DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 25, 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-6, 8-15 and 17-20 were previously pending and subject to a final rejection dated July 24, 2025. In the RCE, submitted on November 25, 2025, claims 1, 10, and 19 were amended. Therefore, claims 1-6, 8-15 and 17-20 are currently pending and subject to the non-final rejection below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks on Page 1 of the RCE, regarding the previous claims rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), have been fully considered and are found persuasive in view of the amended claims.
Applicant’s remarks on Page 1-2 of the RCE, regarding the previous claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
On Page 2 of the RCE, Applicant argues “Under Prong One of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claimed method does not recite a judicial exception and is practically tied to a specific technological environment, which allows verification of the updated estimate by the picker device. A picker can verify the modified order and the updated estimate for the order via the user interface generated on the picker device. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 3B, the user interface may render a ‘confirm’ button and a ‘cancel’ button. The picker may click or otherwise interact with the ‘confirm’ button when the updated estimate appears to be correct, indicating that the LLM generated response was accurate and should be used to further fine-tune the LLM.[] Specification, ¶ [0079]. The claimed method arises in a computer environment and does not recite a judicial exception.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes merely reciting a claim “in a computer environment” does not preclude the claims from reciting a certain method of organizing human activity. The picker device is recited at such a high-level of generality, such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). See paragraph [0017] of Applicant’s specification that explains that the picker device “is a client device through which a picker may interact with the customer client device…, the retailer computing system .., or the online system... The picker client device ..can be a personal or mobile computing device, such as a smartphone, a tablet, a laptop computer, or desktop computer”. Additionally nothing in the claims or specification describes “a specific technological environment” beyond the mere recitation of the picker device interacting with a user interface element – which amounts to “apply it" as discussed above. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
On Page 2 of the Response, Applicant further argues “Under Prong Two of the subject matter eligibility analysis, by generating a training example as the picker verifies the updated estimate for the order via the user interface, the online system does not need to separately construct training examples for finetuning parameters of the LLM using a separate process and resources. This is a technical improvement to the field of LLM training, and integrates any judicial exception into a practical application.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that providing the picker verification as the training example, merely recites the abstract idea – providing data to the LLM. Nothing in the claims or specification explains how the technology for training the LLM itself is improved. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
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 1-6, 8-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-6, 8-9 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), claims 10-15, and 17-18 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a machine); and claims 19-20 are directed to a system comprising a processor (i.e., a machine), and therefore the claims all fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claims 1, 10 and 19 recite a series of steps/functions of: receiving one or more messages from a conversation sent from a sending party to a receiving party, the one or more messages associated with an order; generating a prompt for input, the prompt specifying at least the one or more messages, order data of the order, and a request to infer whether the one or more messages includes a request to modify the order; parsing a response to extract data associated with the request to modify the order based on the one or more messages, the data including one or more modified items and a quantity of the one or more modified items; identifying, based on the order data, whether the order was updated to incorporate the one or more modified items; responsive to identifying that the order was not updated to incorporate the one or more modified items: identifying a cost of each of the one or more modified items in the order, generating, based on the cost of each of the one or more modified items in the order, an updated estimate for the order, updating the order data to reflect the updated estimate; verifying the response is accurate responsive to receiving an indication from a picker confirming the updated estimate of the order, wherein the indication is received responsive to a user interacting with the picker, wherein the picker is at a different location than a user associated with the order; responsive to the indication confirming the updated estimate of the order, generating a training example including the prompt for the order and the response; and finetuning parameters of the machine-learning language model based on the training example. The limitations recited above– (under broadest reasonable interpretation) recite the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity, e.g., commercial interactions. As such, the claims as a whole recite a certain method of organizing human activity. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The mere recitation of generic computer components ((i) one or more client devices (claims 1, 10 and 19), (ii) a machine-learning large language model (claims 1, 10 and 19), (iii) a messaging interface (claims 1, 10, and 19), (iv) a user interface element rendered on a picker device, wherein the picker device is at a different location than a user’s client device (claims 1, 10, and 19), (v) a computer processor, and non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the computer processor, cause the computer processor to perform operations (claims 10 and 19)) recited at a high-level of generality, does not take the claims out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 10 and 19 as a whole amount to: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or (ii) generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The claims recite the additional elements of: (i) one or more client devices (claims 1, 10 and 19), (ii) a machine-learning large language model (claims 1, 10 and 19), (iii) a messaging interface (claims 1, 10, and 19), (iv) a user interface element rendered on a picker device, wherein the picker device is at a different location than a user’s client device (claims 1, 10, and 19), (v) a computer processor, and non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the computer processor, cause the computer processor to perform operations (claims 10 and 19).
The additional element of (i) one or more client devices (claims 1, 10 and 19), are recited at a high-level of generality (See Para. 21 of the Specification disclosing that the customer client device 100 can be a personal or mobile computing device, such as a smartphone, a tablet, a laptop computer, or desktop computer) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element of (ii) a machine-learning large language model (claims 1, 10 and 19) is recited at a high-level of generality (See Paras. 28-31 of the Specification disclosing the machine-learning model as a language mode) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (machine learning) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional element of (iii) a messaging interface (claims 1, 10, and 19) is recited at a high-level of generality (See Para. 67 of the Specification and Fig. 3A disclosing the messaging interface) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements of (iv) a user interface element rendered on a picker device, wherein the picker device is at a different location than a user’s client device (claims 1, 10, and 19) are recited at a high-level of generality (See Para.17 of the Specification disclosing that the picker client device 110 can be a personal or mobile computing device, such as a smartphone, a tablet, a laptop computer, or desktop computer; and that Para. 18 disclosing the collection interfaces that provides information to display to the picker) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element of (v) a computer processor, and non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the computer processor, cause the computer processor to perform operations (claims 10 and 19) are recited at a high-level of generality (See Para. 93 of the Specification disclosing 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) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (See Figs. 1A, 1B, and 2), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)); or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (machine learning) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements discussed above do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Claims 2-6, 8-9, 11-15, 17-18, and 20 recite details in the claim limitations which merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitiaitions. For these reasons, described above with respect to claims 1,10, and 19, these judicial exceptions, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2-6, 8-9, 11-15, 17-18, and 20 are ineligible.
Allowable over the Prior Art
Claims 1-6, 8-15 and 17-20 are allowable over the prior art but rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as discussed above.
The closest prior art includes:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0224736 to Abrahamson et al. (hereinafter “Abrahamson”). Abrahamson discloses extracting inventory information from the inventory movement messages, the inventory information comprising quantities of items.
U.S. Patent Application No. 2006/0010054 to Gee (hereinafter “Gee”). Gee discloses upon receipt of the email containing the attached response document, the program would manage the extraction of data from the form, and the submission of this data to the correct business objects in the backoffice. A database may be maintained within purchaser system…that includes entries for a supplier's modifications to purchase order response and/or the order confirmation. These entries may include…quantity, UOM, price, delivery date, tracking data and/or supplier order number.
U.S. Patent Application No. 2020/0126100 to Goyal et al. (hereinafter “Goyal”). Goyal discloses generating model training data that is fine-tuned using verification of initial user correlations.
Prior Art
The following prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
U.S. Patent Application No. 2022/0198549 to Rodriguez et al. (hereinafter “Rodriguez”). Rodriguez discloses a parser that parses message content to determine the content of the message for order details.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rupangini Singh whose telephone number is 571-270-0192. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9:30 AM – 6:30 PM.
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 on Monday – Friday 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.
/RUPANGINI SINGH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628