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
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 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.
Claim 1
Step 1, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a system comprising a computing device designed and configured to perform at least one step. Thus, the claim is a system claim, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim "recites" a judicial exception when the judicial exception is "set forth" or "described" in the claim.
Limitation “identify a user set identifier matching the user as a function of the at least a biological extraction”. This limitation recites a judicial exception because it encompasses a mental process. Specifically, the action of “identifying” a match based on biological data constitutes an evaluation or judgment. According to the 2019 PEG, mental processes are concepts performed in the human mind, such as evaluations or judgments. Because this identification can be performed by a human, it falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
Limitation “produce a selection guidance using the user set identifier and the item descriptor by: identifying interactions within a user interface associated with the item descriptor; aggregating the interactions into a navigational vector; classifying the navigational vector to one or more groupings of users; and producing the selection guidance as a function of the classification, wherein the selection guidance comprises a selection of one or more items” recites a judicial exception because it encompasses both a mathematical concept and a mental process. Specifically, the step of “aggregating the interactions into a navigational vector” involves a mathematical operation involving a vector. A “vector” is a mathematical concept consisting of a set of quantities. The act of “aggregating” interactions into such a structure constitutes a mathematical operation and the step of “classifying the navigational vector to one or more groupings of users” recites a judicial exception because it encompasses a mental process. The act of “classifying” is an evaluation or judgment to categorize data. For example, a human can perform mathematical operations on paper and then use their judgment to categorize a set of data into different groups.
Limitation “determine whether the selection of the one or more items is suitable for the user”. This limitation recites a judicial exception because it encompasses a mental process. The action of “determining suitability” is an evaluation or judgment. These are the types of concepts performed in the human mind that fall within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
The limitation “block at least one item within the selection of the one or more items of the selection guidance as a function of determining whether the selection of the one or more items is not suitable for the user” recites a judicial exception because it encompasses a mental process. The act of “blocking” an item is a mental action that a person can perform with the aid of pen and paper, such as by crossing an item off a list.
“Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. "For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record." MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Here, the mentioned steps fall within the mental processes and mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas and are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two: The claim recites the additional elements:
receive at least a biological extraction and an item descriptor from a user
identifying interactions within a user interface associated with the item descriptor
producing the selection guidance as a function of the classification, wherein the selection guidance comprises a selection of one or more items
provide the selection guidance to the user identifying the at least one blocked item descriptor
MPEP 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field:
The additional elements do not provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology. The limitations merely describe standard data input and output functions (receiving at least a biological extraction and an item descriptor from a user and the selection guidance to the user identifying the at least one blocked item descriptor) which do not increase the speed, efficiency, or capability of the computing device itself.
MPEP 2106.05(b) Particular Machine:
The claim does not recite a particular machine. The limitations receive…, identifying…, and provide… are performed on a computing device and a user interface, which are considered generic computer components and do not constitute a particular machine.
MPEP 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation:
The additional elements do not result in a particular transformation or reduction of an article. The data being processed (biological extraction and user interaction data) is merely information and does not constitute a physical or chemical transformation of a tangible article.
MPEP 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations:
The additional elements do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exceptions. The steps of receiving and providing data are merely functional steps that do not provide a technical solution to a technical problem.
MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity:
The elements “provide the selection guidance to the user… ” and “producing the selection guidance…” are extra-solution activities. These are merely the presentation or communication of the results of the mental/mathematical processes and do not solve the underlying abstract problem.
MPEP 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment:
The claim does not recite a specific technological environment that changes the nature of the abstract ideas. The use of a user interface and a computing device is a standard technological environment for implementing these concepts.
Step 2B, The claim is patent ineligible because the additional elements, when examined individually and as an ordered combination, fail to provide an inventive concept that is "significantly more" than the recited judicial exceptions. The combination of receiving data, interacting with a user interface, and providing an output is a standard application of generic computer functions to execute the underlying abstract ideas. The elements “receive…,” “identifying interactions within a user interface…,” “producing the selection guidance…,” and “provide the selection guidance…” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. They do not provide a non-generic, specific technical solution to a technical problem; rather, they simply enable the performance of the mental processes and mathematical concepts on a computer. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not provide an inventive concept.
Claim 2 recites “each item of the selection of the one or more items comprises a suitability score; and determining whether the selection of the one or more items is suitable for the user comprises comparing the suitability score of each item of the one or more items the item descriptor to a threshold.” This limitation is directed to an abstract idea because comparing a numerical value (a score) to a threshold is a mathematical concept and a mental process. The claim does not have any additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites “the selection guidance comprises a user set suitability score; and producing the selection guidance comprises calculating the user set suitability score as a function of the user set identifier and the item descriptor.” This limitation is directed to an abstract idea because calculating a score based on specific variables is a mathematical concept. The claim does not have any additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites “receiving user set suitability training data comprising a plurality of user set identifiers correlated to a plurality of user set suitability scores; training a suitability model using the user set suitability training data; and determining the user set suitability score as a function of the trained suitability model.” The “receiving user set suitability training data comprising a plurality of user set identifiers correlated to a plurality of user set suitability scores” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because “receiving” the data is a generic step of collecting information into a computing device. The limitation “training a suitability model using the user set suitability training data; and determining the user set suitability score as a function of the trained suitability model” recites the judicial exception of Mathematical Concepts. This is because the process of training a model and calculating a score involves mathematical calculations and mathematical relationships used to determine a variable or number. The claim does not have any additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites “the selection guidance comprises a user specific suitability score; and producing the selection guidance comprises calculating the user specific suitability score as a function of the at least a biological extraction, user data, and the item descriptor.” This limitation is directed to an abstract idea because the calculation of a score based on multiple input variables is a mathematical concept. The claim does not have any additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 recites “receiving user specific suitability training data comprising a plurality of biological extractions, past user data, and a plurality of item descriptors correlated to the user specific suitability score; training a suitability model using the user specific suitability training data; and determining the user specific suitability score as a function of the trained suitability model.” The limitation “training a suitability model using the user specific suitability training data” involves mathematical optimization (such as calculating gradients or weights) and “determining the user specific suitability score as a function of the trained suitability model” is an evaluative judgment of data. The claim does not have any additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites “receive an exclusion list from the user; and remove the at least one blocked item from the selection guidance as a function of the exclusion list.” This limitation is directed to an abstract idea because the act of comparing a list to a set and removing matching items is a mental process. The claim does not have any additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites “decrypt the biological extraction.” This limitation constitutes a mathematical concept. Decryption is a mathematical algorithm used to transform data from a scrambled state to a readable state. The claim does not have any additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 adds the limitation “decrypting the biological extraction using a secure proof.” Decrypting data using Secure proof /zero-knowledge proof is well-known protocol. The claim does not have any additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites “place a recurring order for at least a first item within the selection of the one or more items as a function of the suitability score.” This limitation is merely placing an order based on a certain criterion. The claim does not have any additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 11-20 are similar to claims 1-10. The claims are rejected based on the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
Section Rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant argues that “… Applicant respectfully submits that the claims do not recite a mathematical concept because the claim as a whole is not “only based on or involves a mathematical concept.” For example, the limitations of claim 1, as amended, recite identifying real-time “interactions within a user interface associated with the item descriptor,” which are transformed by “aggregating the interactions into a navigational vector.” Pg. 4
Applicant argues that the claim as a whole is not directed to a mathematical concept because it recites identifying “real-time” user interface interactions that are aggregated into a “navigational vector.” Applicant's argument relies on the unrecited limitation of “real-time” tracking. This term does not appear anywhere in claim 1. Applicant cannot establish patent eligibility by arguing limitations that are entirely absent from the claim text. Furthermore, Applicant's assertion that aggregating user data into a vector represents a non-abstract technical arrangement is directly contradicted by paragraph [0077] of the specification. The specification explicitly discloses that a vector space is a "collection of vectors, defined as a set of mathematical objects". Because the claim merely recites collecting data points and organizing them into a mathematical object on generic computer hardware, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 stands.
Applicant argues that “… The limitations of claim 1 further recite specific data-routing and structural operations wherein this navigational vector is processed by classifying the navigational vector to one or more groupings of users to generate an actionable, multi-item data stream in the form of a “selection guidance comprising a selection of one or more items.” pg. 4
Applicant asserts that the processing of the navigational vector constitutes a structural operation because it controls a “data-routing” interface to generate an “actionable, multi-item data stream.” Examiner respectfully disagrees because the phrases “data-routing” and “multi-item data stream” are entirely absent from both Claim 1 and the specification. An applicant cannot read non-existent technological features into a claim during prosecution. Furthermore, paragraph [0099] explicitly states that the selection guidance is merely "a link, serial number, image, or other datum". Generating a standard website hyperlink or a product serial number is not a data-routing protocol.
The step of “classifying” the vector relies purely on an evaluation or judgment to categorize data. For example, a human can perform mathematical operations on paper and then use their judgment to categorize a set of data into different groups.
Applicant argues that “… The limitations of claim 1 do not recite calculations so broad as to encompass generic mathematical formulas, but rather they recite a specific computer-implemented data modeling arrangement (the navigational vector mapped to specific interface interactions) and distinct logical filtering methods (screening and blocking items within the generated stream) for altering a recommendation interface based on user suitability…” pg. 4
Applicant argues that the claimed invention does not recite an abstract mathematical concept because it requires a “specific computer-implemented data modeling arrangement,” “distinct logical filtering methods,” and the step of “altering a recommendation interface based on user suitability.” Claim 1 reveals that none of these phrases or features are recited in the claim text.
Claim 1 does not require a specialized data modeling arrangement, nor does it define any specific “filtering methods” or a process for “altering a recommendation interface.” The Applicant cannot establish the patent eligibility or patentability of a claim by arguing limitations that are entirely absent from the claim language.
Applicant argues that “… Applicant further submits that capturing human-machine interface inputs, mapping those interactions into an aggregate vector format, and utilizing that vector to isolate or block a specific item identifier within a generated data stream are processes of computer data structures and interactive interface control, not abstract mathematical calculations…” pg. 4
Applicant submits that capturing “human-machine interface inputs,” mapping them into an “aggregate vector format,” and utilizing that vector to block an identifier within a “generated data stream” are eligible processes of “interactive interface control.”
Claim 1 reveals that the phrases “human-machine interface inputs,” “aggregate vector format,” “generated data stream,” and “interactive interface control” do not appear anywhere in the claim. The claim must be judged based on the features that are actually written into the text.
Applicant argues that “… The claimed invention constructs a concrete structured data object (the navigational vector) to enforce a localized, technical topology on real-time user interface activity. The steps of producing the selection guidance and conditionally blocking at least one item describe the practical manipulation of computer data arrays, which are non-mathematical system operations distinct from merely computing a numerical value in the abstract mind…” pg. 4
Applicant submits that the claimed invention constructs a “concrete structured data object” to enforce a “localized, technical topology,” and that the steps describe the “practical manipulation of computer data arrays,” which constitute non-mathematical system operations. The phrases “concrete structured data object,” “localized, technical topology,” and “computer data arrays” do not appear anywhere within the text of Claim 1.
Applicant’s assertion that these steps represent “non-mathematical system operations”. Paragraph [0077] discloses that the claimed vector format is a "collection of vectors, defined as a set of mathematical objects". Further, the limitation “produce a selection guidance using the user set identifier and the item descriptor by: identifying interactions within a user interface associated with the item descriptor; aggregating the interactions into a navigational vector; classifying the navigational vector to one or more groupings of users; and producing the selection guidance as a function of the classification, wherein the selection guidance comprises a selection of one or more items” recites a judicial exception because it encompasses both a mathematical concept and a mental process. Specifically, the step of “aggregating the interactions into a navigational vector” involves a mathematical operation involving a vector. A “vector” is a mathematical concept consisting of a set of quantities. The act of “aggregating” interactions into such a structure constitutes a mathematical operation and the step of “classifying the navigational vector to one or more groupings of users” recites a judicial exception because it encompasses a mental process. The act of “classifying” is an evaluation or judgment to categorize data. The limitation “block at least one item within the selection of the one or more items of the selection guidance as a function of determining whether the selection of the one or more items is not suitable for the user” recites a judicial exception because it encompasses a mental process. The act of “blocking” an item is a mental action that a person can perform with the aid of pen and paper, such as by crossing an item off a list.
Applicant argues that “… Accordingly, Applicant submits that claim 1, as amended, cannot be fairly read in view of MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) I as being directed to a mathematical concept because the claims recite more than any mathematical formula or operation…” pg. 4
Applicant argues that under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I), Claim 1 cannot be considered a mathematical concept because the claim recites "more than any mathematical formula or operation."
Examiner respectfully disagrees because claim 1 recites "aggregating" user actions into a vector. Paragraph [0077] discloses that the claimed vector format is a "collection of vectors, defined as a set of mathematical objects"
The additional limitations in Claim 1 that Applicant points to as reciting “more than math” - such as identifying user interactions on an interface and displaying a list of items—are merely conventional data-gathering and post-solution display steps. Tying an judicial exception to generic computer hardware operations does not alter the mathematical core of the invention.
Applicant argues that “… Applicant respectfully submits that, at least as amended, representative claim 1, and similarly claim 11, is not directed to a mental process because the generation, mapping, and multi-layered filtering of real-time user interface activity cannot be practically performed in the human mind…” pg. 5
Applicant argues that human mind cannot practically perform the “generation, mapping, and multi-layered filtering of real-time user interface activity.”
Claim 1 does not require “generation,” “mapping,” “multi-layered filtering,” or “real-time user interface activity. The Examiner must evaluate the claim based strictly on the language written in the limitations.
Applicant argues that “… Claim 1 as currently amended requires identifying “interactions within a user interface associated with the item descriptor,” “aggregating the interactions into a navigational vector,” and “classifying the navigational vector to one or more groupings of users” to construct a specific dynamic stream of data defining a “selection guidance comprising a selection of one or more items.” It further requires executing a conditional, multi-tiered structural modification by “blocking at least one item within the selection of items of the selection guidance as a function of determining whether the selection of the one or more items are not suitable for the user.” pg. 5
Applicant argues that the recited steps of aggregating interface interactions and blocking unsuitable items serve to construct a “specific dynamic stream of data” and execute a “conditional, multi-tiered structural modification.”
The phrases “specific dynamic stream of data” and “multi-tiered structural modification” do not appear anywhere within the claim text.
Paragraph [0099] explicitly defines the “selection guidance” as merely “a link, serial number, image, or other datum”. Generating a standard website hyperlink or a product serial number represents generic database lookups, not a dynamic stream. The step of conditionally “blocking” an item within this list based on user suitability represents is a generic filtering processing task.
Applicant argues that “… Applicant submits that the human mind is not equipped to intercept machine-interface telemetry, structurally model that telemetry into multi-dimensional navigational vectors in real-time, and algorithmically map those vectors against machine-learning user groupings to dynamically filter an active data stream. Applicant further submits that the creation and real-time modification of this selection guidance is an inherently computational process. The human mind cannot practically track digital user interface interactions, aggregate them into vector arrays, and use those arrays to isolate and block specific product item identifiers within a complex data recommendation pipeline. Accordingly, Applicant submits claim 1 is patent-eligible under Step 2A Prong One of the Patent Eligibility Test under 35 U.S.C. §101…” pg. 5-6
Applicant argues that the human mind cannot handle the complex steps of this invention because it requires “intercept machine-interface telemetry, structurally model that telemetry into multi-dimensional navigational vectors in real-time, and algorithmically map those vectors against machine-learning user groupings to dynamically filter an active data stream”. However, a direct review of the actual language of Claim 1 reveals that none of underlined phrases appear in the claim text.
Claim 1 does not require intercepting telemetry, multi-dimensional shapes, or a dynamic data stream. Instead, the claim merely recites the generic steps of gathering interactions within user interface, putting them into a "navigational vector," and blocking an item from a list. The claim must be evaluated exactly as it is written.
Applicant argues that “… Applicant respectfully submits that, under Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility framework, claim 1 recites a specific technological improvement to the functioning of an interactive interface control system. The combination of limitations requiring “identifying interactions within a user interface associated with the item descriptor,” “aggregating the interactions into a navigational vector,” and conditionally “blocking at least one item within the selection of items of the selection guidance” based on real-time biological suitability determinations does not merely invoke a computer as a generic tool to perform abstract observations or calculation. Instead, it expressly improves the technical field of human-machine interfaces by enabling an on-the-go dynamic personalization mechanism that alters an active data stream before presentation to the user…” pg. 7
Applicant argues that the claim describes a “specific technological improvement to the functioning of an interactive interface control system” that “expressly improves the technical field of human-machine interfaces” by using a mechanism that “alters an active data stream.”
Claim 1 does not require an "interactive interface control system," a "personalization mechanism," or an "active data stream." The claim must be evaluated exactly as it is written.
Claim 1 merely requires a generic computer to identify "interactions within a user interface" and aggregate them into a "navigational vector." Paragraph [0099] explains that this vector is created using entirely conventional web-browser analytics, tracking basic metrics such as "sequences of pages, types of pages," and "a duration for which the web page... remained selected, clicked or viewed." Recording ordinary web browsing history and click telemetry on a standard computer display does not improve the underlying function of the computer or user interface itself.
Applicant argues that “… Just as in Enfish, where the court found the claimed structure improved the way the computer stored and retrieved data, the instant claims improve the operational capability of a recommendation interface by establishing a real-time, two-tiered filtering pipeline. This pipeline intercepts group-level behavior patterns and subjects them to an automated, user-specific gatekeeper mechanism. This is an inherently computational process that solves a problem rooted in network and interface data processing, namely, the technological inability of conventional, overgeneralized history-based engines to prevent the delivery of inaccurate or overgeneralized data selections to an individual…” pg. 7
Applicant argues that the invention improves the operational capability of a recommendation interface by establishing a “real-time, two-tiered filtering pipeline” that “intercepts group-level behavior patterns” and solves a problem rooted in “network and interface data processing,” namely preventing conventional engines from delivering “overgeneralized data selections.”
The phrases “real-time, two-tiered filtering pipeline,” “intercepts group-level behavior patterns,” and “network and interface data processing” do not appear anywhere in the text of Claim 1. Paragraph [0099] explicitly defines the outputted "selection guidance" as merely "a link, serial number, image, or other datum". Generating a standard website hyperlink or a product serial number text string represents routine data lookups, not a complex network filtering pipeline.
The problem identified by the Applicant—preventing the delivery of “overgeneralized” recommendations—is not a technological one. Applicant fails to identify any specific technological problem in the art or any corresponding technical solution provided by the claim text. Tying simple screening and blocking data item to a standard computer screen to show product suggestions does not represent a technological solution to a technological problem under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Applicant argues that “… By utilizing a specialized classification structure to transform real-time interface telemetry into an aggregate vector format, and dynamically mapping that vector against user suitability constraints, the claim recites a specific solution that structurally modifies the available contents of a computer display interface. Specifically, the claimed invention enables a system to provide targeted selection recommendations while programmatically isolating and blocking individual unsuitable item identifiers from the live stream data array. This is not a post-hoc addition of a general-purpose computer to a mental process, but a concrete implementation of a solution to a technological problem in the field of interactive data processing…” pg. 7-8
Applicant argues that the claimed invention provides a structural solution to a technological problem by utilizing a “specialized classification structure” to transform “real-time interface telemetry” into an “aggregate vector format” that “structurally modifies the available contents of a computer display interface” and blocks data from a “live stream data array.”
The Applicant fails to identify any specific technological problem in the art or any corresponding technical solution provided by the claim text
Claim 1 does not require a “specialized classification structure,” “interface telemetry,” an “aggregate vector format,” a “structural modification” to a display, or a “live stream data array.” An applicant is not legally permitted to invent technical-sounding structural layouts in their arguments when those limits are entirely missing from the text of the claim.
Applicant argues that “… Specific examples of claims that are eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are found in at least Example 47 (Artificial Neural Network for Anomaly Detection – claims 1 and 3) presented with the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Update. Example 47 illustrates the application of the eligibility analysis to claims that recite limitations specific to artificial intelligence, particularly the use of an artificial neural network to identify or detect anomalies. Claim 3 in Example 47 was found to be eligible because it contextualized the anomaly detection to network monitoring and further recited additional post-anomaly-detection steps. These steps included determining the anomalous network activity is malicious and provided a practical application via an improvement to the technical field of network intrusion detection. The Office reasoned that while the claim “does not provide any details about how the trained ANN operates or how the detection is made, and the plain meaning of “detecting” encompasses mental observations or evaluations (e.g., a computer programmer’s mental identification of an anomaly in a data set)” regardless the claims are eligible because “when considered in combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim improves the functioning of a computer or technical field. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).”
Consistent with Example 47 claim 3, claim 1 of the Present Application integrates any abstract idea into a practical application…” pg. 8
Applicant’s reliance example 47 is misplaced because the current claims completely lack the corresponding technical limitations.
Example 47 evaluates an advanced, specific artificial intelligence architecture—specifically a trained "artificial neural network" configured to detect malicious "network intrusions" in real time.
The actual language of Claim 1 reveals that the phrases "artificial intelligence limitations," "artificial neural network," "network monitoring," and "network intrusion detection" do not appear anywhere in the claim. The claim merely recites the broad, general functional verbs of "identifying interactions" and "classifying the navigational vector" using general-purpose computing hardware. Claim 1 of the present application does not monitor network security. Because Claim 1 lacks any of the structural neural network elements or network security steps found in Example 47, the applicant's comparison carries no weight under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Applicant argues that “… The July 2024 Guidelines teach that integration of a judicial exception into a practical application may be achieved when “[(1)] the specification . . . set[s] forth an improvement in the technology[;] and[, (2)] the claim . . . reflect[s] the disclosed improvement.” July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines, p. 12. The July 2024 Guidelines show that Example 47 claim 3 integrates the judicial exception into a practical application because (1) the specification teaches an improvement to network security “by acting in real time to proactively prevent network intrusions”; and (2) “[t]he claimed invention reflects this improvement in the field of network intrusion detection.” Id.
In the same way that Example 47 demonstrates integration of a judicial exception into a practical application, the present claims also integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical, technological solution. Specifically: (1) The specification sets forth an improvement in the technology of localized, real-time product recommendations and machine-interface interaction customization. The Specification explains that overabundant information gathered from traditional history-based systems routinely produces inaccurate recommendation results due to the persistent technical drawback of overgeneralization (See Background). To solve this, the specification details an architecture that provides “on the go personalization of the world around the user,” allowing for instantaneous, hyper-localized purchasing guidance via real-time peripheral device interaction, such as scanning universal product codes (UPC) or matching distinct navigational behavior patterns (See Para [0073])…” pg. 8-9
Applicant argues that the specification sets forth an improvement in technology by overcoming the “technical drawback of overgeneralization” through an architecture that provides “on the go personalization” and “instantaneous, hyper-localized purchasing guidance.”
Solving “overgeneralization” in product suggestions to help a shopper make a personalized purchasing decision is an everyday business practice. The problem being addressed in paragraph [0003] of the Background—is the systems produce "inaccurate results" when giving suggestions to consumers. Improving the accuracy of a product shopping list to prevent overgeneralization is not a technical computer defect.
Furthermore, the actual language of claim 1 reveals that the phrases "localized, real-time product recommendations," "machine-interface interaction customization," and "hyper-localized purchasing guidance" do not appear anywhere in the claim.
The specification explicitly confirms in Paragraph [0073] that this "personalization mechanism" is achieved using entirely conventional, off-the-shelf commercial hardware and software tools: "...A user may scan the UPC code with a mobile device while they are in a store to receive purchasing guidance such as a selection recommendation."
Running a standard database query triggered by an ordinary barcode scanner or a mobile device camera to provide a product suggestion is a generic computer application. It does not introduce a novel hardware configuration or alter the underlying operating architecture of the user interface.
Applicant argues that “… (2) The claims reflect this improvement by describing a concrete implementation that replaces traditional, passive data-logging with a responsive, multi-stage computational filtering network. Specifically, the claims recite a processor configured to identify discrete interactions within a user interface associated with an item descriptor, aggregate those interactions into a structural navigational vector, and classify that vector against a plurality of user groupings to yield a customized selection guidance stream. In addition, the claims explicitly reflect the technological improvement by programmatically removing and blocking an unsuitable item from the selection guidance data array based on user suitability. Just as Example 47, Claim 3, was deemed eligible because it reflected a concrete improvement to network security, the instant claims reflect a concrete improvement to the technical field of interactive data processing and software recommendation. The specific configuration of an interface control system to dynamically alter display outputs by intercepting, modeling, and selectively blocking specific data structures represents a functional improvement to the practical capability of human-machine communication networks. Accordingly, the claim at issue here does not generically apply an abstract concept, but rather presents a structured, real-world solution to a specific technological problem, thereby integrating any alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two…”
Applicant argues that Claim 1 provides a structured, real-world solution to a specific technological problem because it requires a “responsive, multi-stage computational filtering network” that “dynamically alters display outputs” and alters a “selection guidance data array.”
The phrases “responsive, multi-stage computational filtering network,” “customized selection guidance stream,” and “selection guidance data array” are absent from the text of Claim 1. The claim does not recite any specialized configuration to alter how a computer display or interface operates. Claim 1 merely requires a computing device to “provide the selection guidance to the user”. Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility framework, an abstract concept is not integrated into a practical application if the claim limitations merely instruct a general-purpose computer to execute conventional data-gathering steps and standard database lookups. Because the claim simply uses ordinary computer processors to track user basic interactions to show or hide common data items, it fails to recite a technical solution to a technological problem.
Applicant argues that “… Though Applicant contends that claim 1 is not directed towards any judicial exceptions, Applicant further submits that claim 1 amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception under step 2B.
Applicant submits that claim 1 contains limitations amounting to an inventive concept representing “significantly more” than the alleged judicial exceptions under step 2B. MPEP 2106.05(II). Claims directed to an abstract idea contain inventive concept and thus are patent eligible when the claim limitations involve more than performance of well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 recites an inventive concept, at least because claims 1 contains limitations amounting to a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of process steps. See BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “Examiners should keep in mind that the courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic.” May 4th USPTO Memorandum at p. 4; see also DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257. Moreover, “an inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement” even of generic computer operations on a generic computing device. Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1350. "…” pg. 10
Claim 1 does not require a unique, non-conventional structural layout or an unconventional hardware architecture. Instead, the claim follows a completely standard, sequential software data pipeline: a processor is configured to receive inputs, organize data into a vector, sort that vector into one or more groups of users, and block items if the items are not suitable to the user.
Arranging standard software functions to execute one after another in a linear sequence on general-purpose computer processors is a conventional computer arrangement. Because the claim merely recites using standard computer components to execute routine data-gathering and processing steps in a conventional order, the combination fails to provide an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Applicant argues that “… “The second step of the Alice test is satisfied when the claim limitations “involve more than performance of ‘well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.’” Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Without conceding that any limitation of claim 1 is generic or conventional, Applicant respectfully asserts that, taken as a whole, the limitations of claim 1 amount to a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of a computer processor, functions, and other technical limitations, because the instant Application does not contain any information to suggest that the elements and/or the combination thereof are conventional. Specifically, there is no evidence to indicate that the claimed two-tiered data screening architecture and dynamic stream modification functions are conventional…” pg. 10
Applicant contends that claim 1 satisfies the inventive concept requirement of Step 2B because "there is no evidence to indicate that the claimed two-tiered data screening architecture and dynamic stream modification functions are conventional."
The actual language of Claim 1 reveals that neither the phrase "two-tiered data screening architecture" nor the phrase "dynamic stream modification functions" appears anywhere in the claim text. Under patent examination rules, the Step 2B analysis must focus strictly on what the claim recites. Looking at the text, claim 1 merely requires a generic computing device to identify user interface interactions, put them into a vector, classify the vector, and block an item from a selection of items. Because the claim only recites generic functional steps and lacks the specialized “architecture” or “stream modification” functions, the applicant's argument carries no weight.
Applicant argues that “… Specifically, claim 1 recites producing a selection guidance by “identifying interactions within a user interface associated with the item descriptor; aggregating the interactions into a navigational vector; classifying the navigational vector to one or more groupings of users; and producing the selection guidance as a function of the classification,” and subsequently “blocking at least one item within the selection of items of the selection guidance as a function of determining whether the selection of the one or more items are not suitable for the user.” This sequence ensures that group-level algorithmic predictions are natively intercepted and modified based on a localized user suitability check before final display presentation…” pg. 10-11
Applicant argues that the claim text recites an unconventional arrangement because it ensures that “group-level algorithmic predictions are natively intercepted and modified based on a localized user suitability check before final display presentation.”
The actual language of Claim 1 reveals that the phrases “group-level algorithmic predictions,” “natively intercepted,” “localized user suitability check,” and “final display presentation” do not appear anywhere in the claim text. Claim 1 merely requires a generic computer to "classify" a vector and "block" an item within a list. The claim does not alter how a computer processor or network physically functions. Claim 1 does not describe an unconventional or inventive arrangement.
Applicant argues that “… In addition, this arrangement is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. The claimed arrangement describes a specific machine-processing architecture that dynamically filters an active recommendation pipeline based on user-specific suitability constraints, rather than executing standard static data retrieval or generic history-based logging…” pg. 11
Applicant asserts that the claimed arrangement describes an unconventional “specific machine-processing architecture that dynamically filters an active recommendation pipeline,” rather than executing “standard static data retrieval or generic history-based logging.”
The actual language of Claim 1 reveals that the phrases “specific machine-processing architecture,” “active recommendation pipeline,” “standard static data retrieval,” and “generic history-based logging” do not appear anywhere in the claim text. Paragraph [0099] explicitly defines the outputted “selection guidance” in very basic, static terms as merely “a link, serial number, image, or other datum”.
Retrieving a standard product serial number, image file, or website hyperlink is the literal definition of standard static data retrieval. Because the actual language of Claim 1 merely describes running standard software logic on a regular computer to output basic data strings, it fails to present a non-conventional or inventive arrangement under Step 2B.
Applicant argues that “… By configuring the processor to specifically capture interface telemetry, model those interactions into aggregate navigational vectors, map them against distinct user sets, and automatedly remove and block individual unsuitable item identifiers from the resulting data array, the claim recites a specific technical solution to the problem of information overabundance and overgeneralization in interactive software network. This specific multi-tiered operational framework allows an unsuitable product identifier to be dynamically extracted and filtered from the final output while pushing alternative suitable items forward. No evidence has been provided indicating that such automated user interaction vectorization, macro-classification, and micro-targeted biological filtering elements and/or their combination are conventional, and Applicant does not admit that the elements and/or their combination are conventional…” pg. 11
Applicant argues that the combination of steps is inventive because no evidence has been provided showing that “automated user interaction vectorization, macro-classification, and micro-targeted biological filtering elements” are conventional.
The actual language of claim 1 reveals that the phrases “automated user interaction vectorization,” “macro-classification,” and “micro-targeted biological filtering elements” are completely missing from the claim text. The claim must be evaluated exactly as it is written.
The process described by the Applicant simply takes a user trait (such as an allergen or medical restriction listed in a database table) and flags a corresponding product item code to drop it from a shopping list. Because the claim relies entirely on a conventional computer processor executing basic conditional data logic without any unconventional hardware or software modifications, it fails to recite an inventive concept under Step 2B. The rejection stands.
Applicant argues that “… Applicant therefore respectfully submits that claim 1 recites limitations amounting to an inventive concept, and thus to significantly more than the abstract idea to which claim 1 is allegedly drawn.
For at least the reasons describe above, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the Section 101 rejection of representative claim 1, as amended.
Independent claim 11 has been amended in a manner similar to claim 1 and overcomes this rejection for at least the same reasons as discussed above with reference to claim 1.
Each of claims 2-10 and 12-20 depends directly or indirectly from claim 1 or 11, and thus each recites all the same elements as claim 1 or 11. Applicant therefore submits that claims 2-10 and 12-20 overcome these rejections for at least the same reasons as discussed above with reference to claims 1 and 11, and because of the additional patent-eligible limitations recited therein.
Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of all 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of the claims…” pg. 11
The independent Claim 1 and independent Claim 11 rely entirely on general-purpose computer processors executing basic mathematical sorting and routine database filtering. Because the independent claims fail to provide a non-abstract practical application or an inventive concept under Steps 2A and 2B, they are patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Furthermore, a review of dependent Claims 2-10 and 12-20 reveals that the dependent claims do not add any unique hardware structures, custom circuit architectures, or unconventional processing pathways. Therefore, the Step 2B defense fails across all claims, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is firmly maintained.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure
U.S. Pub 2021/0257079 – Minobe discloses a nutrition-related commodity recommendation device is provided that proposes a product that matches nutritional state of users and promotes user's willingness to purchase. The device comprising: biological information acquiring means for acquiring biological information of users; question information acquiring means for acquiring question information of users; nutritional information calculation means for calculating nutritional information related to excess and deficiency of nutrients in bodies of users based on biological information and question information; related commodity extraction means for extracting a commodity group related to excess and deficiency nutrients based on the calculated nutritional information; inappropriate commodity exclusion means for excluding inappropriate commodities that are not suitable for users from the commodity group; priority setting means for setting a priority for each commodity of the commodity group from which inappropriate commodities are excluded; commodity determining means for determining proposed commodities based on the priority; and proposed commodity output means for outputting data related to proposed commodities.
U.S. Pub 2020/0286599 A1 – Ramarajan discloses solution covers identifying a recommended treatment for a patient based on records of similar patients, wherein the similarities are non-obvious and non-linear. The solution generates a similarity map that minimizes the variance of elements records among a curated group of patients, and this similarity map is used to find the patients who are most similar to an untreated patient.
Conclusion
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.
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 HAU HAI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5894. The examiner can normally be reached 1st biwk: Mon-Thurs 7:00 AM-5:00 PM; 2nd biwk: Mon-Thurs: 7:00 am-5:00pm, Fri: 7:00 am - 4:00pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
HAU HAI. HOANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/HAU H HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights