DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the Amendments filed on 04/13/2026.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 04/13/2026, has been entered. Claims 1-20 has been amended.
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 .
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 claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories (see MPEP 2106.03). All the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (YES).
Under Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception (see MPEP 2106.04). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception (YES). Taking Claim 20 as representative, the claim recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including:
-A computer system comprising:
-a processor; and
-a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computer system to perform steps comprising:
-receiving, via a first interface of the computer system associated with a request reception module of the computer system, a request signal from an online platform, the request signal including a list of components associated with the online platform and an identity of a user of the computer system;
-responsive to receiving the request signal, identifying, from an item database of the computer system and using information in the request signal, a set of one or more candidate items that match each component from the list of components;
-comparing each component from the list of components with one or more embeddings of the set of one or more candidate items to generate a matching score indicating how much each component from the list of components matches the set of one or more candidate items;
-identifying a number of matches for each component from the list of components indicating a number of candidate items in the set of one or more candidate items;
-accessing a scoring model of the computer system, wherein the scoring model is a machine-learning model trained using [utilizes] information about past engagements of a collection of users of the computer system with a plurality of lists of components to predict a likelihood that the list of components are located at a source;
-applying the scoring model to the matching score for each component from the list of components, the number of matches for each component from the list of components, and past conversion data for the user to generate a confidence score for the list of components that is indicative of the likelihood that the list of components are located at the source;
-comparing the confidence score to a threshold score;
-selecting, based on identifying that the confidence score meets or exceeds the threshold score, the list of components for the source;
-responsive to selecting the list of components for the source, generating a user interface signal; and
-sending, via a network and using a second interface of the computer system associated with a content presentation module of the computer system, the user interface signal to a device associated with the user, wherein sending the user interface signal causes the device to display a user interface with [of] the list of components and an identification of the source where components from the list of components are located
The above limitations recite the concept of determining and providing a list of items and their availabilities to a user. The above limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Certain methods of organizing human activity include:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risk)
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and business relations)
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
The limitation of identifying a number of matches for each component from the list of components indicating a number of candidate items in the set of one or more candidate items; applying the scoring model to the matching score for each component from the list of components, the number of matches for each component from the list of components, and past conversion data for the user to generate a confidence score for the list of components that is indicative of the likelihood that the list of components are located at the source; comparing the confidence score to a threshold score; and selecting, based on identifying that the confidence score meets or exceeds the threshold score, the list of components for the source are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a commercial interaction. For example, “identifying,” “applying,” “comparing,” and “selecting” in the context of this claim encompass advertising, and marketing or sales activities.
Similarly, the limitations of a computer system comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computer system to perform steps comprising: receiving, via a first interface of the computer system associated with a request reception module of the computer system, a request signal from an online platform, the request signal including a list of components associated with the online platform and an identity of a user of the computer system; responsive to receiving the request signal, identifying, from an item database of the computer system and using information in the request signal, a set of one or more candidate items that match each component from the list of components; comparing each component from the list of components with one or more embeddings of the set of one or more candidate items to generate a matching score indicating how much each component from the list of components matches the set of one or more candidate items; accessing a scoring model of the computer system, wherein the scoring model is a machine-learning model trained using [utilizes] information about past engagements of a collection of users of the computer system with a plurality of lists of components to predict a likelihood that the list of components are located at a source; responsive to selecting the list of components for the source, generating a user interface signal; and sending, via a network and using a second interface of the computer system associated with a content presentation module of the computer system, the user interface signal to a device associated with the user, wherein sending the user interface signal causes the device to display a user interface with [of] the list of components and an identification of the source where components from the list of components are located are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a commercial interaction. That is, other than reciting that the system is a computer system, that the steps are performed by the computer system comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions that, when executed by the processor, that the receiving is from an online platform and via a first interface of the computer system associated with a request reception module of the computer system, that the platform is an online platform, that the system is computer system, that the identifying is from an item database of the computer system, that the comparing is with one or more embeddings, that the scoring model is a machine-learning model, that the scoring machine-learning model is trained, that the signal is a user interface signal, that the sending is via a network and using a second interface of the computer system associated with a content presentation module of the computer system and to a device associated with the user, and that the displaying is of a user interface by a device, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by people. For example, but for the “computer system,” “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions that, when executed by the processor,” “a computer system,” “a first interface,” “a request reception module,” “an online platform,” “an item database,” “one or more embeddings,” “a machine-learning model,” “trained,” “a user interface signal,” “a network,” “a second interface,” “a content presentation module,” “a device associated with the user,” and “a user interface” language, “receiving,” “identifying,” “comparing,” “accessing,” “generating,” and “sending” in the context of this claim encompasses advertising, and marketing or sales activities.
Under Prong 2, it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (NO).
-A computer system comprising:
-a processor; and
-a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computer system to perform steps comprising:
-receiving, via a first interface of the computer system associated with a request reception module of the computer system, a request signal from an online platform, the request signal including a list of components associated with the online platform and an identity of a user of the computer system;
-responsive to receiving the request signal, identifying, from an item database of the computer system and using information in the request signal, a set of one or more candidate items that match each component from the list of components;
-comparing each component from the list of components with one or more embeddings of the set of one or more candidate items to generate a matching score indicating how much each component from the list of components matches the set of one or more candidate items;
-identifying a number of matches for each component from the list of components indicating a number of candidate items in the set of one or more candidate items;
-accessing a scoring model of the computer system, wherein the scoring model is a machine-learning model trained using information about past engagements of a collection of users of the computer system with a plurality of lists of components to predict a likelihood that the list of components are located at a source;
-applying the scoring model to the matching score for each component from the list of components, the number of matches for each component from the list of components, and past conversion data for the user to generate a confidence score for the list of components that is indicative of the likelihood that the list of components are located at the source;
-comparing the confidence score to a threshold score;
-selecting, based on identifying that the confidence score meets or exceeds the threshold score, the list of components for the source;
-responsive to selecting the list of components for the source, generating a user interface signal; and
-sending, via a network and using a second interface of the computer system associated with a content presentation module of the computer system, the user interface signal to a device associated with the user, wherein sending the user interface signal causes the device to display a user interface with the list of components and an identification of the source where components from the list of components are located
These limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application because:
The additional elements of claim 20 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea) as supported by paragraph [0098] of Applicant’s specification – “a software module is implemented with a computer program product comprising one or more computer-readable media storing computer program code or instructions, which can be executed by a computer processor for performing any or all of the steps, operations, or processes described. In some embodiments, a computer-readable medium comprises one or more computer-readable media that, individually or together, comprise instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform, individually or together, the steps of the instructions stored on the one or more computer-readable media. Similarly, a processor comprises one or more processors or processing units that, individually or together, perform the steps of instructions stored on a computer-readable medium.” Specifically, the additional elements of computer system, a processor, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions that, when executed by the processor, a computer system, a first interface, a request reception module, an online platform, an item database, one or more embeddings, a machine-learning model, trained, a user interface signal, a network, a second interface, a content presentation module, a device associated with the user, and a user interface are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing the generic computer functions of receiving data, identifying data, comparing data, accessing data, applying data, selecting data, generating data, and sending data) such that they amount do no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks). For example, stating that the system is a computer system only generally links the commercial interactions to a computer environment. Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Additionally, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, ii) apply 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) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, it is determined whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims of the present application do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (NO).
In the case of claim 20, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 20 do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above under step 2A (prong 2) with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed functions amount to no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually.
Claim 1 is a method reciting similar functions as claim 20. Examiner notes that claim 1 recites the additional elements of computer system, a processor, computer-readable medium, a first interface, a request reception module, an online platform, an item database, one or more embeddings, a machine-learning model, trained, a user interface signal, a network, a second interface, a content presentation module, a device associated with the user, and a user interface, however, claim 1 does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons as claim 20 indicated above.
Claim 12 is a computer program product reciting similar functions as claim 20. Examiner notes that claim 12 recites the additional elements of a computer program product, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions encoded thereon, a processor, computer system, a first interface, a request reception module, an online platform, an item database, one or more embeddings, a machine-learning model, trained, a user interface signal, a network, a second interface, a content presentation module, a device associated with the user, and a user interface, however, claim 12 does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons as claim 20 indicated above.
Therefore, claims 1, 12, and 20 do not provide an inventive concept and do not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas in that they recite commercial interactions. Dependent claims 5-6 and 15 do not recite any farther additional elements, and as such are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons discussed above. Dependent claims 2-4, 7-11, 13-14, and 16-19 recite the additional elements of the request signal, the online platform, the first interface, the item database, an availability machine-learning model, the online system, training the scoring model, the device associated with the user, a network, re-training the scoring model, and the computer system, but similar to the analysis under prong two of Step 2A these additional elements are used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, under prong two of Step 2A, claims 2-11 and 13-19 are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above. Thus, dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Next, under Step 2B, similar to the analysis of claims 1, 12, and 20, dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 when analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, merely further define the commonplace business method (i.e. determining and providing a list of items and their availabilities to a user) being applied on a general-purpose computer and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention.
Subject Matter Allowable the Prior Art
In the present application, claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 USC § 101 set forth in this Office action. The following is the Examiner's statement of reasons of allowance:
Regarding 35 U.S.C. §103, upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the totality of the evidence, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the applicant’s invention. Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art as follows:
Claims 1-20 are allowable over 35 U.S.C. §103 as follows:
Claims 1-20 are allowable for the reasons detailed in the “Allowable Subject Matter” section of the Non-Final Office Action dated 02/12/2026.
The most relevant prior art made of record includes Faurot et al. (US 2023/0260007 A1), Balasubramanian et al. (US 2023/0186363 A1), Ruan et al. (US 2023/0078450 A1), and Singh et al. (US 2023/0080205 A1).
The most relevant NPL are:
Cited NPL reference U (cited 02/07/2026 and 06/18/2026 on PTO-892) teaches utilizing an algorithm to recommend ingredients, but does not teach or suggest the recited limitations.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant argues that the limitations of amended claim 1 impose meaningful limits on practicing the judicial exception of certain methods of organizing human activity. This is because the recited limitations require the computer system to use one interface connection (i.e., a first interface of the computer system associated with a request reception module of the computer system) to communicate with another system (i.e., online platform) in order to collect specific data utilized by the judicial exception (i.e., a request signal including a list of components associated with the online platform and an identity of a user of the computer system), and to use a different interface connection (i.e., second interface of the computer system associated with a content presentation module of the computer system) to communicate with a device associated with the user. Thus, amended claim 1 recites the computer system that re-routes communication from one system to another, i.e., re-routes communication with the online platform to communication with the device associated with the user, and thus imposes meaningful limits on practicing the judicial exception of certain methods of organizing human activity (Remarks, pages 15-16).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Merely reciting that the data is communicated from one system to another amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). The claims do not recite sufficient technical details regarding how the information is communicated and displayed. Accordingly, the claims are ineligible.
Applicant further argues that independent claims 12 and 20 are amended to recite similar limitations in claim 1, and, thus, independent claims 12 and 20, as amended herein, integrate the judicial exception into the practical application for at least the same reason as amended claim 1. Each of the remaining pending claims depends on claim 1 or claim 12; thus, these claims also integrate the judicial exception into the practical application (Remarks, page 16).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed in response to the arguments above, claim 1 is not eligible. Accordingly, independent claims 12 and 20 and the dependent claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Ahuja et al. (US 2024/0144173 A1) teaches recommending items from recipes obtained by third party systems.
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 ARIELLE E WEINER whose telephone number is (571)272-9007. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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 (Marissa) 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.
/ARIELLE E WEINER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights