DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Non-Final communications received 12/17/2025, Applicant, on 3/16/2026, amended Claims 1, 5, 11, 14, and 18. Claims 1-20 are pending in this action, have been considered in full, and are rejected below.
Response to Arguments
Arguments regarding 35 USC §101 Alice – Applicant recites the amended limitations of the claims, states that there is a specific technical system, application scenario and technical environment, states that there is a specific technical means which describes a unique and specific mathematical and data processing operation, and it solves a specific technical problem, and thus is not abstract. Examiner disagrees as the claims recite clear abstractions of both mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity as per the rejection below. This is stated clearly by the office action, and optimizing a ranking is clearly abstract, both a mental process and organizing human activity. Further, this is a mere assertion that the claims are eligible under 101. Applicant does not state how or why these would not be considered abstract under Prong 2A. The claims are not practically integrated as the additional elements of an electronic computing device, e-commerce platform, etc. are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. This is utilization of current technologies, “Applying It”, similar to that of Alice, and there is no improvement to any additional element, alone or in combination. Further, there is no improvement to a technology or any technological process and performing these actions on a computer system would be utilization of current technologies to perform the abstract limitations of the Claims, and any inventive concept would be contained wholly within the abstraction.
Applicant also states the claims are practically integrated by using a specific technical tool. Examiner disagrees as the claims are not practically integrated as the additional elements of an electronic computing device, e-commerce platform, etc. are recited at a high-level of generality and this is utilization of current technologies, “Applying It”, similar to that of Alice, and there is no improvement to any additional element, alone or in combination. Further, there is no improvement to a technology or any technological process and performing these actions on a computer system would be utilization of current technologies to perform the abstract limitations of the Claims, and any inventive concept would be contained wholly within the abstraction.
Applicant also states that the claim is significantly more because there is a significant reduction in computational complexity and a leap in computational efficiency. Examiner disagrees as there is no evidence of this nor would using a computer less make a computer more efficient. For instance, if someone turns off a computer, it is used less and the power consumption is quite efficient, but this does not improve the computer. Further, there is no improvement to a technology or any technological process and performing these actions on a computer system would be utilization of current technologies to perform the abstract limitations of the Claims, and any inventive concept would be contained wholly within the abstraction.
Therefore, the arguments are non-persuasive, the Claims are ineligible as there is no inventive concept, and the rejection of the Claims and their dependents are maintained under 35 USC 101.
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.
Alice - Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 11, and 18-20 recite limitations for generating training samples based on a list of commodities recommended in response to a user request (Collecting and Analyzing Information, an Observation and Evaluation, a Mental Process; a Fundamental Economic Process, i.e. ranking commodities; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), based on the training samples, to perform scoring operations for ranking the commodities under multiple target tasks so as to obtain multi-target scoring results (Analyzing Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; a Fundamental Economic Process, i.e. ranking commodities; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), based on the training samples, to perform distillation learning from a fine ranking model’s scoring knowledge on fine ranking of commodities, and calculate a min-max distillation loss that is computed based on a comparison involving only a commodity with a maximum fine ranking score and a commodity with a minimum fine ranking score within a train sample list (Analyzing Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; a Fundamental Economic Process, i.e. ranking commodities; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and optimizing a final coarse ranking result of the coarse ranking scoring model for coarse ranking the commodities according to the multi-target scoring results and the min-max distillation loss, to train the coarse ranking scoring model for e-commerce commodities (Analyzing Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; a Fundamental Economic Process, i.e. ranking commodities; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of a Fundamental Economic Process, i.e. ranking commodities, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting an electronic computing device that utilizes models and stages, multi-target scoring module, coarse ranking distillation module, device, processor, memory, and medium, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of a Fundamental Economic Process. For example, to perform scoring operations for ranking the commodities under multiple target tasks so as to obtain multi-target scoring results encompasses a supervisor, data analyst, or manager receiving a list of commodities and scoring them based on multiple targets or goals, which is an observation, evaluation, and judgment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for a Fundamental Economic Process, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The modules, device, memory, processor, and medium are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the receiving steps above are insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
“[0071]FIG. 8 shows an exemplary structural diagram of a device 800 for training a coarse ranking scoring model for e-commerce commodities according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. As depicted in FIG. 8, the device 800 can include a processor 801 and a memory 802, where the processor 801 communicates with the memory 802 via a bus. The memory 802 stores program instructions for training a coarse ranking scoring model for e-commerce commodities”
Which shows that any generic computer with the program instructions loaded can be used to perform the abstract limitations, such as a laptop, phone, desktop, etc., and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For the receiving steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the device, processor, memory, etc., nor the receiving steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-10 and 12-17 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with no new additional elements and any being used being highly generic when considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 overcome the current prior art and the Claims are allowable, but would need to be amended in such a way as to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection.
The closest prior art of record are Song (U.S. Publication No. 2023/019,5942), Fang (U.S. Publication No. 2021/034,2697), and Subramanian (U.S. Publication No. 2024/005,4515). Song, a data processing method and apparatus, teaches a method for generating training samples based on a list of commodities recommended by an e-commerce platform in response to a user request and determining final coarse ranking result of the coarse ranking scoring model for coarse ranking the commodities according to the scoring results and the min-max distillation loss, to train the coarse ranking scoring model for e-commerce commodities. Although Song teaches based on the training samples, to perform scoring operations for ranking the commodities and to calculate a min-max distillation loss, it does not teach using the multi-target scoring module and ranking under multiple target tasks so as to obtain multi-target scoring results and using the coarse ranking distillation module, based on the training samples, to perform distillation learning from a fine ranking model’s scoring knowledge on fine ranking of commodities, nor does it teach optimization. Fang, a system and method for generating a personalized preference ranking network for providing visually aware item recommendations, teaches use of machine learning and machine learning algorithms in conjunction with a loss function, ranking performance, as well as use of targets and goals for the purpose of optimizing scoring, but it does not teach using a multi-target scoring module and ranking under multiple target tasks so as to obtain multi-target scoring results, or using a coarse ranking distillation module, based on the training samples, to perform distillation learning from a fine ranking model’s scoring knowledge on fine ranking of commodities. Subramanian, a system and method for forecasting commodities and materials for part production, teaches use of learning models, both quantitative and qualitative, calculation of a loss or shrinkage, optimization of model performance, using Eigenvalues in conjunction with the ranking formula, and a loss function, but it does not explicitly state teach using a multi-target scoring module and ranking under multiple target tasks so as to obtain multi-target scoring results, or using a coarse ranking distillation module, based on the training samples, to perform distillation learning from a fine ranking model’s scoring knowledge on fine ranking of commodities. None of the above prior art explicitly teaches this teach using a multi-target scoring module and ranking under multiple target tasks so as to obtain multi-target scoring results, or using a coarse ranking distillation module, based on the training samples, to perform distillation learning from a fine ranking model’s scoring knowledge on fine ranking of commodities, along with the other limitations, and these are the reasons which adequately reflect the Examiner's opinion as to why Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240054515 A1
Subramanian; Siddharth et al.
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR FORECASTING COMMODITIES AND MATERIALS FOR PART PRODUCTION
US 20230195942 A1
SONG; Jinbo et al.
DATA PROCESSING METHOD AND APPARATUS, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
US 20250374150 A1
Darwish; Abdulrahman et al.
User Equipment Handover Effect Prediction
US 20240256283 A1
Fryman; Joshua B. et al.
COMPUTING ARCHITECTURE
US 20210342697 A1
Fang; Chen et al.
GENERATING A PERSONALIZED PREFERENCE RANKING NETWORK FOR PROVIDING VISUALLY-AWARE ITEM RECOMMENDATIONS
US 20190318407 A1
Giridhari; Devanathan et al.
METHOD FOR PRODUCT SEARCH USING THE USER-WEIGHTED, ATTRIBUTE-BASED, SORT-ORDERING AND SYSTEM THEREOF
US 20190251446 A1
Fang; Chen et al.
GENERATING VISUALLY-AWARE ITEM RECOMMENDATIONS USING A PERSONALIZED PREFERENCE RANKING NETWORK
US 20160267504 A1
Battista; Phillip
SYSTEM, METHOD, AND SOFTWARE FOR PREDICTING THE LIKELIHOOD OF SELLING AUTOMOTIVE COMMODITIES
US 20140310065 A1
Chowdhary; Pawan R. et al.
PRICING PERSONALIZED PACKAGES WITH MULTIPLE COMMODITIES
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 JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-F.
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 571-273-1348.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625B 6/24/2026
Prosecution Insights