DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is in response the communications filed on 10/28/2025 in which claims 1, 7-12, 14, 20-25, 27 and 33-38 are amended, claims 2, 13, 15, 26, 28 and 39 have been cancelled, and therefore claims 1, 3-12, 14, 16-25, 27 and 29-38 are pending.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/28/2025 has been entered.
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, 3-12, 14, 16-25, 27 and 29-38 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more
Step 1: Claims 1 and 3-12 recite a method. Claims 14 and 16-25 recite a system comprising one non-transitory memory and one processor. Claims 27 and 29-38 recites a non-transitory computer storage medium. Therefore, claims 1 and 3-12 are directed to a process, claims 14 and 16-25 are directed to a machine, and claims 27 and 29-38 are directed to a manufacture.
With respect to claims 1, 14 and 27:
2A Prong 1: the claim recites a judicial exception.
classifying… each of the one or more content items of the labeled data using one or more attributes derived from the knowledge representation as a feature (mental process – evaluation or judgement)
modifying the knowledge representation based on a comparison of the classification… for each content item of the labeled data to the known label of each respective content item, the modifying comprising at least one of: adding an additional concept to the knowledge representation; modifying a weight associated with the at least one concept in the knowledge representation; and forming a new relationship between two or more concepts in the knowledge representation (mental process – evaluation or judgement)
repeating the classifying and modifying until a target threshold is achieved for at least one of: a precision value; and a recall value (mental process – evaluation or judgement)
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
(Claims 1, 14 and 27) executing via a computer system comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory memory, at least one non-transitory memory and at least one processor (mere instructions to apply an exception, storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor (2) Whether the claim invokes computers - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
receiving the knowledge representation encoded as a non-transitory computer-readable data structure, the knowledge representation based on an object of interest and comprising at least one concept and/or relationship between two or more concepts (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting)
receiving labeled data comprising one or more content items external to the object of interest, the one or more content items having a known label that classifies each content item into one or more categories (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting)
with the machine-learning classifier… by the machine-learning classifier (mere instructions to apply an exception – MPEP 2106.05(f), (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception)
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
(Claims 1, 14 and 27) executing via a computer system comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory memory, at least one non-transitory memory and at least one processor (mere instructions to apply an exception, storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor (2) Whether the claim invokes computers - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
receiving the knowledge representation encoded as a non-transitory computer-readable data structure, the knowledge representation based on an object of interest and comprising at least one concept and/or relationship between two or more concepts (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting, and WURC: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 - MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
receiving labeled data comprising one or more content items external to the object of interest, the one or more content items having a known label that classifies each content item into one or more categories (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting, and WURC: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 - MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
with the machine-learning classifier… by the machine-learning classifier (mere instructions to apply an exception – MPEP 2106.05(f), (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception)
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claims 3, 16 and 29:
2A Prong 1: the claim recites a judicial exception.
wherein the knowledge representation is calibrated and the calibrating comprises generating the concept or the relationship between two or more concepts, wherein at least one of the concept and relationships are not recited in the object of interest (evaluation, generating the concept between two concepts)
With respect to claims 4, 17 and 30:
2A Prong 1: the claim recites a judicial exception.
wherein the knowledge representation includes weights associated with the at least one concept (mental process – evaluation or judgement. Claim 1 recites “modifying a weight… in the knowledge representation” which is an abstract idea. Specifying the weights associated with a concept does not change the scope of the claim.)
With respect to claims 5, 18 and 31:
2A Prong 1: the claim recites a judicial exception.
wherein classifying… is based on an intersection of the one or more content items and the one or more features. (mental process – evaluation or judgement)
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
with the machine-learning classifier… (mere instructions to apply an exception – MPEP 2106.05(f), (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception)
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
with the machine-learning classifier… (mere instructions to apply an exception – MPEP 2106.05(f), (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception)
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claims 6, 19 and 32:
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
wherein the object of interest comprises at least one of a topic, a tweet, a webpage, a website, a document, a collection of documents, a document title, a message, an advertisement, and a search query (a particular technological environment or field of use – MPEP 2106.05(h))
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the object of interest comprises at least one of a topic, a tweet, a webpage, a website, a document, a collection of documents, a document title, a message, an advertisement, and a search query (a particular technological environment or field of use – MPEP 2106.05(h))
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claims 7, 20 and 33:
2A Prong 1: the claim recites a judicial exception.
wherein the repeating the classifying and modifying comprises: re-classifying each of the content items of the labeled data using the modified knowledge representation (mental process – evaluation or judgement)
modifying the knowledge representation based on a comparison of the re-classification… for each content item of the labeled data to the known label of each respective content item in the labeled data (mental process – evaluation or judgement)
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
by the machine-learning classifier… (mere instructions to apply an exception – MPEP 2106.05(f), (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception)
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
by the machine-learning classifier… (mere instructions to apply an exception – MPEP 2106.05(f), (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception)
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claims 8, 21 and 34:
2A Prong 1: the claim recites a judicial exception.
wherein achieving the target threshold for the precision value includes obtaining a predetermined ratio of a number of the one or more content items correctly classified as being relevant to the object of interest to a total number of content items in the labeled data (mental process – evaluation or judgement, obtaining/evaluating a ratio of a number of correct items to a total number of content items in the labeled data)
With respect to claims 9, 22 and 35:
2A Prong 1: the claim recites a judicial exception.
wherein achieving the target threshold for the recall value includes obtaining a predetermined ratio of a number of the one or more content items correctly classified as being relevant to the object of interest to a total number of the one or more content items classified as being relevant to the object of interest (mental process – evaluation or judgement, obtaining/evaluating a ratio of a number of correct items to a total number of content items relevant to the object of interests)
With respect to claims 10, 23 and 36:
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
wherein the received knowledge representation is a synthesized knowledge representation (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting) (Claim 1 recites “receiving the knowledge representation” which is insignificant extra-solution activity. A ‘synthesized’ representation is not indicative of integration into a practical application.)
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the received knowledge representation is a synthesized knowledge representation (insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g), (3) data gathering and outputting, and WURC: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 - MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
(Claim 1 recites “receiving the knowledge representation” which is insignificant extra-solution activity. A ‘synthesized’ representation is not significantly more than the judicial exception.)
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claims 11, 24 and 37:
2A Prong 1: the claim recites a judicial exception.
wherein modifying the knowledge representation based on the comparing comprises modifying the knowledge representation when a ratio of a number of the one or more content items correctly classified as being relevant to the object of interest to a total number of the one or more content items in the labeled data is less than the target threshold for the precision value (evaluation, modifying the knowledge representation when a ratio is less than a threshold)
With respect to claims 12, 25 and 38:
2A Prong 1: the claim recites a judicial exception
wherein modifying the knowledge representation based on the comparison comprises modifying the knowledge representation when a ratio of a number of the one or more content items correctly classified as being relevant to the object of interest to a total number of the one or more content items classified as being relevant to the object of interest is less than the target threshold for the recall value (evaluation, modifying the knowledge representation when a ratio is less than a threshold)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Applicant argues: (p. 17) The Applicant respectfully submits that the subject matter of the amended claims is not that which may be practically performed in the human mind. In particular, steps such as "classifying …", as explained in greater detail below, would be impossible for a human mind to perform. Moreover, modifications to the knowledge representation including adding concepts, modifying weights, and creating new relationships are structural digital changes not reducible to abstract human thought… The invention addresses the challenge of managing an "enormous volume of information", at a scale that would be not just impractical, but impossible for human operators to handle manually… . This materially exceeds what a human mind can practically perform. This iterative process clearly demonstrates a recursive loop…
Examiner answers: It appears that the applicant is arguing that a human cannot perform the steps ("classifying… modifying... repeating") because the process includes “loop/iteratively” and involves “enormous volume of information”, therefore they are not mental processes.
A human mind can perform “loop/iterations” with aids of a pen and paper. Humans are capable of processing a large knowledge representation (i.e. a large graph); the process may be time-consuming but is feasible. Therefore, those steps are directly to mental processes. (If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with-- or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B).)
Applicant argues: (p. 18) The system therefore seeks to achieve computational efficiency and avoid the need for "manual labeling of content items." The objective of these modifications is to improve technical metrics like "precision and/or recall" of a machine learning classifier… These are technical problems requiring technical, non-human solutions… It is respectfully submitted that the amended claims do not recite any judicial exceptions… As an example, the claimed invention improves, among other aspects, machine learning classifier performance.
Examiner answers: It is unclear whether the applicant is arguing about the mental processes or about an improvement. In step 2A prong One, the claim is evaluated if it recites a judicial exception (which includes mental processes); in step 2A prong Two and step 2B, the claim is evaluated if it recites additional elements that integrate the exception to a practical application / are an inventive concept (where improvements are considered). Therefore, if step 2A prong One is being discussed here, judicial exceptions should be argued in the section.
The claim clearly recites mental processes ("classifying… modifying... repeating"). Further, “the performance (precision and/or recall) of the machine learning classifier” is mentioned in the argument. However, the claim only recites “with the machine-learning classifier… the classification by the machine-learning classifier” which is evaluated under step 2A prong Two and step 2B.
Applicant argues: (p. 19-20) Claims are Integrated into a Practical Application The present claims provide clear improvements in computer functioning and in the technical field of computer technology (in particular, digital information retrieval and content delivery, machine learning)…
Firstly, the claimed invention produces a modified knowledge representation by modifying a knowledge representation based on the output and performance of a machine-learning classifier…
Secondly, the claimed invention improves machine learning classifier performance by using the classifier to modify the knowledge representation…
Thirdly, the claimed invention improves machine learning pipeline performance… The feedback loop enabled… a feedback loop to dynamically refine…
Examiner answers: Firstly, the claim recites "modifying the knowledge representation… the classification by the machine-learning classifier…." "Modifying" is a mental process. If the limitation is directed to an exception, it cannot provide an improvement. (MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement…”) Further, "by the machine-learning classifier" is mere instructions to apply an exception, MPEP 2106.05(f).
Secondly, the claim recites "with the machine-learning classifier… the classification by the machine-learning classifier", which is mere instructions to apply an exception, MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thirdly, the claim recites "repeating the classifying and modifying…" which is a mental process. If the limitation is directed to an exception, it cannot provide an improvement, MPEP 2106.05(a)
Therefore, the above-mentioned features are either directly to an exception in step 2A prong One, or not indicative integration into a practical application in step 2A prong Two.
Applicant argues: (p. 22-23) Claims Provide an Inventive Concept Applicant submits that the present claims provide an inventive concept which satisfies Step 2B, as amended claim 1 overcomes data sparsity by generating new, richer features (through modification of the non-transitory computer-readable data structure encoding the knowledge representation). Specifically, and as claimed, modifying the knowledge representation is based on a comparison… The modified knowledge representation represents new data… Moreover, the modifying itself may include, for example, adding an additional concept…
Examiner answers: The claim clearly recites mental processes ("classifying… modifying... repeating"), which are evaluated under step 2A prong One, not evaluated under step 2B as additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. Further, the use of "the machine-learning classifier" is mere instruction to apply an exception MPEP 2106.05(f), and therefore is not indicative of an inventive concept in step 2B.
Conclusion
PNG
media_image1.png
496
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Xu ("Multi-Modality Transfer based on Multi-Graph Optimization for Domain Adaptive Video Concept Annotation" 20101114) teaches using labeled samples in the target domain [labeled data comprising one or more content items external to the object of interest].
Xu further teaches Eq.(2), Yi is the initial label of the samples from the target domain [the known label of each respective content item] and fgi is the predicted score (the classification result of a classification task) generated from the auxiliary classifiers Fg(g=1:G) [the classification by the machine-learning classifier] in the source domain. However, Yi is not compared to fgi in Eq.(2). (Yi is in the second term, and fgi is in the third term in Eq.(2).) Therefore, Xu doesn't teach: [a comparison of the classification by the machine-learning classifier for each content item of the labeled data to the known label of each respective content item].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SU-TING CHUANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5 PT.
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, Usmaan Saeed can be reached at (571) 272-4046. 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.
/SU-TING CHUANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2146