DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the remarks entered on 10/01/2025. Claims 1, 7, 13, 17 and 20 are amended. Claim 10 is cancelled. Claims 1, 3-9, 11-13, 15-20 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 .
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, 3-9, 11-13, 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 analysis:
In the instant case, the claims are directed to a method, a device and a computer-readable storage medium. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A analysis:
Based on the claims being determined to be within of the four categories (Step 1), it must be determined if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), in this case the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Specifically the abstract idea of Mental Processes-“Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” and Mathematical Concepts (including mathematical relationships, formulas, and/or calculations).
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
The claim(s) recite(s):
Claim 1:
“determining one or more information items used as behavior objects of behaviors of each behavior classification of a target user” - this limitation amounts to determining which information items as used as behaviors for classification of a user (observing and evaluating a user provide an opinion about its behaviors, which are mental processes);
“calculating a vector representation of each of the one or more information items corresponding to each behavior classification” - this limitation amounts to calculating a vector representation (mathematical calculation, which are mathematical concepts);
“forming vector representations of the one or more information items into a vector sequence in chronological order of occurrence of the behaviors of the each behavior classification, and using the vector sequence as a classification behavior vector sequence of each behavior classification” - this limitation amounts to forming vector representation into vector sequence in chronological order for further use of classification (sorting the vectors, which are mathematical quantities having magnitude and direction, amounts to mathematical relationships, which are mathematical concepts);
“calculating, according to behaviors of a plurality of behavior classifications of a target user, a classification behavior information representation, the classification behavior information representation including classification behavior vector sequence of each behavior classification of the target user” - this limitation amounts to calculating a classification behavior representation including a vector sequence (calculating a vector that represents behavior information amounts to a mathematical calculation, which are mathematical concepts);
“calculating a vectorized information representation of a candidate information item according to a relationship data of a relationship between a plurality of users or items, the relationship data comprising a type, a direction or a weight value of the relationship”- this limitation amounts to calculating a vectorized representation of an items (calculating a vectorized representation of an item amounts to a mathematical calculation, which are mathematical concepts);
“determining interest of the target user for the candidate information item according to the classification behavior information representation of the behaviors of the target user and the vectorized information representation of the candidate information item, wherein the classification behavior information representation comprises at least one behavior vector sequence” - this limitation amounts to determining an interest of a user (observing and evaluating a user to judge its interest, which are mental processes) based on behaviors and vectorized information (mathematical values which are mathematical concepts); and
“determining the interest of the target user comprises:
for each of the at least one classification behavior vector sequence of the target user, using the each of the at least one classification behavior vector sequence as input to a recurrent neural network, and using an output of a last time step of the recurrent neural network as a classification behavior processing vector of the each of the at least one classification behavior vector sequence - this limitation amounts to outputting a processing vector sequence having as input behavior vector sequence (vectors are mathematical quantities having magnitude and direction, amounts to mathematical relationships, which are mathematical concepts). The recurrent neural network is recited at a high level of generality which amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (evaluated under Prong 2 below); and
calculating a weighted sum of classification behavior processing vectors corresponding to all of the at least one classification behavior vector sequence of the target user, and using the weighted sum as the vector representation of the target user- this limitation amounts to calculating a weighted sum of vectors and using it as a vector representation (calculating a weighted sum amounts to a mathematical calculation, which are mathematical concepts).
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it only recites these additional elements:
“A method for determining interest of a user for an information item, performed by a computer device, the method comprising” – this computer device is recited at a high level of generality for the purpose of determining interest of a user, and this amounts to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); and
“a recurrent neural network”- this recurrent neural network is recited at a high level of generality for the purpose of receiving a vector as input and outputting a vector, which are considered mathematical concepts, therefore this which amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B analysis:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements explained above amount to mere instructions to apply an exception on a computer.
Re-evaluation of any additional elements or combination of elements that were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activities are needed to determine if they are considered well-understood, routine and conventional limitations, however, the only additional elements found in claim 1, as amended, are only the use of a computer and a recurrent neural network, as explained above. The claims are not patent eligible.
Independent claims 13 and 20 are analogous claims, therefore the same rejection and rationale applies to it. In addition, they recite further additional elements analyzed under Step 2A: prong 2 and Step 2B:
Claim 13: “computer device for…comprising a memory for storing instructions and a processor for executing the instructions”- this memory and processor amount to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computers merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2)). Further, under Step 2B, storing instructions corresponds to well-understood, routine and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05 (d) II (iv));
Claim 20: “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing instructions, wherein the instruction when executed by a processor are configured to cause the processor to determine interest of a user for an information item”- this storage medium and processor amount to mere instructions to apply an exception, as the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computers merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2)). Further, under Step 2B, storing instructions corresponds to well-understood, routine and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05 (d) II (iv)).
Dependent claim(s) 3-12, 15-19 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The claims are reciting further embellishment of the judicial exception.
Claim 3: this claim recites further mathematical steps for calculating probabilities based on the vectors (mathematical concept) and further mental processes for determining interest of a user. Claim 15 is analogous.
Claim 4: this claim recites further mathematical calculations of a weighted sum (mathematical concept).
Claim 5: this claim recites further mathematical calculations (mathematical concept) and mental processes for determining interest values.
Claim 6: this claim recites obtaining information of the user, which amounts to mere data gathering, being insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g) (3)) under Step 2A:Prong 2, and well-understood routine and conventional (receiving data over a network, further considered well-understood, routine and conventional under MPEP 2106.05(d) II (i)) under Step 2B; and determining probabilities, which are mathematical steps (mathematical concept). Claim 16 is analogous.
Claim 7: this claim recites further mathematical relationships (vector sequences) and mathematical steps (mathematical concept). Claim 17 is analogous.
Claim 8: this claim recites further mathematical relationships and mathematical steps (mathematical concept). Further, it teaches training a neural network recited at a high level of generality, which amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 18 is analogous.
Claim 9: this claim recites further mathematical relationships and mathematical steps (mathematical concept). Further, it teaches using a recurrent neural network recited at a high level of generality, which amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 19 is analogous.
Claim 11: this claim recites further mathematical relationships and mathematical steps (mathematical concept).
Claim 12: this claim recites further mathematical calculations (determining a loss function is a calculations step) and mathematical relationships (probabilities) used by a neural network, which is recited at a high level of generality and therefore amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Examiner’s comments
For claims 1, 3-9, 11-13, 15-20, no art rejection is made for these claims, they are only rejected under 35 USC 101 as explained above in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/01/2025 have been fully considered.
In reference to Applicant’s arguments:
- Claim rejections under 35 USC 101.
Examiner’s response:
Applicant asserts that Claim 1 is patent eligible under 35 USC 101 in view of the claim amendments, however, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant asserts that Claim 1, as amended, provides a method for recommending an information item satisfying the user preference/interest as much as possible, and improves a recommendation success rate that at most uses mathematics and is inherent in computer technology, distinct from human mental process. Applicant further asserts that amended claim 1, as a whole, is thus directed to a practical application that involves unconventional data analytics and an improved user-machine interface. After careful reconsideration of the claim, as amended, it does not recite any limitation regarding performing a recommendation about an information item using the recited abstract ideas. If the claim would have recited an limitation that would integrate the abstract ideas into practical application by improving the recommendation of an information item based on the many calculations recited, along with an explanation in the specification elaborating on how this recommendation would be improved by the recited steps, Examiner would reconsider the claims as whole to potentially reflect an improvement to the technology or technical field.
Examiner would like to point out again to MPEP 2106.05 (a), where it recites “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements”. In view of this statement by the MPEP, Examiner reconsidered amended independent claim 1 and still did not recognize an additional element that reflects such alleged improvement related to a recommendation or recommendation rates. The only recognized additional elements are the use of a computer device (recited at a high level of generality) for the purpose of determining interest of a user, and this amounts to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); and the use of a recurrent neural network to receive as input a vector, and outputting a vector, also considered to be mere instruction to apply a judicial exception on a computer.
Regarding the alleged improvement to a user-machine interface, based on the additional elements as recited above, they do not reflect either such alleged improvement in user-machine related technology. Applicant further asserts that by creatively introducing a vectorized classification behavior information representation in claim 1, the determination of the information representation of the user and the interest of the user is “more accurate and is closer to an actual intention of the user.” Examiner considers this “vectorized classification behavior information” as mathematical concepts (a vector is a mathematical quantity that has magnitude and direction), therefore, an abstract idea cannot provide an improvement. Applicant further submits that amended claim 1 specifically recites detailed additional elements beyond the alleged exception, rather than describing them at a high level of generality; however, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination (emphasis added) with the recited judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05 (a) further recites “During examination, the examiner should analyze the "improvements" consideration by evaluating the specification and the claims to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement”. Claim 1, as amended, does not recite a limitation considered under Step 2A: Prong 2 to be an additional element that reflects an improvement that is explained in the specification. The claim merely recites mathematical calculations, mathematical relationships and mental processes (as explained above in this office action under the 101 rejection).
Applicant further asserts that claim 1 is patent eligible at least eligible under Step 2B as viewing the claim elements as an ordered combination, the claimed process results in improving the accuracy of predictions than in the prior processes, and produces an improved user experience in a computer interface. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the only additional elements do not reflect an improvement in accuracy of predictions or user experience.
For these reasons above, rejections are still maintained.
In reference to Applicant’s arguments:
- Claim rejections under 35 USC 103.
Examiner’s response:
Rejections are withdrawn in view of amendments.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS A SITIRICHE whose telephone number is (571)270-1316. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, David Yi can be reached on (571) 270-7519. 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.
/LUIS A SITIRICHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2126
Prosecution Insights