DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
• The following is an office action in response to the communication filed 08/11/2026.
• Claims 1, 8-10, and 13-17 have been amended.
• Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
The applicant’s claim for benefit of Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 63/627,313 filed 01/31/2024 has been received and acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
In light of Applicant’s amendments, filed on 08/11/2026, the claim objections have been withdrawn.
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 without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. See MPEP 2106.03(II). In the instant case, claims 1-9 are directed to a machine, claims 10-16 are directed to a process, and claims 17-10 are directed to a manufacture. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong 1 of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong 2 of Step 2A). See MPEP 2106.04.
Taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
using image data and historical transaction data;
extract information of a plurality of items;
apply a feature extraction model to the information to identify a plurality of item types of the second category;
receive interaction data indicative of an interaction with an information item associated with an anchor item in a first category;
generate a plurality of themes of a second category;
determine that the first category is associated with the plurality of themes of the second category,
based on the determination, apply at least one type selection model to determine, from the plurality of item types of the second category, a subset of item types associated with the plurality of themes of the second category;
generate correlation information based on historic transaction data characterizing transactions of items associated with the first category and the second category;
select a set of item types from the subset of item types based on the correlation information;
generate an ordered list of recommended items of the second category based on the set of item types; and
in response to the interaction data, enable display of the ordered list of recommended items of the second category.
The above limitations recite the concept of providing recommendations for items in a second category based on themes. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. Specifically, item recommendation is a marketing and sales activity. This is further illustrated in paragraph [0088] of the Specification, describing the invention relating item purchases. Further, these limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Specifically, the determinations are observations, evaluations, and judgements. These limitations are similar to the mental process of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. Independent claims 10 and 17 recite similar limitations as claim 1 and as such, claims 10 and 17 fall within the same identified grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1, 10, and 17 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the MPEP, claims 1, 10, and 17 recite additional elements, such as a system, comprising: a non-transitory memory having instructions stored thereon; and at least one processor operatively coupled to the non-transitory memory, and configured to read the instructions; iteratively train at least one type selection model using a training dataset comprising image data and historical transaction data to minimize a cost function where, at each iterative step, one or more parameters of the at least one type selection model are adjusted to reduce a cost value of the cost function, wherein the training is complete when the cost value reaches a minimum value; a database; a user interface; a large language model (LLM); the trained at least one type selection model; a display; a client device; a computer-implemented method; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having instructions stored thereon, which when executed by one or more processors cause the processors to. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. As such, these computer-related limitations are not found to be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Although these additional computer-related elements are recited, claims 1, 10, and 17 merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Similar to the limitations of Alice, claims 1, 10, and 17 merely recite a commonplace business method (i.e., providing recommendations for items in a second category based on themes) being applied on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, claims 1, 10, and 17 generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The courts have identified various examples of limitations as merely indicating a field of use/technological environment in which to apply the abstract idea, such as specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer (see FairWarning v. Iatric Sys.). Likewise, claims 1, 10, and 17 specifying that the abstract idea of providing recommendations for items in a second category based on themes is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the MPEP, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 17 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Since claims 1, 10, and 17 recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 1, 10, and 17 are “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Next, under Step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. The instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for at least the following reasons.
Returning to independent claims 1, 10, and 17, these claims recite additional elements, such as a system, comprising: a non-transitory memory having instructions stored thereon; and at least one processor operatively coupled to the non-transitory memory, and configured to read the instructions; iteratively train at least one type selection model using a training dataset comprising image data and historical transaction data to minimize a cost function where, at each iterative step, one or more parameters of the at least one type selection model are adjusted to reduce a cost value of the cost function, wherein the training is complete when the cost value reaches a minimum value; a database; a user interface; a large language model (LLM); the trained at least one type selection model; a display; a client device; a computer-implemented method; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having instructions stored thereon, which when executed by one or more processors cause the processors to. As discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although additional computer-related elements are recited, the claims merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Moreover, the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 17 are manual processes, e.g., receiving information, analyzing information, etc. The courts have indicated that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)). Furthermore, as discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, claims 1, 10, and 17 merely recite the additional elements in order to further define the field of use of the abstract idea, therein attempting to generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such as the Internet or computing networks (see Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC. (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bilski v. Kappos (2010); MPEP 2106.05(h)). Similar to FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., claims specifying that the abstract idea of providing recommendations for items in a second category based on themes is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claim to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. In Alice Corp., the Court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘[a]dd nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’ and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Id. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, viewed as a whole, claims 1, 10, and 17 simply convey the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 10, and 17 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite an abstract idea, are not integrated into a practical application, and do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they further recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. These claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, further fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Dependent claims 3, 6-9, 12-14, and 18 fail to identify additional elements and as such, are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Dependent claims 2, 4-5, 11, 15-16, and 19-20 further identify additional elements, such as an item database, a large language model (LLM), a third-party server, an online shopping application, an Internet browser or a dedicated application, and a user interface. Similar to discussion above the with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although additional computer-related elements are recited, the claims merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such, under Step 2A, dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claims 1, 10, and 17, dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20 analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea and merely indicate a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Accordingly, under the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1-20 are ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the evidence obtained and made of record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of applicant’s invention as the noted features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art.
