Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-27 and 29-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 21-27 and 29-42 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 21-27 and 29-42 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), without a practical application and without providing significantly more.
Regarding Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.03, Claims 21-27 and 41-42 are directed to a method (i.e., process), Claims 29-33 are directed to a system (i.e., apparatus/machine), Claims 34-40 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., product); accordingly, all claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Regarding Step 2A-Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.04, Claims 1, 29, and 34 are directed specifically to the abstract idea of discovering precursors associated with a current user interaction event by receiving interaction information corresponding to items viewed by a user; determining, by a model, a plurality of similarities between the interaction information corresponding to a new item selected by the user and prior user interactions, the model being trained to predict one or more importance weights based on prior user interactions within a training window; determining, by the model, a plurality of importance weights associated with the prior user interactions and a previous user profile vector, the previous user profile vector including a time decay factor; generating at least one prediction/importance matrix based on the plurality of similarities and the plurality of importance weights; identifying one or more precursors for the new item selected by the user based on the prediction/importance matrix and the prior user interactions; tracking future interactions of the user with the new item to determine a current interaction matrix; and updating the model based on the tracked future interaction of the user and an updated training window, the updated training window based at least on the tracked future interactions of the user, for minimizing errors between the current interaction matrix and the prediction matrix; which include mental processes (i.e., evaluating and analyzing user interaction information for a judgement and opinion for identifying precursors associated with a current user interaction event) and certain methods of organizing human activities based on commercial and legal interactions, and managing personal behavior and interactions between people (marketing/advertising, sales activities, business relations and following rules and instructions for discovering precursors associated with a current user interaction event). Claims 22-27, 30-33 and 35-42 are directed to performing the abstract idea of claim 21, 29 or 34 with further details provided for the mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity for similar reasons as provided above for claim 21, 29 or 34. After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Step 2A-Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05, while the claims 21-27 and 29-42 recite additional elements which are hardware or software elements, such as a computer, machine learning, system comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform a method, non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform a method, the future interactions comprising one or more click actions made by a user device, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instructions of the abstract idea, and mere instructions to apply/implement/automate an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Alternatively, for claims 21-27 and 29-42, receiving… step is insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide a practical application for the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.05, while the claims 21-27 and 29-42 recite additional elements which are hardware or software elements, such as a computer, machine learning, system comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform a method, non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform a method, the future interactions comprising one or more click actions made by a user device, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instructions of the abstract idea, and mere instructions to apply/implement/automate an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Alternatively, for claims 21-27 and 29-42, receiving… step is insignificant extra-solution activity and is well-understood routine and conventional, which do not provide a practical application for the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(g) & (d)).
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 21-27 and 29-42 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, the claims are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered and would not overcome all of the rejections in the most recent Office action. Details are provided below.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicants argued that the claims provide practical application and/or significantly more. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that the amended claims provide a solution and beyond well-understood. On the contrary, the claimed invention at most provides an improved abstract idea. The additional elements as stated in the rejection section above merely applies the abstract idea in and/or generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103:
Rejections under this section have been withdrawn. Closest prior art to the invention includes Bates et al. (US 20110010307), Gutnik et al. (US 20190205999 A1), Shin et al. (Tumblr Blog Recommendation with Boosted Inductive Matrix Completion), Lamontagne et al. (Learning Case Feature Weights from Relevance and Ranking Feedback), and Kenedy (US 20100169340). Non of the prior arts alone or in combination teaches the claimed invention, wherein the novelty is combination of all limitations.
Conclusion
Additional prior art not relied upon includes:
Bucak (US 2012/0030020), Bruckhaus (US 8417715), Krishnamurthy (US 10699321), Chen (US 20160321684), Kalai (US 9082086), Takahashi (US 20170300985), Greystoke (US 20150012467).
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 MEHMET YESILDAG whose telephone number is (571)272-3257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights