording a link between the non-barcoded items and the most similar barcoded items in a culture-specific product catalogue., that fall under the category of Mental process grouping of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 2. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 10, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting wherein recording further includes recording retailer references for the given retailer within entries of the culture-specific product catalogue., that fall under the category of Mental process grouping of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 2. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 11, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting wherein clustering further includes recording the entries with the retailer references within select product categories of the culture-specific product catalogue., that fall under the category of Mental process and Mathematical Concepts groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 2. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 12, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting linking the culture-specific product catalogue to a retailer-specific product catalogue associated with the given retailer., that fall under the category of Mental process grouping of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 2. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 14, the claim recites the additional elements wherein obtaining further includes receiving the transaction data from point-of-sale terminals and online transaction systems of the multiple retailers., which are mere data gathering and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering, transmitting and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, improving the point-of-sale terminals/the multiple transaction system, they are just merely used as general means for collecting and outputting data. (See claim 13 above). Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 15, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting wherein filtering further includes identifying transactions associated with specific customer segments based on geographic constraints, income constraints, or nationality constraints, that fall under the category of Mental process grouping of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 13. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 16, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting wherein generating first item vectors further includes plotting the first item vectors within the first vector space based on transaction contexts., that fall under the category of Mental process and Mathematical Concepts groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 13. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 17, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting wherein generating second item vectors further includes plotting the second item vectors within corresponding second vector spaces based on retailer- specific transaction contexts, that fall under the category of Mental process and Mathematical Concepts groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 13. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 18, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting wherein matching further includes calculating probability scores between plotted vectors to determine closest matches, that fall under the category of Mental process and Mathematical Concepts groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 13. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 19, the claim recites the additional elements providing the product categories to the multiple retailers through a cross-retailer catalogue service., which are mere data gathering and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering, transmitting and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, they are just merely used as general means for collecting and outputting data. (See claim 13 above). Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 21, the claim recites the additional elements wherein the instructions are provided as a cross-retailer culture-based product categorization service over a network to retailer services associated with the multiple retailers, which are mere data gathering and transmitting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering, and transmitting. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, improving the network, they are just merely used as general means for collecting and transmitting data. (See claim 20 above). Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 2-21 are not draw to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Novelty and Non-Obviousness
5. No prior arts were applied to the claims because the Examiner is unaware of any prior arts, alone or in combination, which disclose at least the limitations of “mapping barcoded item codes from the multiple retailers into the culture-specific vector space based on contexts of purchases made for corresponding items; mapping retailer-specific item codes for a given retailer into a retailer-specific vector space defined within the culture-specific vector space; determining similarities between non-barcoded items and barcoded items within the retailer-specific vector space based on calculated distances between plotted item vectors; linking the non-barcoded items to most similar barcoded items based on the calculated distances; and clustering the barcoded items within the culture-specific vector space into product categories using a clustering algorithm” recited in the independent claim 2; “generating first item vectors for barcoded items based on contexts of purchases within the first vector space; generating second item vectors for non-barcoded items based on contexts of purchases within corresponding second vector spaces; matching non-barcoded items to closest barcoded items based on calculated distances between corresponding item vectors; and clustering the barcoded items into product categories using a clustering algorithm that operates in the first vector space”, recited in the independent claim 13; “map barcoded items into the culture-specific vector spaces based on transaction contexts; map non-barcoded items into retailer-specific vector spaces defined within the culture-specific vector spaces; match non-barcoded items to closest barcoded items based on calculated vector distances; and cluster the barcoded items into product categories using clustering algorithms that operate in the culture-specific vector spaces”, recited in the independent claim 20.
Response to Arguments/Amendment
6. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 2-21 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
I. Claim Rejections – Double Patenting
The Amendment overcomes the rejection.
According, the Double Patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
II. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A-Prong One: In response to the Applicant’s argument that “The Claims Are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the claims recite a system and method for cross-retailer product categorization. The Specification, para [0021] described that “system 100A provides a retail-service platform that provides culture-based product categorization. The platform hosts multiple tenants (customers or retailers and their business/transaction environment). This provides a large enough number of customers with extensive data (transactions, catalogs, product/item prices, and promotions/discounts) of retail stores spread across the globe. For example, in a specific region, such as Atlanta, GA, the platform holds the above data for every store within the Atlanta region who is connected to its? platform. Data will include multiple stores across multiple cultures across multiple retailers. The majority of items in the product/item catalog already include manufacturer barcodes (Universal Product Codes (UPCs)).” The claim recites the following steps: define culture-specific vector spaces based on filtered transaction data associated with customer segments within a given geographical region…; map barcoded item into the culture-specific vector spaces…; map non-barcoded item into retailer-specific vector spaces…; match non-barcode items to closed barcode items based on calculated vector distances; clustering the barcoded items into product categories, and enable catalog managers to use the product categories on an ongoing basis to detect wrong item assignments and better tune merchandise hierarchies while avoiding costs of hiring catalog experts, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Moreover, the claim recites the steps of: define culture-specific vector spaces based on filtered transaction data associated with customer segments within a given geographical region…; map barcoded item into the culture-specific vector spaces…; map non-barcoded item into retailer-specific vector spaces…; match non-barcode items to closed barcode items based on calculated vector distances; and clustering the barcoded items into product categories, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor/automatically”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Moreover, the claim recites map barcoded item into the culture-specific vector spaces…; map non-barcoded item into retailer-specific vector spaces…; and clustering the barcoded items into product categories using a clustering algorithm that operate in the culture-specific vector spaces, which are directed to mathematical relationships, falls within “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
The Examiner submits that “the technology improvements” are analyzed under Step2A-Prong Two, not in Step2A-Prong One.
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: In response to the Applicant’s argument that “The Claims Integrate Any Recited Receptions into a Practical Application”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that:
The claims recite the additional elements of “the processor”, “the memory”, and “obtaining transaction data from multiple transaction system associated with multiple retailers.”
The additional elements “obtaining transaction data from multiple transaction system associated with multiple retailers” are mere data gathering and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering, transmitting and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
Further, the steps of “obtaining transaction data from multiple transaction system associated with multiple retailers; define culture-specific vector spaces based on filtered transaction data associated with customer segments within a given geographical region…; map barcoded item into the culture-specific vector spaces…; map non-barcoded item into retailer-specific vector spaces…; match non-barcode items to closed barcode items based on calculated vector distances; and clustering the barcoded items into product categories”, are recited as being performed by the processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality. In the limitations “obtaining transaction data from multiple transaction system associated with multiple retailers”, the processor is using as a tool to perform the function of gathering and outputting data. In the limitations “define culture-specific vector spaces based on filtered transaction data associated with customer segments within a given geographical region…; map barcoded item into the culture-specific vector spaces…; map non-barcoded item into retailer-specific vector spaces…; match non-barcode items to closed barcode items based on calculated vector distances; and clustering the barcoded items into product categories”, the processor is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite generic computer components the processor, a memory, and software programming instructions that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In response to the Applicant’s argument “The Claims Provide Specific Technological Improvements” similar to Desjardins, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the additional elements recited in the claims “the processor”, “the memory”, and “obtaining transaction data from multiple transaction system associated with multiple retailers” do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, the processor, the memory, improving the multiple transaction system, they are just merely used as general means for performing the abstract idea, collecting and outputting data.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: In response to the Applicant’s argument that “The Claims Include an Inventive Concept”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that:
The additional elements “obtaining transaction data from multiple transaction system associated with multiple retailers” were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and outputting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the additional elements of “obtaining transaction data from multiple transaction system associated with multiple retailers” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to gathering and displaying data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely genetic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of the processor to perform limitations “obtaining transaction data from multiple transaction system associated with multiple retailers; define culture-specific vector spaces based on filtered transaction data associated with customer segments within a given geographical region…; map barcoded item into the culture-specific vector spaces…; map non-barcoded item into retailer-specific vector spaces…; match non-barcode items to closed barcode items based on calculated vector distances; and clustering the barcoded items into product categories”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the amended claims are not patent eligible.
Accordingly, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
7. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
8. Claims 2-21 are rejected.
9. The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Starostenko (US 2022/0083954) discloses methods and systems for reallocation of inventory from a supplier to a retailer.
Lee et al. (US 2021/0304121) disclose systems and methods are provided for integrating and deduplicating products using Al.
Bhat et al. (US 2021/0192429) disclose a method and computing system, for classifying item. Items at a source location are detected and classified, with respect to fragility and perishability, based on characteristics of the each respective item and is performed by trained machine learning models.
Dods et al. (US 10,873,456) disclose neural network enabled interface server and blockchain interface establishing a blockchain network implementing event detection, tracking and management for rule based compliance, with significant implications for anomaly detection, resolution and safety and compliance reporting.
Stansell et all (US 2019/244436) disclose customized augmented reality item filtering. An item filter analyzes item data using selection criteria and user preferences to identify high-interest item(s) and/or low-interest item(s) within a field of view (FOV) of a user device associated with a user.
Green et al. (US 2015/0032502) disclose a method for sales and inventory management of items offered for sale by at least one merchant and supplied by at least one vendor.
Klein (US 2013/0151381) discloses multiple-retailer Internet sales system and method.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner NGA B NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6796. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7AM-5PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NGA B NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 March 21, 2026