The most relevant prior art made of record includes previously cited Yang et al. (US 20200258137 A1), hereafter Yang, newly cited Glesinger et al. (US 20240104305 A1), hereinafter Glesinger, newly cited Yost et al. (US 20230108482 A1), hereinafter Yost, and previously cited NPL reference U, initially cited in the Office action dated 06/03/2026.
Although individually the references teach concepts such as iteratively training, correlating information, and LLMs, none of the references teach nor render obvious that recommendations are made using an iteratively trained selection model and LLM to generate themes and select items based on this analysis.
Previously cited Yang discloses a method of generating recommendations for products across categories (Yang: [0063]). A of a scent-irrelevant items may be received and there data corresponding to the products determined. This information may be used to select a set of scent-relevant items using the determined theme data, and these recommendations may be displayed to a user (Yang: [0063]). Yet Yang does not explicitly disclose all of the limitations pertaining to the iterative training and the LLM.
Newly cited Glesinger teaches a recommendation method (Glesinger: [0078]). Recommendations may be generated for the one or more users through the direct application of affinity vectors and/or by application of neural network-based large language models (Glesinger: [0096]). Semantic-level inferencing may be applied to determine imagery and/or thematic elements or concepts that are inferred to contribute to high user engagement or other metrics of interest or value. The individual thematic contributions to value may be quantified, ranked or prioritized (Glesinger: [0333]). However, Glesinger does not teach the limitations regarding the iterative training and the second category.
Newly cited Yost teaches a method of predictions (Yost: [abstract]). Yost further teaches a deep learning model is trained using a gradient descent method, wherein worker iterates through the training received and formatted by worker, incrementally adjusting the weights of the connections between the constituent neurons of the network to minimize the value of a cost function defining a difference between the actual values of items in the training data set and the values predicted by the model, where the model is saved when the gradients are minimized (Yost: [0085-0086]). However, Yost does not explicitly teach the limitations regarding the second category and the specific analysis.
Previously cited NPL reference U, initially cited in the Office action dated 06/03/2026, teaches an item recommendation method for cross-selling. Cross-category items may be recommended to a user. Items which are bought together may be highlighted for a user. However, U does not explicitly teach all of the limitations regarding the specific analysis, retraining, and LLM.
While these references arguably teach the claimed limitations using a piecemeal analysis, these references would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant's disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e., hindsight reasoning). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Accordingly, claims 1, 10, and 17, taken as a whole, are indicated to be allowable over the cited prior art. The examiner emphasizes that it is the interrelationship of the limitations that renders these claims allowable over the prior art/additional art. Claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20 depend from claims 1, 10, and 17, and therefore the dependent claims are also indicated as containing allowable subject matter.
The examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as combining various references from the totality of the evidence to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of the Applicant's claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
It is thereby asserted by the examiner that, in light of the above and in further deliberation over all the evidence at hand, that the claims are allowable as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 08/11/2026, have been fully considered.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant argues the claims are patent eligible because the claims provide “a practical application that addresses technical limitations with existing platforms that fail to provide relevant item recommendations in categories that differ from items in a particular category a user is interested in” (Remarks pages 14-17). The examiner disagrees. The MPEP provides guidance on how to evaluate whether claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For example, the MPEP states “the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.” The MPEP further states that “[t]he specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art,” and that, “conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner…the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology” (see MPEP 2106.04). That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. Looking to the specification is a standard that the courts have employed when analyzing claims as it relates to improvements in technology. For example, in Enfish, the specification provided teaching that the claimed invention achieves benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, in Core Wireless the specification noted deficiencies in prior art interfaces relating to efficient functioning of the computer. Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs. Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed Cir. 2018). With respect to McRO, the claimed improvement, as confirmed by the originally filed specification, was “…allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters…’” and it was “…the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks”. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016).
While the examiner acknowledges that improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field may constitute integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), the instant claims do not provide a technical improvement. Rather, the claims provide an improvement to the abstract idea of providing recommendations for items in a second category based on themes. While the Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s assertions regarding the recommendations, the Examiner notes that providing relevant item recommendations in categories that differ from items in a particular category a user is interested in is merely an improvement to the abstract idea and not a technical improvement.
Although the claims include computer technology such as a system, comprising: a non-transitory memory having instructions stored thereon; and at least one processor operatively coupled to the non-transitory memory, and configured to read the instructions; iteratively train at least one type selection model using a training dataset comprising image data and historical transaction data to minimize a cost function where, at each iterative step, one or more parameters of the at least one type selection model are adjusted to reduce a cost value of the cost function, wherein the training is complete when the cost value reaches a minimum value; a database; a user interface; a large language model (LLM); the trained at least one type selection model; a display; a client device; a computer-implemented method; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having instructions stored thereon, which when executed by one or more processors cause the processors to, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. Put another way, these additional elements are merely used to apply the abstract idea of providing recommendations for items in a second category based on themes in a technological environment without effectuating any improvement or change to the functioning of the additional elements or other technology. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the courts in cases such as Enfish, Core Wireless, and McRO. Unlike precedential cases, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement to computer capabilities. The instant claims are not directed to technological improvements but are directed to improving the business method of providing recommendations for items in a second category based on themes. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in a better process for providing recommendations for items in a second category based on themes, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving the server and/or computer components that operate the system. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing data sets related to items and shopping while still employing the same server and/or computer components used in conventional systems to improve providing recommendations for items in a second category based on themes, e.g. a business method, and therefore is merely applying the abstract idea using generic computing components. As such, the claims are not integrated into practical application.
Applicant argues the claims are patent eligible in light of Desjardins (Remarks page 17). The examiner disagrees. In Ex Parte Desjardins, the claims reflected a specific improvement that addressed the technical problem of “catastrophic forgetting” in continual learning systems, while allowing artificial intelligence systems to variously optimize system performance, use less storage capacity and reduce system complexity. By contrast the iterative training of the model in the instant case is merely recited at a high level and does not provide any similar technical improvement to a technical problem specific to learning systems. Thus, Desjardins is not analogous.
Applicant argues the claims provide significantly more because the claims “recite "specific limitation[s] other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field," and "add[] unconventional steps"…"cover[ing] a particular solution to a particular problem"” (Remarks pages 17-18). The examiner disagrees. The MPEP sets forth that if a claim has been determined to be directed to a judicial exception under revised Step 2A, examiners should then evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, Applicant's claims merely recite steps of a method with generic computer components being recited in a generic manner. While additional elements are included within the claims, they are claimed in a generic manner and merely perform generic functions. The additional elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. Put another way, these additional elements are merely used to apply the abstract idea of providing recommendations for items in a second category based on themes in a technological environment without effectuating any improvement or change to the functioning of the additional elements or other technology. Applicant’s disclosure does not articulate or suggest how these additional elements function, individually or in combination, in any manner other than using generic functionality nor does the disclosure articulate how the elements provide a technical improvement. Accordingly, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to using the additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not provide significantly more.
Applicant argues that claims 10, 17, and the dependent claims are allowable for the same reasons as claim 1 (Remarks page 18). The examiner disagrees. The rejection to claim 1 has been maintained for the reasons discussed in the paragraphs above and the rejections to claims 10, 17, and the dependent claims are maintained for the same reasons.
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 ANNA MAE MITROS whose telephone number is (571)272-3969. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30-6.
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, 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.
/ANNA MAE MITROS/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights