DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the RCE filed on 04/28/2026.
Claims 1, 13, and 18 are currently amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
In reference to Applicant’s arguments on page(s) 7-12 regarding rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 103:
Furthermore , Zhu is devoid of any teaching, suggestion or disclosure of identifying user data that is an aggregation of data from interactions with a given content item by a cohort of users and that comprises information related to a label for each interaction, using a classifier as an initializer and scaler of the user data and determining a set of user data clusters using such scaled user data, let alone executing a LR model on such set of user data clusters determined using the claimed scaled user data. Rather, Zhu describes using its LR classifier to determine a user response, and using a LR classifier to determine a user response fails to disclose or suggest, inter alia, executing a classifier as an initializer and scaler on user data, which scaled user data is used to determine a set of user data clusters, as is recited in each of the present claims.
Goenka has been reviewed and is not seen to remedy the deficiencies of Zhu noted herein and in the Office Action.
At 32 of Goenka, which is relied upon in the Office Action, Goenka merely describes receiving user data and generating user clusters. Goenka, like Zhu, is completely silent with respect to the claimed user data as an aggregation of data from interactions with a content item by a cohort of users and with comprises information related to a label of each interaction.
Lee has been reviewed and is not seen to remedy the deficiencies of Zhu and Goenka noted herein and in the Office Action.
In view of at least the foregoing, the Applicant submits that Zhu, Goenka and Lee do not yield all of the elements in claim 1, and therefore Zhu, Goenka Lee cannot form the basis of a proper § 103 rejection. Furthermore and since Zhu, Goenka and Lee each fails to disclose each and every one of the elements of claim 1, none of the references can form the basis of a proper § 102 rejection, and no such rejection is raised by the Office Action. Similar arguments are also applicable with independent claims 13 and 18. Since each of the dependent claims recites all of the elements of its independent base claim, the arguments made herein are equally applicable to each dependent claim.
Examiner’s answer:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive.
Applicant argues that the applied prior art reference Zhu does not teach that the acquired user data comes from an aggregate of data from interactions between a cohort of users. Examiner agrees. While Zhu does teach the acquisition of user data, it is devoid of information stating that the acquired user data comes in aggregate form. Zhu’s user data is unique to the individual user, and therefore does not serve to provide the privacy protection of the instant application.
Applicant argues that Zhu does not use a logistic regression (LR) model on the set of user clusters. Examiner agrees. Zhu was not relied upon for the use of a LR on the user clusters, the prior art reference Goenka was relied upon for teaching that limitation.
The applicant argues that the inclusion of prior art references Goenka and Lee does not remedy the deficiencies presented in Zhu. Examiner agrees. Neither reference of Goenka nor Lee discloses that the user data is acquired in aggregate form so as to preserve the privacy of any given user.
Since the deficiencies of Zhu are not remedied by the existing prior art references and because the claims were amended to include information about a scaler mechanism for the aggregated data, a new search was performed in an attempt to find references that disclose the claimed limitations and no appropriate art was found.
In light of the arguments presented and the amendments made on the independent claims, the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn.
In reference to Applicant’s arguments on page(s) 12-18 regarding rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for allegedly being non-statutory. In the Office Action, at pages 3-20, the Examiner alleges that claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
The claims are not directed to the abstract idea of performing a mathematical calculation or a mental process. Rather, the claims are directed to a specific technical solution to a specific technical problem: the technical challenge of enabling personalized recommendations while maintaining user data privacy using aggregated user data scaled to reduce memory usage and computing resources. This is a technology-centric problem that did not exist before the advent of online content provisioning systems.
The claimed method cannot practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. Specifically:
1. User data clustering, initialization and scaling using a classifier executing on identified user aggregation data to initialize and scale the aggregated data and to determine a set of user data clusters using the scaled user data;
2. Predicted action determination using a logistic regression model on the set of user data clusters determined using the scaled user data;
8. Digital content display at a client device that is based on information related to the determined predicted action and the content item.
With respect to the "mathematical concepts" grouping of abstract ideas, the August Memorandum cautions examiners to be careful to distinguish claims that recite an exception from claims that merely involve an exception. Referring to Examples 39 and 47, the August Memorandum distinguishes between limitations that merely involve or rely on mathematical concepts and a limitation that sets forth or describes a specific mathematical concept. The Examiner contends that the claimed use of a logistic regression model on the set of user data clusters "covers a mathematical calculation. Application respectfully disagrees and submits that while a logistic regression model may involve or rely on mathematical concepts, no such mathematical concepts are set forth or described in the claims. As such, the limitation does not recite any exception.
These improvements are analogous to those found eligible in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), where the Federal Circuit held that claims directed to a self-referential table for a computer database were eligible because they were "directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate." Similarly, in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the court found claims eligible where they provided a specific technological solution (automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation) rather than merely claiming the idea of a solution.
Finally, the recent convening of an Appeals Review Panel (ARP) in Ex parte Desjardins (Appeal 2024-000567), is directly relevant to the instant case and supports a finding of eligibility. The ARP was convened specifically to review the Board's rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, indicating heightened scrutiny of § 101 rejections in technology-related cases. Like Desjardins, the instant case involves claims to improvements in computer system functionality. The institutional concern reflected in the Desjardins ARP proceedings counsels strongly in favor of reconsidering any § 101 rejection that does not fully account for the specific technical improvements and particular solutions recited in the claims. Given the parallels to the technology at issue in Desjardins, the preponderance of evidence favors a finding of eligibility here.
Examiner’s response:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are found to be not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to the abstract idea of performing a mathematical calculation or a mental process but are rather directed to a specific technical solution to a specific technical problem, that technical problem being related to user privacy preservation while recommending personalized content. Examiner disagrees. Numerous abstract ideas are present in the claims, namely those of identifying user data, classifying user data, determining a set of clusters for the user data, performing logistic regression on the data, and determining a predicted action of the user. All of the stated actions can be reasonably performed in the human mind or recite mathematical calculations. Furthermore, there is no mention in the claims of the idea of privacy preservation of the specific user, it is the recommendation of the Examiner that information regarding privacy preservation be amended into the claims.
Applicant argues that the actions of data clustering, initialization, and scaling, predicted user action based on the execution of a LR model, and digital content display cannot be practically performed in the human mind. Examiner disagrees in part. The actions of data clustering, initialization and scaling can be reasonably performed in the human mind as those are actions relating to data manipulation which can be considered a mental process. The action of predicting a user action based on the execution of a LR model can be practically performed in the human mind because the prediction is based on the results of a calculation. The action of digital content display cannot be practically performed in the human mind, but that was never alleged as the limitation reciting displaying digital content was flagged as being an additional element, not a judicial exception.
Applicant argues that the limitations do not recite mathematical concepts and that the limitations in question merely involve or rely on a mathematical concept. Examiner disagrees. The claim explicitly recites performing a logistic regression on the user data clusters. This is a recitation of a specific mathematical model using specific data of the application. This explicit recitation is grounds for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it involves a specific mathematical calculation.
Applicant argues that the instant application is similar to that of Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. because that case was "directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate." Examiner disagrees. The instant application is not similar to the Enfish case because the instant application does not improve the way a computer operates. The listing of actions in the claims merely identify trends in groups of data and use those trends to recommend content to a user. This is not a novel improvement to the training of a machine learning model nor to the field of content recommendation.
Applicant argues that the instant application bares similarity to the application/decision of Ex parte Desjardin. Examiner disagrees. Desjardin was found to be patent eligible because it set out to solve the technical problem of catastrophic forgetting in machine learning models. There is no similarity between Desjardin and the instant application because the claims directed to the mental process of identifying trends in a large swath of data and applying that trend to a specific user in order to recommend content where the computer is merely used as a tool to implement the abstract idea which does not improve in the way computers operate.
In light of the arguments amendments made on the claims, the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained and updated below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Independent claims 1 and 13 recite a method therefore falling into the statutory category of process. Independent claim 18 recites a computing device, therefore falling into the statutory category of product.
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 1 recites in part:
“identifying user data related to a content item, the user data being an aggregation of data from interactions with the content item by a cohort of users, the user data comprising information related to a label for each interaction”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses identifying user data related to content.
“executing as an initializer and scaler of the user data, a classifier on the identified user data”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses classifying and scaling data.
“determining based on the execution of the initializer and the scaled user data, a set of user data clusters, each cluster corresponding to a feature of a user from the cohort”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining clusters of data based on an initial classifier and scaled data.
“executing a logistic regression (LR) model on the set of user data clusters determined using the user data scaled based on the execution of the classifier”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers a mathematical calculation.
“and determining, by the device, based on the execution of the LR model, a predicted action by a user respective to the content item”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses predicting a user’s action based on a calculated result.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“by a device”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (a computing device) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“causing, by the device, digital content to be displayed at a client device of the user based on the information related to the predicted action and the content item”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. post-solution activity of outputting/displaying data for use in the claimed process.
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “by a device” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element(s) of “causing, by the device, digital content to be displayed at a client device of the user based on the information related to the predicted action and the content item” is/are recited at a high level of generality and amount(s) to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying/outputting a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 2:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“communicating, over a network, information related to the predicted action to a provider of the content item”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra- solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional element of “communicating, over a network, information related to the predicted action to a provider of the content item” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra- solution activity of receiving data i.e., pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 3:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 3 recites in part:
“wherein the classifier operates at least one of a one-sided entropy objective, a Shannon entropy objective and a Naive Bayes (NB) entropy objective”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers a mathematical calculation.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 4:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 4 recites in part:
“operating the classifier using a Naive Bayes (NB) entropy objective, the execution of the NB entropy objective causing the user data to be scaled by an order of magnitude, wherein the LR model is applied to the scaled user data”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers a mathematical calculation.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 5:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 5 recites in part:
“determining, based on the execution of the initializer, a cluster of cohort data, wherein the execution of the LR model is based on the cluster of cohort data”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining clusters of data based on an initial classifier.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 6:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein each cluster corresponds to a feature of an interaction”. This additional element is directed to a particular field of use (feature engineering).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional element of “wherein each cluster corresponds to a feature of an interaction” is directed to a particular field of use (feature engineering) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 7:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein the user data is formatted as a feature vector”. This additional element is directed to a particular field of use (feature engineering).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional element of “wherein the user data is formatted as a feature vector” is directed to a particular field of use (feature engineering) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 8:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein the user data comprises a set of pairs of feature vectors and labels”. This additional element is directed to a particular field of use (feature engineering).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional element of “wherein the user data comprises a set of pairs of feature vectors and labels” is directed to a particular field of use (feature engineering) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 9:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“receiving a request for information related to the content item, wherein the identification of the user data is based on the reception of the request”. This additional elements is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra- solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional element of “receiving a request for information related to the content item, wherein the identification of the user data is based on the reception of the request” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra- solution activity of receiving data i.e., pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 10:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein the request corresponds to a determination of analytics of a performance of the content item”. This additional element is directed to a particular field of use (performance analytics).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional element of “wherein the request corresponds to a determination of analytics of a performance of the content item” is directed to a particular field of use (performance analytics) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 11:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein the request corresponds to a content recommendation for the user”. This additional element is directed to a particular field of use (content recommendation).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional element of “wherein the request corresponds to a content recommendation for the user” is directed to a particular field of use (content recommendation) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 12:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“requesting, over the network, third party digital content based information related to the predicted action and the content item”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra- solution activity of receiving data, i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
“as the digital content to be displayed at the client device”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. post-solution activity of outputting/displaying data for use in the claimed process.
“receiving, over the network, the third party digital content”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra- solution activity of receiving data, i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
“communicating, over the network, the third party digital content to the user”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra- solution activity of receiving data, i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements of “requesting, over the network, third party digital content based information related to the predicted action and the content item”, “receiving, over the network, the third party digital content”, and “communicating, over the network, the third party digital content to the user” are recited at a high level of generality and amount to extra- solution activity of receiving data i.e., pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
The additional element(s) of “as the digital content to be displayed at the client device” is/are recited at a high level of generality and amount(s) to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying/outputting a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 13:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 1, Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as presented in the rejection of Claim 1, with the exception of the limitation(s) covered below.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium tangibly encoded with computer-executable instructions, that when executed by a processor associated with a device, performs a method comprising”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (storage and processor) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium tangibly encoded with computer-executable instructions, that when executed by a processor associated with a device, performs a method comprising” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 14:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“communicating, over a network, information related to the predicted action to a provider of the content item”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra- solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional element of “communicating, over a network, information related to the predicted action to a provider of the content item” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra- solution activity of receiving data i.e., pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 15:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 3, Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 16:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 4, Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 17
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 5, Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 18:
Due to claim language similar to that of claims 1 and 13, Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as presented in the rejection of claims 1 and 13.
Regarding Claim 19:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 14, Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 20:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claims 4 and 16, Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claims 4 and 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gharibshah, Zhabiz, and Xingquan Zhu. “User Response Prediction in Online Advertising.” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 54, no. 3, May 2021, pp. 1–43. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1145/3446662. – a comprehensive review of user response prediction in online advertising and related recommender applications
US 20120059707 A1 – a data exchange system generates user and data clusters and provides performance information
Kuang-chih Lee, Burkay Orten, Ali Dasdan, and Wentong Li. 2012. Estimating conversion rate in display advertising from past performance data. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining (KDD '12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 768–776. https://doi.org/10.1145/2339530.2339651 – our approach to conversion rate estimation which relies on utilizing past performance observations along user, publisher and advertiser data hierarchies
US 20180240015 A1 – A knowledge acquisition system and artificial cognitive declarative memory model to store and retrieve massive student learning datasets
WO 2013019307 A1 – A method for making a content recommendation to at least one user
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COREY M SACKALOSKY whose telephone number is (703)756-1590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-3:30pm EST.
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, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached at (571) 272-2589. 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.
/COREY SACKALOSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 2128
/OMAR F FERNANDEZ RIVAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights