DETAILED 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 remarks 3 February 2025 have been fully considered.
The double patenting rejections are withdrawn in light of the filed terminal disclaimer.
Applicant argues that Examiner fails to consider the additional elements as an ordered combination. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The grounds of rejection state “As an ordered combination, the invention merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the mental process of determining content to suggest. MPEP § 2106.05(f).” Obviating user input is using a computer to perform the mental process (as well as mere automation of a mental task, MPEP § 2106.05(a)). Reducing a quantity of user interface inputs is, again, automating the mental process by using the computer to perform the mental process.
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 1-8 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
As per claims 1 and 10:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “identifying electronic content items based on the electronic content items having each been assigned to a particular collection of a user account,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “identifying” in the context of this limitation encompasses a person forming a judgment as to which items have been assigned to which collections. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “determining that a particular candidate purpose, of the corresponding candidate purposes, is an actual purpose for the particular collection, wherein determining that the particular candidate purpose is the actual purpose for the particular collection is based on both: (i) a quantity of occurrences of the particular candidate purpose amongst the electronic content items, and (ii) magnitudes of the corresponding measures for the particular candidate purpose,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this limitation encompasses a person forming a judgment as to which candidate purpose is the actual purpose based on the claimed observable metrics. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “subsequent to and responsive to automatically assigning the title to the particular collection: using the title in selecting a given additional electronic content item, from a corpus of additional content items,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “using” in the context of this limitation encompasses a person forming a judgment that the additional electronic content item is possibly relevant to the collection. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely determining content to suggest. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The abstract idea of determining content to suggest is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “generating, for each of the electronic content items, corresponding candidate purposes and corresponding measures for the electronic content item, wherein generating the corresponding candidate purposes and the corresponding measures, for each of the electronic content items, is based on processing the electronic content item using one or more machine learning models, and wherein each of the corresponding measures defines a corresponding strength of correlation, of one of the corresponding candidate purposes, to a corresponding one of the electronic content items,” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., performing machine learning or relearning) such that it amounts no more than generally linking the abstract idea to the particular field of use or technological environment of machine learning. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claim recites “machine learning” in a result-focused, functional way that covers the use of any type of machine learning. As reflected in the claim, these steps are also akin to using machine learning as a mere tool. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). No specific type of machine learning techniques is recited in the claim itself, and the specification describes this phase of the claim in terms of using generic, preexisting machine learning to perform the operations such that it constitutes mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Notably, the invention as described in the specification also does not disclose any new machine learning techniques nor proclaim to make any improvement in machine learning techniques themselves. Thus, this broad recitation of machine learning in the claim is also not directed to an improvement in computer functionality or the field technology of machine learning.
The additional element, “responsive to determining the particular candidate purpose is the actual purpose for the particular collection: causing to be rendered, in a suggestion portion of a graphical interface and along with rendering of indications of the electronic content items in a saved items portion of the graphical interface, a suggestion that includes a title based on the title corresponding to the particular candidate purpose that includes a selectable confirm option and that lacks any other of the corresponding candidate purposes,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “responsive to selection of the selectable confirm option during rendering of the suggestion: automatically assigning the title to the particular collection,” is mere instruction to perform the mental step of mentally associating a title with a particular collection of items on a computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “causing, to be rendered at a client device associated with the user account, a content suggestion that is for the given additional electronic content item and that is selectable to cause the given additional electronic content item to be added to the particular collection,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the mental process of determining content to suggest. MPEP § 2106.05(f)
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “generating, for each of the electronic content items, corresponding candidate purposes and corresponding measures for the electronic content item, wherein generating the corresponding candidate purposes and the corresponding measures, for each of the electronic content items, is based on processing the electronic content item using one or more machine learning models, and wherein each of the corresponding measures defines a corresponding strength of correlation, of one of the corresponding candidate purposes, to a corresponding one of the electronic content items,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is described, Specification [0045], [0094], in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
The additional element, “responsive to determining the particular candidate purpose is the actual purpose for the particular collection: causing to be rendered, in a suggestion portion of a graphical interface and along with rendering of indications of the electronic content items in a saved items portion of the graphical interface, a suggestion that includes a title based on the title corresponding to the particular candidate purpose that includes a selectable confirm option and that lacks any other of the corresponding candidate purposes,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is collecting a response to presented information that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of using a computer interface to collect collecting user responses to provided offers. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “responsive to selection of the selectable confirm option during rendering of the suggestion: automatically assigning the title to the particular collection,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is storing and retrieving information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “causing, to be rendered at a client device associated with the user account, a content suggestion that is for the given additional electronic content item and that is selectable to cause the given additional electronic content item to be added to the particular collection,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is presenting information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of presenting offers. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of determining content to suggest because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 2 and 11:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “generating a cumulative measure of the magnitudes of the corresponding measures for the particular candidate purpose,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers addition, which is to say, mathematical calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “determining that the particular candidate purpose is the actual purpose based on the cumulative measure,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this limitation encompasses a person forming a judgment that the cumulative measure is subjectively high enough. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely determining content to suggest. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 3 and 12:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “determining an alternative cumulative measure for an alternate candidate purpose of the corresponding candidate purposes, wherein determining the alternative cumulative measure is based on the magnitudes of the corresponding measures for the alternate candidate purpose,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers addition, which is to say, mathematical calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “determining that the particular candidate purpose is the actual purpose based on comparing the cumulative measure to the alternate cumulative measure,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this limitation encompasses a person forming a judgment that the cumulative measure is subjectively high enough. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely determining content to suggest. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 4, 6, 7, 13, and 14:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “determining that the quantity is greater than an alternate quantity of occurrences of an alternate particular candidate purpose, of the corresponding candidate purposes, amongst the electronic content items,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this limitation encompasses a person forming a judgment that a quantity is higher others. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 5, 8 and 15:
The abstract idea of determining content to suggest is not integrated into a practical application.
The claims recite an additional element, “processing the image, using one or more machine learning models, to determine one or more classifications of one or more objects included in the image.” “Processing” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., performing machine learning or relearning) such that it amounts no more than generally linking the abstract idea to the particular field of use or technological environment of machine learning. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claim recites “machine learning” in a result-focused, functional way that covers the use of any type of machine learning. As reflected in the claim, these steps are also akin to using machine learning as a mere tool. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). No specific type of machine learning techniques are recited in the claim itself, and the specification describes this phase of the claim in terms of using generic, preexisting machine learning to perform the operations such that it constitutes mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Notably, the invention as described in the specification also does not disclose any new machine learning techniques nor proclaim to make any improvement in machine learning techniques themselves. Thus, this broad recitation of machine learning in the claim is also not directed to an improvement in computer functionality or the field technology of machine learning.
The claims recite an additional element, “determining the corresponding candidate purposes and the corresponding measures, for the given image, based on a database that stores associations of object classifications to candidate purposes and measures.” “Determining” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer functions of retrieving data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. MPEP § 2106.05(f). As well, this is insignificant extra-solution activity, as it merely specifies a source of data. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the mental process of determining content to suggest. MPEP § 2106.05(f)
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “determining the corresponding candidate purposes and the corresponding measures, for the given image, based on a database that stores associations of object classifications to candidate purposes and measures,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is storing and retrieving information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of determining content to suggest because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art does not teach determining that a particular candidate purpose, of the corresponding candidate purposes, is an actual purpose for the particular collection, wherein determining that the particular candidate purpose is the actual purpose for the particular collection is based on both: (i) a quantity of occurrences of the particular candidate purpose amongst the electronic content items, and (ii) magnitudes of the corresponding measures for the particular candidate purpose.
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 WILLIAM SPIELER whose telephone number is (571)270-3883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11-3.
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, Ann Lo can be reached on 571-272-9767. 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.
WILLIAM SPIELER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2159
/WILLIAM SPIELER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159