DETAILED ACTION
Applicant has amended claims 1, 3, 5 in the filed amendment on 8/21/2026. Claims 1-6 are pending in this office action.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A) Applicant argued that the claimed subject matter integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application by effecting a transformation of a particular article into a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c). Specifically, the claimed subject matter transforms machine-acquired product abbreviation data obtained from OCR processing of product receipts, barcode scanning, APIs, databases, and user inputs into a structured and taxonomy- identified product representation through LLM-based brand prediction and taxonomy identification operations. As illustrated in Fig. 3, the workflow converts ambiguous and unstructured abbreviation information into a classified product taxonomy comprising a meaningful hierarchical product identification. The transformation is a conversion of machine- generated product information into an accurate taxonomy representation that enables automated product classification. Further, the effectiveness of this transformation is demonstrated by Tables 1 and 2, which show accurate taxonomy prediction and matching results. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter effects a meaningful transformation of machine-acquired product information into a different state, namely a taxonomy-classified product representation, thereby integrating any alleged judicial exception into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.05(c).
Therefore, Applicant believes that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, and the claims 1-6, are not directed to judicial exception and is patent eligible (Step 2A: No).
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitation “converts ambiguous and unstructured abbreviation information into a classified product taxonomy comprising a meaningful hierarchical product identification. The transformation is a conversion of machine- generated product information into an accurate taxonomy representation that enables automated product classification” are not recited in the claims.
However, Claims 1, 3, 5 similarly recite abstract limitations of
(predicting a brand name based on the product abbreviation and a brand list;
generating the plurality of expansions of the product abbreviation in accordance with the predicted brand name using an acronym expansion dictionary or generating a plurality of expansions of the product abbreviation in accordance with the predicted brand name using an acronym expansion dictionary;
determining a relevant expansion from among the plurality of expansions of the product abbreviation;
applying web scraping and web search technique on the predicted relevant expansion to obtain associated top k matches of a supergroup, a product group and a module of the predicted relevant expansion; and
predicting a product taxonomy of the determined relevant expansion based on the associated top k matches using a augmented taxonomy classification by Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG)) as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform steps of predicting, generating, determining, applying and predicting. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
B) Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1, 3 and 5 recites significantly more than any alleged judicial exception. The ordered combination of: OCR-based abbreviation extraction, barcode-based product identification, API and database driven retrieval, brand- acronym dictionary processing, LLM-based brand prediction, search-space reduction and taxonomy generation and identification, which constitutes a specific technical architecture.
As disclosed in paragraph [0014] of the Applicant's published application, predicting a brand name narrows the space of potential acronym expansions, thereby reducing the time required for taxonomy identification by approximately 30-40%. This is a measurable technological improvement directed at computational efficiency and processing performance.
Applicant respectfully states that Fig. 3 demonstrates that the predicted brand output generated by the LLM is subsequently utilized as a computational constraint for taxonomy generation and taxonomy-identification operations.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional limitations of
((via one or more hardware processors, via the one or more hardware processors, using a Large Language Model (LLM), via the one or more hardware processors, via the one or more hardware processors, using the LLM, via the one or more hardware processors, via the one or more hardware processors) in claim 1);
a memory; one or more Input/Output (1/O) interfaces; and one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory via the one or more communication interfaces, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured by the instructions to: using a Large Language Model (LLM); using the LLM; LLM (in claim 3); and
one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors cause: using a Large Language Model (LLM); using the LLM; LLM
(in claim 5)) that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The additional limitation of (obtaining a product abbreviation from sources including Optical Character Recognition (OCR) techniques applied to product receipts, databases of products, Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), an user input, scanning of a barcode on a product; storing instructions) that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs and Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp).
The additional limitation of wherein the brand list comprises a plurality of brand names extracted from a brand acronym dictionary that just a statement indicating definition of the brand list including names extracted from dictionary.
The additional limitation of (wherein predicting of the brand name prior to generating a plurality of expansions reduces search space of expansions, thereby reducing time taken in identifying a product taxonomy) that just a statement indicating predicting before generating to reduce space and time in identifying a taxonomy.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are not patent eligible.
c) On pages 15-18, Applicant submits that the claimed subject matter amounts to significantly more than any alleged judicial exception because the claimed subject matter demonstrates measurable improvements in automated taxonomy identification. In particular, Table 2 illustrates results of experiments performed on a dataset of product abbreviations. "The dataset is highly confidential and strictly does not allow to be disclosed in public. The 'complete positive' indicates percentage of exact match of product taxonomy predicted by method 200 with expected output (i.e., the true value available in the dataset), 'partial positive' indicates percentage of partial match of product taxonomy predicted by method 200 with expected output, and 'complete negative' indicates percentage of predictions that do not match with expected output (since the data contains OCR errors, missing acronym expansion etc.)".
Applicant submits that the claimed subject matter amounts to significantly more than any alleged judicial exception because the claimed subject matter demonstrates measurable improvements in automated taxonomy identification. In particular, Table 2 illustrates results of experiments performed on a dataset of product abbreviations. "The dataset is highly confidential and strictly does not allow to be disclosed in public. The 'complete positive' indicates percentage of exact match of product taxonomy predicted by method 200 with expected output (i.e., the true value available in the dataset), 'partial positive' indicates percentage of partial match of product taxonomy predicted by method 200 with expected output, and 'complete negative' indicates percentage of predictions that do not match with expected output (since the data contains OCR errors, missing acronym expansion etc.)".
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitations “The 'complete positive' indicates percentage of exact match of product taxonomy predicted by method 200 with expected output (i.e., the true value available in the dataset), 'partial positive' indicates percentage of partial match of product taxonomy predicted by method 200 with expected output, and 'complete negative' indicates percentage of predictions that do not match with expected output” are not recited in claims.
However, Claims do not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial because additional limitation of
((via one or more hardware processors, via the one or more hardware processors, using a Large Language Model (LLM), via the one or more hardware processors, via the one or more hardware processors, using the LLM, via the one or more hardware processors, via the one or more hardware processors (in claim 1);
a memory; one or more Input/Output (1/O) interfaces; and one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory via the one or more communication interfaces, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured by the instructions to: using a Large Language Model (LLM); using the LLM; LLM (in claim 3); and
one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors cause: using a Large Language Model (LLM); using the LLM; LLM
(in claim 5)) that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The additional limitation of (obtaining a product abbreviation from sources including Optical Character Recognition (OCR) techniques applied to product receipts, databases of products, Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), an user input, scanning of a barcode on a product; storing instructions) that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs and Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp).
The additional limitation of wherein the brand list comprises a plurality of brand names extracted from a brand acronym dictionary that just indicates definition of the brand list including names extracted from dictionary.
The additional limitation of (wherein predicting of the brand name prior to generating a plurality of expansions reduces search space of expansions, thereby reducing time taken in identifying a product taxonomy) that just a statement indicating predicting before generating to reduce space and time in identifying a taxonomy.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
As discussed above, the 101 rejection for claims is still maintained in this office action.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03
Per Step 1, claim 1 is directed to a method, claim 3 to a system, and claim 5 to one or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums, which are statutory categories of invention per Step 1. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or are significantly more.
Step 2A:
a) In analyzing under step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes.
Claims 1, 3, 5 similarly recite abstract limitations of
(predicting a brand name based on the product abbreviation and a brand list,
generating the plurality of expansions of the product abbreviation in accordance with the predicted brand name using an acronym expansion dictionary or generating a plurality of expansions of the product abbreviation in accordance with the predicted brand name using an acronym expansion dictionary;
determining a relevant expansion from among the plurality of expansions of the product abbreviation;
applying web scraping and web search technique on the predicted relevant expansion to obtain associated top k matches of a supergroup, a product group and a module of the predicted relevant expansion; and
predicting a product taxonomy of the determined relevant expansion based on the associated top k matches using a augmented taxonomy classification by Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG)) as drafted, is a process or system or medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The human mind can perform steps of predicting, generating, determining, applying and predicting. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
b) In analyzing under step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
Claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional limitations of
((via one or more hardware processors, via the one or more hardware processors, using a Large Language Model (LLM), via the one or more hardware processors, via the one or more hardware processors, using the LLM, via the one or more hardware processors, via the one or more hardware processors) in claim 1);
a memory; one or more Input/Output (1/O) interfaces; and one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory via the one or more communication interfaces, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured by the instructions to: using a Large Language Model (LLM); using the LLM; LLM (in claim 3); and
one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors cause: using a Large Language Model (LLM); using the LLM; LLM
(in claim 5)) that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The additional limitation of (obtaining a product abbreviation from sources including Optical Character Recognition (OCR) techniques applied to product receipts, databases of products, Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), an user input, scanning of a barcode on a product; storing instructions) that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs and Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp).
The additional limitation of wherein the brand list comprises a plurality of brand names extracted from a brand acronym dictionary that just a statement indicating definition of the brand list including names extracted from dictionary.
The additional limitation of (wherein predicting of the brand name prior to generating a plurality of expansions reduces search space of expansions, thereby reducing time taken in identifying a product taxonomy) that just a statement indicating predicting before generating to reduce space and time in identifying a taxonomy.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are not patent eligible.
c) In analyzing under step 2B, does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO
Claims do not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial because additional limitation of
((via one or more hardware processors, via the one or more hardware processors, using a Large Language Model (LLM), via the one or more hardware processors, via the one or more hardware processors, using the LLM, via the one or more hardware processors, via the one or more hardware processors (in claim 1);
a memory; one or more Input/Output (1/O) interfaces; and one or more hardware processors coupled to the memory via the one or more communication interfaces, wherein the one or more hardware processors are configured by the instructions to: using a Large Language Model (LLM); using the LLM; LLM (in claim 3); and
one or more instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors cause: using a Large Language Model (LLM); using the LLM; LLM
(in claim 5)) that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The additional limitation of (obtaining a product abbreviation from sources including Optical Character Recognition (OCR) techniques applied to product receipts, databases of products, Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), an user input, scanning of a barcode on a product; storing instructions) that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs and Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp).
The additional limitation of wherein the brand list comprises a plurality of brand names extracted from a brand acronym dictionary that just indicates definition of the brand list including names extracted from dictionary.
The additional limitation of (wherein predicting of the brand name prior to generating a plurality of expansions reduces search space of expansions, thereby reducing time taken in identifying a product taxonomy) that just a statement indicating predicting before generating to reduce space and time in identifying a taxonomy.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 6 include all the limitations of claims 1, 3, 5. Therefore, claims 2, 4, 6 recite the same abstract idea of calculating practically being performed in the mind, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
In particularly:
Claims 2, 4, similarly recite (wherein each of the plurality of expansions of the product abbreviation comprises the brand name followed by one or more hierarchical levels of descriptions comprising the product taxonomy with the super group, the product group and the module associated with the product abbreviation) that just indicates definition of expansions including brand name followed by one or more hierarchical levels of descriptions comprising the product taxonomy with the super group, the product group and the module associated with the product abbreviation.
Claim 6 recites limitation (the product taxonomy with the super group, the product group and the module associated with the product abbreviation) that indicates module associated with product abbreviation.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Oshinaike et al (US 20220044298) discloses the predicted aggregate product data 132 that were identified by the smart filter 114 as having a confidence score below a given threshold (e.g., a predicted brand or product name) (paragraph 38, fig. 3).
Das et al (US 20160203498) discloses a tokenization technique that can tokenize text containing abbreviations, colloquialisms, conventions, identifiers and graphical or text-based symbols (paragraph 32). Normalization may comprise, for example, lower-casing of text, stripping of punctuation, expansion of common abbreviations to a proper phrase, replacement of non-ASCII characters (paragraph 33).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAM-Y T TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-4042. The examiner can normally be reached (571) 272 4042.
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, SHERIEF BADAWI can be reached at (571) 272-9782. 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.
/CAM Y T TRUONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights