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 .
Status of Claims
The office action is being examined in response to the application filed by the applicant on 20 August 2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
This response amends claims 1, 10, and 17.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101 Arguments – Non-Statutory Subject Matter
Applicant’s Remarks, see page 8, filed 8/20/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to non-statutory subject matter have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 101 Arguments – Abstract Idea
Applicant’s Remarks, see pages 8-14, filed 8/20/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On pages 8, the Applicant argues with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 101, Step 2A, Prong 1, and asserts that that the rejection is improper and should be withdrawn due to the inclusion of structural elements. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. This argument is not germane to 35 U.S.C. § 101, where the mere inclusion of the structures in the wording of the rejection is not a defect according to MPEP 2106.07. The claim still recites instructions to implement the function of the abstract idea via the structure elements, e.g. the structure elements are merely the tools used to implement the instructions, adding the words “apply it.”
On pages 9-13 of the arguments, the Applicant argues with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 101, Step 2A, Prong 2. The Applicant asserts that a real-time data store and the write-side and read-side portions of the feature generation system provide advances to the speed of data storage and retrieval from databases, the efficiency and speed of generating activity features for a machine learning model, and that the write-side portion is not recited at a high level of generality as it is specifically designed to collect a data stream and join it with mapped attribute data, thereby setting forth an improvement to the technology or technical field, which do not merely confine the use of the abstract idea to a technological field.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. "Claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea,” while merely utilizing the structure elements as tools, “does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept,” (MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2016.05(f)(2)). Thus, the structural elements are recited with a high level of generality, such that the claims fail to differentiate the functions from being performed by any reasonable implementation of any write-side or read-side portion of any feature generation system utilizing any real-time data store, without identifying succinct metes and bounds that might identify the structures otherwise. Since the additional elements are merely applied to increase the speed and efficiency, they do not improve the function of a computer, or any technology or technical field. The claims generally link the use of the abstract ideas to the particular technological environment,
The Applicant’s argues on page 14 regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101 Step 2B, presenting the previous assertions from steps 2A, Prongs 1 and 2, and the Examiner respectfully disagrees for the same reasons above. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(a), (e), (f), and (h)).
On pages 13 and 14, the Applicants asserts that the claims are patent eligible and respectfully requests that the rejection should be withdrawn. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is maintained. Please find an updated rejection for 35 U.S.C. § 101 below, reflecting the amendments.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 14-15, filed 8/20/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 in claims 1-4, 6, 9-10, and 14-20, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections for claims 1, 11, and 17 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of a newly found prior art reference necessitated by the amended claims.
On page 15, the Applicant asserts that neither of the prior art disclosures of Liu or Bhardwaj, taken alone or in combination, mention joining data from two different sources, nor do they perform the function in the manner claimed, i.e. utilize a write-side portion of a feature generation system to record events into one data store and join those events with attributes from a second data store, where the attributes map entities to events of the stream. Otherwise, the Applicant’s arguments fail to provide any other arguments as to how the prior art fails to distinguish the claims from the references.
Since the write-side and read-side portions of the feature generation system are newly amended claim limitations that were not previously presented, the new 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections for the claims are presented below.
On page 15, the Applicant argues with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the dependent claims. The Applicant asserts that the dependent claims are patentable because they depend directly or indirectly on the independent claims, which the Applicant asserted were Allowable. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant is merely relying on the independent claims and fails to argue much more than a general allegation of patentability without pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguish them from the references. Sans the amended claim language in the Independent and dependent claims, the Applicant’s arguments for the dependent claims fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) for this same reason.
Accordingly, based on arguments the and the detailed analysis above, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection is withdrawn. Please find the updated 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection below to reflect new art for the amended claim language in the independent claims necessitated by claim amendments.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the systems and methods recited by the claims are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Independent Claims
Regarding Claim 1: Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the following function: record events, obtain attributes, join attributes and events, produce event data, receive a request for a feature and a timestamp, determine a data access mechanism, retrieve event data, compute features, input data, and provide computed feature, which are abstract ideas in the category of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” because the claim utilizes the functions above to manipulate user/event/entity/attribute activity data to compute and provide a feature according to the user’s interface activities and drive personal behaviors or relationships, or interactions between people (MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(II)). These functions are also abstract ideas in the category of “mental processes” or “things that can be performed in the human mind,” i.e. historically human tasks.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the following additional computing elements: A system, processor, memory, a first data store, real-time data store, and a second data store. These limitations are recited in the claims and disclosed in the specification at a high level of generality, i.e. they are disclosed as general-purpose computing structures. This amounts to “apply it,” such that the claims are mere instructions to implement abstract ideas on general purpose computing structures.
The claim recites send, receive, retrieve, provide, and input data. The specification does not reveal that the core of the invention is directed to advances in sending, receiving, retrieving, inputting, or providing data. Instead, the specification is focused on the nature and the timing (real-time vs batch processing) of the data being manipulated, i.e., the descriptive nature of the data (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim also recites data characterizations, which are non-functional descriptive information, and carry no patentable weight.
Insofar as the claim recites a computing device that executes an application, the specification discloses the computing device is simply a generic computing structure at a high level of generality. Instructions to apply an abstract idea on a general-purpose structure is not a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claims recite a machine learning model, data access mechanism (database query), feature configuration (computer code), a write-side portion and read-side portion of a feature generation system, a feature computation algorithm, and an interface (software), i.e. software and action-based computer code, recited at a high level of generality. The claims recite the functions in terms of intended uses and intended results, i.e. what the function does and what the function returns, without describing how the system performs the functions, i.e. the claim puts no limitations as to how these steps are performed. A claim that merely recites record a stream of data, obtain mapped attributes, receive a request for data, determine data, retrieve data, compute a feature using the data, and provide the feature to answer the request, does not describe how the system performs the generally recited functions. These receiving, requesting, determining, computing, providing, invoking, sending, and receiving functions are disclosed as instructions executed on a generic computing structure that utilize the general-purpose machine learning models, queries, configurations, or algorithms as tools to implement the abstract ideas, without limitations as to how these functions are performed i.e. adding the words “apply it.” Further, the data generation functions performed by the read and write-side portions are also performed by general purpose structures which does not reveal advances to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)). In fact, the claim only recites the steps to achieve the outcomes. Instructions to generally link a judicial exception to a particular field use is not a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim as a whole, while looking at additional elements individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Step 2B: The analysis above is commensurate with the analysis for Step 2B, such that the same additional elements taken individually and in combination do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
Regarding Claim 10 Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 10 recites: record a user events, obtain mapped attributes, join attributes and events, receive user interface activity, send output request, send request for feature and timestamp, read configuration, determine a data access mechanism, a time window, and an algorithm (matched from the configuration), receive processed event data, compute feature, input event and attribute data, respond to request, provide feature, respond to output request, generate output, input feature, provide output, generate user interface output, respond to user activity, and send interface output, which are abstract ideas in the category of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” more specifically “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” because the claim manipulates user activity features, a task historically provided by humans, i.e. automating advanced statistical analysis, according to the user’s interface activities to drive human interactions(MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(II)). These functions are also abstract ideas in the category of “mental processes” or “things that can be performed in the human mind.” The claim puts no limitations as to how these steps are performed (MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites data structures, i.e. general-purpose data storage or database structure which are not an abstract idea.
The claim also recites the following send and receive functions: record (receive) a user events, obtain mapped attributes, receive user interface activity, send output request, send request for feature and timestamp, receive processed event data, input event and attribute data, respond to request, provide feature, respond to output request, input feature, provide output, generate user interface output, respond to user activity, and send interface output. The specification does not reveal that the core of the invention is directed to advances in sending, receiving, retrieving, or providing data, to advances in accessing databases, the way or speed that data is stored or retrieved from databases, database structures, or advances in or the invention of a database architecture. These limitations are disclosed at a high level of generality. Instead, the specification is focused on the nature and the timing (real-time vs batch processing) of the data being received, requested, retrieved, provided, matched, or computed for the recommender system – i.e., the descriptive nature of the data (MPEP 2106.05(e)). These limitations are not abstract ideas and do not amount to a practical application of an abstract idea.
The claim also recites data characterizations, which are non-functional descriptive information, and carry no patentable weight.
The claim recites the feature configuration, which is one feature configuration of a library of feature configurations that are used to determine the particular algorithms to be executed to generate the features requested by the machine learning model along with the set of inputs needed by the computation algorithms to generate those features. Therefore, this limitation is a both a predefined data container and a characterization of the data container, not an abstract idea, nor limitation that carries patentable weight in the claim. The limitation cannot be relied on to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they (the individual and the library) are non-functional descriptive materials – they do not positively recite any additional functions that limit the claims or the structures of the claims, they are limited by the user activities.
The client device is disclosed as contained in a computing device, which is disclosed a generic computer structure described at a high level of generality. Instructions to apply an abstract idea on a general-purpose structure is not a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim also recites an application system (API), machine learning model, user interface (software), feature generation system (algorithm), write and read side portions of the feature generation system, data access mechanism (executable queries, i.e., algorithm), and feature computation algorithm. i.e. software and action-based computer code, recited at a high level of generality. The claim recites the functions in terms of intended uses and intended results, i.e. what the function does and what the function returns, without describing how the system performs the functions, i.e. the claim puts no limitations as to how these steps are performed. A claim that merely recites record (receive) a user events, obtain mapped attributes, receive user interface activity, send output request, send request for feature and timestamp, receive processed event data, input event and attribute data, respond to request, provide feature, respond to output request, input feature, provide output, generate user interface output, respond to user activity, and send interface output, does not describe how the system performs the generally recited functions. These functions are disclosed as instructions executed, that utilize the general-purpose machine learning models, queries, configurations, or algorithms as tools to implement the abstract ideas, without limitations as to how these functions are performed i.e. adding the words “apply it.” Further, the data generation functions performed by the read and write-side portions are also performed by general purpose structures which does not reveal advances to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)). In fact, the claim only recites the steps to achieve the outcomes. Instructions to generally link a judicial exception to a particular field use is not a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim as a whole, while looking at additional elements individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Step 2B: The analysis above is commensurate with the analysis for Step 2B, such that the same additional elements taken individually and in combination do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
Regarding Claim 17 Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 17 recites: record event, obtain mapped attributes, join attributes and events, produce processed event data, receive output request, send a data and timestamp data, read configuration for feature, determine a data access mechanism, determine a time window, determine an algorithm, i.e. choose a matching algorithm based on the configuration, retrieve processed event data within window, retrieve attributed data for event data, compute the feature, provide feature, respond to request for output, generate an output, and provide the output, all dependent on the particular user interface activities, which are abstract ideas in the category of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” more specifically “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” because the claim manipulates user activity features according to the user’s interface activities to drive human interactions(MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(II)). These functions are also abstract ideas in the category of “mental processes” or “things that can be performed in the human mind,” (MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the real-time data store, which is a general-purpose data storage or database structure and is not an abstract idea.
The claim also recites the following send and receive functions: record (receive) event, obtain attributes, receive output request, send data and timestamp data, retrieve processed event data within window, retrieve attributed data for event data, provide feature, respond to request for output, and provide the output. The specification does not disclose that the core of the invention is directed to advances in sending, receiving, retrieving or providing data, to advances in accessing databases, the way or speed that data is generated, stored, or retrieved in association with databases (since the system utilizes commercially available systems as disclosed in the claim 1 analysis for the read and write-side portions), database structures, or advances in or the invention of a database architecture. These limitations are disclosed at a high level of generality without limitations as to how these steps are performed. Instead, the specification is focused on the nature (i.e. manipulating data like attributes mapped to entities in the event stream and the user interface events in a stream), and the timing (real-time vs batch processing) of the data being received, requested, retrieved, provided, matched, or computed for the recommender system – i.e., the descriptive nature of the data (MPEP 2106.05(e)). These limitations are not abstract ideas and do not amount to a practical application of an abstract idea.
The claim also recites data characterizations, which are non-functional descriptive information, and carry no patentable weight.
The claim recites the feature configuration, which is one feature configuration of a library of feature configurations that are used to determine the particular algorithms to be executed to generate the features requested by the machine learning model along with the set of inputs needed by the computation algorithms to generate those features. Therefore, this limitation is a both a predefined data container and a characterization of the data container, not an abstract idea, nor limitation that carries patentable weight in the claim. The limitation cannot be relied on to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they (the individual and the library) are non-functional descriptive materials – they do not positively recite any additional functions that limit the claims or the structures of the claims, they are limited by the user activities.
The client device and data stores are general purpose computing structures disclosed at a high level of generality. Instructions to apply an abstract idea on a general-purpose computing structure is not a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim also recites an application system (API), machine learning model, user interface (software), feature generation system, data access mechanism (executable queries, i.e., algorithm), read and write-side of a feature generation system, and feature computation algorithm, where these limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are not abstract ideas. These software functions are disclosed as generic software, API’s, machine learning models, user interface software, executable queries, or algorithms. The claim recites the functions in terms of intended uses and intended results, i.e. what the function does and what the function returns, without describing how the system performs the functions, i.e. the claim puts no limitations as to how these steps are performed. A claim that merely recites record event, obtain mapped attributes, join attributes and events, produce processed event data, receive output request, send a data and timestamp data, read configuration for feature, determine a data access mechanism, determine a time window, determine an algorithm, i.e. choose a matching algorithm based on the configuration, retrieve processed event data within window, retrieve attributed data for event data, compute the feature, provide feature, respond to request for output, generate an output, and provide the output, does not describe how the system performs the generally recited functions. These functions are disclosed as instructions executed on a generic computing structure that utilize the general-purpose machine learning models, queries, configurations, or algorithms as tools to implement the abstract ideas, without limitations as to how these functions are performed i.e. adding the words “apply it.” Further, the data generation functions performed by the read and write-side portions are also performed by general purpose structures which does not reveal advances to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
These types of limitations merely confine the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fail to add an inventive concept to the claim (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim as a whole, while looking at additional elements individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Step 2B: The analysis above is commensurate with the analysis for Step 2B, such that the same additional elements taken individually and in combination do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
Dependent Claims
Regarding Claim 2: Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 2 recites: compute a user activity feature, perform a data aggregation, filtering, and a grouping function, all abstract ideas in the category of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” more specifically “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” because the claim manipulates user activity features, tasks historically performed by humans using advance statistical analysis, according to the user’s interface activities, to drive human interactions(MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(II)) . All of which are also abstract ideas in the category of “mental processes” or “things that can be performed in the human mind,” since these functions are simply matching data types, or providing data that could be performed by hand or that can be done in the mind. The claim puts no limitations as to how these steps are performed, and the application system is merely a tool used to perform the otherwise mental processes (MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim also recites data characterizations, which are non-functional descriptive information, and carry no patentable weight.
The computing device is disclosed as a generic computing structure disclosed with a high level of generality. Instructions to apply an abstract idea on a general-purpose computing structure is not a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The specification does not reveal that the core of the invention is directed to advances in data sorting, aggregation, filtering, grouping, or matching techniques, data storage techniques, data providing techniques, proximity or proximity settings or related techniques, data structures, or improvements to the characterization of data. In fact, the claims only recite the steps to achieve the outcomes, without describing how the system performs the functions. Instructions to generally link a judicial exception to a particular field use is not a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim as a whole, while looking at additional elements individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Step 2B: The analysis above is commensurate with the analysis for Step 2B, such that the same additional elements taken individually and in combination do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
Regarding Claims 3 Step 2A Prong 1: claim 3 recites: compute a sum, a count, an average, a date comparison, and a probability distribution of a user activity feature, all abstract ideas in the category of “mathematical concepts”, more specifically, “mathematical relationships” and “mathematical calculations” because the claim mathematically transmute the data into the display output (MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(I)). The claim recitations above and the following recitations: perform an aggregation, and compute an average pooling and a histogram, are abstract ideas in the category of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” more specifically “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” because the claim utilizes the functions above to perform tasks historically performed by humans, to manipulate user activity features according to the user’s interface activities and drive personal behaviors or relationships, or interactions between people (MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(II)). These functions are also abstract ideas in the category of “mental processes” or “things that can be performed in the human mind.” The claim puts no limitations as to how these steps are performed. The system is merely a tool used to perform the otherwise mental processes (MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim also recites data characterizations, which are non-functional descriptive information, and carry no patentable weight.
The system is disclosed as a general-purpose computing structure with a high level of generality. Instructions to apply an abstract idea on a general-purpose structure is not a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The specification does not reveal that the core of the invention is directed to advances in data sorting, aggregating, computing, summing, counting, averaging, comparing, average pooling, or matching techniques, histogram or probability distribution techniques, data storage techniques, data providing techniques, data structures, or improvements to the characterization of data. In fact, the claims only recite the steps to achieve the outcomes, without describing how the system performs the functions. Instructions to generally link a judicial exception to a particular field use is not a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim as a whole, while looking at additional elements individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Step 2B: The analysis above is commensurate with the analysis for Step 2B, such that the same additional elements taken individually and in combination do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
Regarding Claim 4 Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 4 recites: obtain instances of event data and query to find matches to the user activities, which are abstract ideas in the category of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” more specifically “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” because the claim manipulates user activity features according to the user’s interface activities to drive human interactions (MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(II)). These are also an abstract idea in the category of “mental processes” or “things that can be performed in the human mind.” The claim puts no limitations as to how these steps are performed, where the computing device and network-based service are merely tools used to perform the otherwise mental processes (MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim also recites data characterizations, which are non-functional descriptive information, and carry no patentable weight.
The system is disclosed as a general-purpose computing structure with a high level of generality. Instructions to apply an abstract idea on a general-purpose structure is not a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The specification does not reveal that the core of the invention is directed to advances in data sorting, aggregating, querying, sending, receiving, obtaining, or matching techniques, data storage techniques, data providing techniques, data structures, or improvements to the characterization of data. In fact, the claims only recite the steps to achieve the outcome described at a high level of generality without placing any limitations to how the application functions. This type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment without a practical application (an application to obtain data via a query) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. In fact, the claims only recite the steps to achieve the outcomes, without describing how the system performs the functions. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim as a whole, while looking at additional elements individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Step 2B: The analysis above is commensurate with the analysis for Step 2B, such that the same additional elements taken individually and in combination do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
Regarding Claim 5 Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 5 recites: the real-time data store, which is a general data structure, is not an abstract idea and cannot be relied upon to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Additionally, claim 5 recites the data store is arranged according to a schema, which is a data store characterization, thus is non-functional descriptive information, is not an abstract idea, and carries no patentable weight. Lastly, claim 5 recites a feature type associated with the request that defines the data store from a library of data stores that are utilized for each feature type, which is also a data store characterization linked to the input, is not an abstract idea, carries no patentable weight and cannot be relied upon to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. There are no further limitations, functions, or elements that can be relied on to integrate the judicial exceptions into practical applications.
Regarding Claim 6 Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 6 recites: obtain the attribute data and perform a sequential lookup according to the entity identifier, which are abstract ideas in the category of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” more specifically “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” because the claim manipulates user activity features according to the user’s interface activities to drive human interactions (MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(II)). All of which are also abstract ideas in the category of “mental processes” or “things that can be performed in the human mind,” since these functions are simply matching data types, or providing data that could be performed by hand or that can be done in the mind. The claim puts no limitations as to how these steps are performed, and the application system is merely a tool used to perform the otherwise mental processes (MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim also recites data characterizations, which are non-functional descriptive information, and carry no patentable weight.
The system is disclosed as a general-purpose computing structure with a high level of generality. Instructions to apply an abstract idea on a general-purpose structure is not a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The specification does not reveal that the core of the invention is directed to advances in data lookup, obtaining data or data matching techniques, data storage techniques, data providing techniques, data structures, or improvements to the characterization of data. In fact, the claims only recite the steps to achieve the outcome described at a high level of generality without placing any limitations to how the application functions. This type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment without a practical application (an application to obtain data via a query) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. In fact, the claims only recite the steps to achieve the outcomes, without describing how the system performs the functions. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim as a whole, while looking at additional elements individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Step 2B: The analysis above is commensurate with the analysis for Step 2B, such that the same additional elements taken individually and in combination do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exceptions
Regarding Claim 7: Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 7 recites: define a maximum value of a time window as N days prior to and including a day of the request timestamp, define N to be a positive integer, which are abstract ideas in the category of “mathematical concepts”, more specifically “mathematical relationships,” “mathematical formulas or equations,” and “mathematical calculations” or relationships (MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(I)). These are also abstract ideas in the category of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” more specifically “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” because the claim manipulates user activity features according to the user’s interface activity to drive human interactions (MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(II)). These are also abstract ideas in the category of “mental processes” or “things that can be performed in the human mind,” because these functions could be performed by hand using mathematical calculations can be done in the mind, and the claim puts no limitations as to how these steps are performed, where the computing device and network-based service are merely tools used to perform the otherwise mental processes (MPEP 2016.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim also recites data characterizations, which are non-functional descriptive information, and carry no patentable weight.
The system is disclosed as a general-purpose computing structure with a high level of generality. Instructions to apply an abstract idea on a general-purpose structure is not a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The specification does not reveal that the core of the invention is directed to advances in data defining, mathematical techniques, data storage techniques, data providing techniques, data structures, or improvements to the characterization of data. In fact, the claims only recite the steps to achieve the outcomes, without describing how the system performs the functions. Instructions to generally link a judicial exception to a particular field use is not a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(h)). There are no further limitations, functions, or elements that can be relied on to integrate the judicial exceptions into practical applications. The claim as a whole, while looking at additional elements individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Step 2B: The analysis above is commensurate with the analysis for Step 2B, such that the same additional elements taken individually and in combination do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
Regarding Claims 8 Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 8 recites: compute a difference between the timestamps to be less than 100 milliseconds, which is an abstract idea in the category of “mathematical concepts”, more specifically, “mathematical relationships,” “mathematical formulas and equations,” and “mathematical calculations” or relationships because the claim mathematically puts a limit on the calculated timestamps between the request and the user activity feature (MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(I)). These are also an abstract idea in the category of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” more specifically “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” because the claim manipulates user activity features according to the user’s interface activities to drive human interactions (MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(II)). Lastly, this is also an abstract idea in the category of “mental processes” or “things that can be performed in the human mind,” where assigning data value limits when calculating the timestamp differences data can be done in the mind (MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim also recites data characterizations, which are non-functional descriptive information, and carry no patentable weight.
The system is disclosed as a general-purpose computing structure with a high level of generality. Instructions to apply an abstract idea on a general-purpose structure is not a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The specification does not reveal that the core of the invention is directed to advances in data defining, mathematical techniques, data storage techniques, data providing techniques, data structures, or improvements to the characterization of data. In fact, the claims only recite the steps to achieve the outcomes, without describing how the system performs the functions. Instructions to generally link a judicial exception to a particular field use is not a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim as a whole, while looking at additional elements individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Step 2B: The analysis above is commensurate with the analysis for Step 2B, such that the same additional elements taken individually and in combination do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
Regarding Claims 9 Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 9 recites: the real-time data store, which is a general data structure, is not an abstract idea and cannot be relied upon to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Additionally, claim 9 recites the location of the real-time data store’s, which is merely a URL or path that a query travels to in order to get data, a data pointer comprised in the data access mechanism, within the query, therefore, it is a characterization of the query, and is not an abstract idea. Lastly, claim 9 recites a that the query is formatted so that it can be executed against the real-time data store. This formatting is also a characterization of the query based on the format of the real-time data store, and is not an abstract idea. Query characterizations carry no patentable weight and cannot be relied upon to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. There are no further limitations, functions, or elements that can be relied on to integrate the judicial exceptions into practical applications.
Regarding Claims 11-16: Step 2A Prong 1: These claims each recite: use model output, driven by particular event data input, to configure various recommendations for output to the user’s interface, which are abstract ideas in the category of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” more specifically “managing personal behavior, relationships, or interactions between people” because the claim utilizes the function to manipulate user activity features according to the user’s interface activities to drive human interactions(MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(II)). Thes are also abstract ideas in the category of “mental processes” or “things that can be performed in the human mind,” since these functions are simply matching data types, or providing data that could be performed by hand or that can be done in the mind. The claim puts no limitations as to how these steps are performed, and the application system is merely a tool used to perform the otherwise mental processes (MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim also recites data characterizations, which are non-functional descriptive information, and carry no patentable weight.
The specification does not reveal that the core of the invention is directed to advances in data gathering, API’s, machine learning model architecture, configuring algorithms, algorithm architecture, data storage techniques, data providing techniques, data structures, or improvements to the characterization of data. In fact, the claims only recite the steps to achieve the outcomes, without describing how the system performs the functions. Instructions to generally link a judicial exception to a particular field of use is not a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(h)). There are no other claim limitations that can be relied on to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. The claim as a whole, while looking at additional elements individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Step 2B: The analysis above is commensurate with the analysis for Step 2B, such that the same additional elements taken individually and in combination do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
Regarding Claims 18-20: Step 2A Prong 1: The claims recite: compute the requested user activity feature for particular event data that matches a particular identifier or attribute associated with particular interface activities, which are abstract ideas in the category of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” more specifically “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” because the claim to manipulates user activity features according to the user’s activities to drive human interactions(MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(II)). All of which are also abstract ideas in the category of “mental processes” or “things that can be performed in the human mind.” The claim puts no limitations as to how these steps are performed, and the application system is merely a tool used to perform the otherwise mental processes (MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim also recites data characterizations, which are non-functional descriptive information, and carry no patentable weight.
The specification does not reveal that the core of the invention is directed to advances in data gathering, API’s, machine learning model architecture, configuring algorithms, algorithm architecture, data storage techniques, data providing techniques, data structures, or improvements to the characterization of data. In fact, the claims only recite the steps to achieve the outcomes, without describing how the system performs the functions. Instructions to generally link a judicial exception to a particular field of use is not a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(h)). There are no other claim limitations that can be relied on to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. The claim as a whole, while looking at additional elements individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Step 2B: The analysis above is commensurate with the analysis for Step 2B, such that the same additional elements taken individually and in combination do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9-10, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, US20150006295A1, in view of Bhardwaj, US20210035046A1, and in further view of LaBorde, US10043591B1.
Regarding Claim 1: Liu discloses: A system comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, wherein the memory comprises instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to: [0102] (a computer system with a processor), [0103] (a memory), [0116] (instructions comprised in memory are executed to cause the processor to perform);
by a feature generation system, record a stream of user interface events into a first data store, wherein the first data store comprises a real-time data store; [0050-0051] (data pipeline to collect raw tracking data from user behaviors and interactions, i.e. record a stream of user interface events), [0105-0106] (obtain user interaction data), [0105] (stores events in memory 924, i.e. a first data store), [0020] “the recommendations are computed and applied in real-time,” (such that recommendations computed and applied in real-time must imply real-time data storage);
obtain, attributes that map to entities identified in particular events of the stream; [0109] (obtain attributes), [0108] (attributes map to user interface events);
join the attributes with corresponding events in the stream to produce processed event data; [0051] (raw tracking data), [0020] (tracking data is joined with attributed data), [0053] (information is used to provide features);
a machine learning model; [0107 and 0111] (Machine learning model)
receive a user activity feature, [0107 and 0111] (Machine learning model receives user activity features associated with user activities and user attributes);
using a feature configuration associated with the requested user activity feature determine a data access mechanism, a time window determined based on the request timestamp, and a feature computation algorithm; [0062] (data is accessed according to user’s activities associated with interest segments and categorical content, i.e. the configuration of the features), [0059] ”time window,” and [0108] (different machine learning models containing feature appropriate algorithmic calculations for different feature configurations);
using the data access mechanism, retrieve, from the processed event data, a plurality of instances of event data that each comprise: a user identifier, an event identifier associated with the user identifier, an entity identifier associated with the event identifier, and attribute data associated with the instance of event data; [0050] (data pipeline to collect dynamic actions), [0053] (plurality of instances of event data), [0059] (data collected according to “time windows”), [0020] “the recommendations are computed and applied in real-time,” [0079] (retrieve features, i.e. processed event data);
compute the requested user activity feature using the retrieved plurality of instances of event data and the retrieved attribute data as inputs to the feature computation algorithm; and [0053]
responsive to the request, provide the computed user activity feature to the machine learning model; [0053-0054]
Where Liu does not disclose, Bhardwaj teaches:
from a second data store; [0054