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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/12/202 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
101
Applicant argues, “… Applicant submits that claim 1 as amended recites specific technical components that are not generic computer components but rather a particular technical architecture for data storage, processing, and notification…claim 1 as amended recites specific technical components that are not generic computer components but rather a particular technical architecture for data storage, processing, and notification. The Examiner disagrees. While the claims recite additional elements, these elements recite elements that are being used as tools to perform the abstract steps.
Applicant further argues, “The claims improve the technical process of matching users in merchandise buying and selling services through the specific interaction between the use history storage unit, the selection unit with its particular inputs to generative AI, and the notification unit that provides new listing notifications or merchandise content. This is not merely adding the words "apply it" to an abstract” The Examiner disagrees. The matching of users in merchandise buying and selling services is not a technological improvement. At best, this is an improvement to a business process and not a technological improvement to a problem rooted in computer technology. This is not an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant further argues that the newly added claim amendments remedy the deficiencies. The Examiner disagrees. The use of AI only further substantiates the Examiner’s findings of the additional elements being used as tools. By Applicant’s own admission, the generative AI is being used to provide answers to questions. Moreover, the addition of generation capability merely further limits the abstract idea. Accordingly, Applicants arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected subcombination, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/12/2026. This election is made final.
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 1-7 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite:
acquires a use history of a user, the use history being related to buying and
selects another user to be recommended by inputting a first prompt the first prompt instructing selection of another user having a use history similar to the use history of the user; wherein candidates for the another user have been specified beforehand and the another user is selected from the candidates, and
wherein the selection inputs, the use history of the user, use histories of the candidates for another user, and the first prompt; and
generates different answers to the same question based on data published on the Internet that differ depending on the time the question is asked
recommends that the user follow the other user selected; a notification that makes a notification of new listing of a piece of merchandise to be sold by the another user or provides merchandise content for the piece of merchandise newly listed to be
sold by the another user.
The claims falls into the abstract idea groupings of (b) Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity ** fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)**
The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than recited, “varied units, profile screen, generative AI, non-transitory computer readable medium”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 2
The recited limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements, “varied units, generative AI, profile screen, non-transitory computer readable medium.” These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
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);
- (varied units, generative AI, generative model, profile screen, non-transitory computer readable medium)
The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Integration into a practical application requires the additional element(s) to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. This is not the case in the instant application. Further, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than: mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; mere data gathering/post solution activity; generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B
Eligibility requires that the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. As discussed above, this is where the instant application falls short. The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already
presented (that is, they further limit the organizing of human activities at step 2A —
Prong One without adding any new additional elements other than those already
analyzed above with respect to the independent claims at 2A — Prong Two). While claims 2-6 describe varied units; claims 4-6-profile screen, claim 21-a terminal device; claim 22-a GPT model; 23-avataar; 24-profile icon, these additional elements do not remedy the deficiencies.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment
and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims without
adding any new additional elements. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly
more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONYA S JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30, First Fridays Off.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/TONYA JOSEPH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights