DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-6, 8-15 and 17-20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final rejection dated December 17, 2025. In the Response, submitted on April 17, 2026 claims 1, 10, and 19 were amended. Therefore, claims 1-6, 8-15 and 17-20 are currently pending and subject to the final rejection below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 12-14 of the Response, regarding the previous claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
On Pages 13-14 of the Response, in discussing Example 39, Applicant argues “Example 39 stands for the proposition that a claim for retraining a machine- learning model with an updated training set that includes training examples for providing a more robust machine-learning model improving the error rate of the model (e.g., limiting the number of false positives) does not recite a judicial exception. Like the claim in Example 39, the claims of the present application recite a method for verifying a response by receiving an indication from a picker device confirming the updated estimate of the order (e.g., pressing ‘confirm’ button). The verified instance is used to create an updated training set including a (correct) training example. The parameters of the machine-learning language model are finetuned by computing a loss function indicating a difference between estimated outputs and the known response, and backpropagating one or more terms obtained from the loss function to update the parameters. T[h]us, like the claim of Example 39, the updated training example makes for a more robust machine-learning language model for extracting updated cost estimates of an order that is modified by requests from one or more messages in a messaging interface.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes the claim in Example 39 was eligible because it failed to recite an abstract idea. Here, the claims do recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements 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.
Specifically, “verifying a response by receiving an indication from a picker...confirming the updated estimate of the order…The verified instance is used to create an updated training set including a (correct) training example. The parameters of the…model are finetuned by computing a loss function indicating a difference between estimated outputs and the known response…. and backpropagating one or more terms obtained from the loss function to update the parameters …extracting updated cost estimates of an order that is modified by requests from one or more message” reflect the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity and mathematical concepts. See also Example 47 explaining that “Backpropagation is the mathematical process of calculating the derivatives”.
The additional element of the messaging interface amounts to apply it, and the additional element of the machine-learning language model generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (i.e., machine learning). Thus, 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 to a model, 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; responsive to the indication confirming the updated estimate of the order, generating a training example including the prompt for the order and the response; applying parameters of the model to the prompt of the training example to generate estimated outputs; computing a loss function indicating a difference between the estimated outputs and the response for the training example; and finetuning parameters of the model by backpropagating one or more terms from the loss function.
The limitations recited above, (under broadest reasonable interpretation), recite the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity, e.g., commercial interactions. Additionally, computing a loss function indicating a difference between the estimated outputs and the response for the training example; and backpropagating one or more terms from the loss function recite a mathematical concept (e.g., a mathematical calculation). As such, the claims as a whole recite a certain method of organizing human activity; and recite a mathematical concept. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The mere recitation of generic computer components ((i) one or more client devices and a picker device (claims 1, 10 and 19), (ii) a machine-learning large language model, configured as a transformer architecture including one or more attention layers (claims 1, 10 and 19), (iii) a messaging interface (claims 1, 10, and 19), (iv) a user interface element rendered on the picker 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), and (vi) automatically performing functions (e.g., identifying) (claims 1, 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 and a picker device (claims 1, 10 and 19), (ii) a machine-learning large language model, configured as a transformer architecture including one or more attention layers (claims 1, 10 and 19), (iii) a messaging interface (claims 1, 10, and 19), (iv) a user interface element rendered on the picker 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), and (vi) automatically performing functions (e.g., identifying) (claims 1, 10, and 19).
The additional element of (i) one or more client devices and a picker device (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; and See Para. 17 of the Specification disclosing 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) 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, configured as a transformer architecture including one or more attention layers (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 model; and Paras. 33-34 of the Specification disclose the transformer-based architecture and attention operations) 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 element of (iv) a user interface element rendered on the picker 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)).
The additional element of (vi) automatically performing functions (e.g., identifying whether the order was updated) (claims 1, 10, and 19) is recited at a high-level of generality (See Para.37 of the Specification disclosing an online system to maintain an updated order) 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights