DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the filing of 11-26-2025. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-14, 17-19 and 22 are pending and have been considered below:
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 1-4, 6-8, 10-14, 17-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-14, 17-19 and 22 represent method, system and medium type claims. Therefore claims 1-14 and 17-22 are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 22:
2A Prong 1:
obtaining a first input comprising a plurality of training example sets that each include, for a set of items, one or more feature values that represent features of a context in which each item in the set of items were recommended and, for each item, an outcome label that represents whether the item had a positive outcome;
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion-user provide/collect data with label).
wherein training the distilled machine learning model comprises: determining item-wise score differences between training examples within a same training example set,
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion-user can determine loss value between models).
and minimizing a loss corresponding to the item-wise score differences, wherein determining the item-wise score differences comprises: for each second item in a list of items in the same training example set where a first item is different from the second item: determining a first difference between a first teacher model score for the first item and a second teacher model score for the second item, determining a second difference between a first distilled model score for the first item and a second distilled model score for the second item, and determining an individual loss value based on the first difference and the second difference, and determining a list-wise loss value based on the individual loss values.
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion-user can determine loss value between models).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
one or more processors; and one or more storage devices storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause one or more processors to perform operations (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
non-transitory computer readable storage medium carrying instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
training, using the first input, a first machine learning model that is configured to generate a set of scores for each training example set, wherein the set of scores for each training example set comprises, for each item in the training example set, a training score that represents whether the item will have a positive outcome when presented in the context of the training example set and with each other item in the example set; and training, using the set of scores for each example set, a distilled machine learning model that is configured to generate, for each item in an actual set of items, a distilled score that represents: (i) whether the item will have a positive outcome when presented in a given context and with each other item in the actual set of items, and (ii) the ranking of the item in the actual set of items, wherein a positive outcome for an item indicates that a particular action occurs with respect to the item when the item is provided to a device as a recommendation.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
one or more processors; and one or more storage devices storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause one or more processors to perform operations (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
non-transitory computer readable storage medium carrying instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
training, using the first input, a first machine learning model that is configured to generate a set of scores for each training example set, wherein the set of scores for each training example set comprises, for each item in the training example set, a training score that represents whether the item will have a positive outcome when presented in the context of the training example set and with each other item in the example set; and training, using the set of scores for each example set, a distilled machine learning model that is configured to generate, for each item in an actual set of items, a distilled score that represents: (i) whether the item will have a positive outcome when presented in a given context and with each other item in the actual set of items, and (ii) the ranking of the item in the actual set of items, wherein a positive outcome for an item indicates that a particular action occurs with respect to the item when the item is provided to a device as a recommendation.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claims 2 and 17:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
where each item comprises a digital component.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
where each item comprises a digital component.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claims 3 and 18:
2A Prong 1:
determining, by the recommendation system, digital components to provide to client devices in response to requests received from the client devices;
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion-user select items to recommend).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
providing, by a training system, the distilled machine learning model to a recommendation system that distributes digital components; and providing, by the recommendation system, the determined digital components to the client devices.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
providing, by a training system, the distilled model to a recommendation system that distributes digital components; and providing, by the recommendation system, the determined digital components to the client devices.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claims 4 and 19:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
for each item of the plurality of training example sets: (i) a true label corresponding to the outcome label for the item; (ii) a comparison between a distilled model score for the item with a teacher model score for the item; and (iii) a comparison between a ranking of the item among the items of the plurality of training example sets with the true label for each item; and item-wise score differences between training examples within a same training example set.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
for each item of the plurality of training example sets: (i) a true label corresponding to the outcome label for the item; (ii) a comparison between a distilled model score for the item with a teacher model score for the item; and (iii) a comparison between a ranking of the item among the items of the plurality of training example sets with the true label for each item; and item-wise score differences between training examples within a same training example set.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 6:
2A Prong 1:
for each pair of items in the same training example set: determining a first difference between a first teacher model score for a first item of the pair of items and a second teacher model score for a second item of the pair of items;
determining a second difference between a first distilled model score for the first item and a second distilled model score for the second item of the pair of items;
determining, as the item-wise score difference for the pair of items, a difference between the first difference and the second difference.
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion-user can determine score difference).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
No Additional elements:
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
No Additional elements:
Regarding claim 7:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
wherein the list-wise loss value is an L2 loss.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the list-wise loss value is an L2 loss.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 8:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
wherein training the distilled machine learning model comprises reducing an aggregate of the item-wise score differences for each training example set.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein training the distilled machine learning model comprises reducing an aggregate of the item-wise score differences for each training example set.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
No Additional elements:
Regarding claim 10:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
wherein training the distilled machine learning model comprises reducing an aggregate of the list-wise loss values for each training example set.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein training the distilled machine learning model comprises reducing an aggregate of the list-wise loss values for each training example set.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 11:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
wherein each item-wise score difference is a pairwise score difference or a listwise score difference.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein each item-wise score difference is a pairwise score difference or a listwise score difference.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 12:
2A Prong 1:
wherein training the distilled machine learning model comprises computing, as a loss function, a summing, across all items of the plurality of training example sets, a square of a difference between losses computed for the item.
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mathematical concepts (concepts providing mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
No Additional elements:
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
No Additional elements:
Regarding claim 13:
2A Prong 1:
determining a loss function, based on, for each item of the plurality of training example sets, a comparison between an outcome for the item predicted by the distilled machine learning model and an actual outcome for the item represented by the outcome label for the item.
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion-user can make comparison).
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mathematical concepts (concepts providing mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
No Additional elements:
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
No Additional elements:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, regarding the 103 the rejection has been withdrawn. However regarding the 101 analysis, the limitations incorporate additional mental steps (i.e. determining loss) and therefore do not overcome the 101.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
In the interests of compact prosecution, Applicant is invited to contact the examiner via electronic media pursuant to USPTO policy outlined MPEP § 502.03. All electronic communication must be authorized in writing. Applicant may wish to file an Internet Communications Authorization Form PTO/SB/439. Applicant may wish to request an interview using the Interview Practice website: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
Applicant is reminded Internet e-mail may not be used for communication for matters under 35 U.S.C. § 132 or which otherwise require a signature. A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by Applicant to the USPTO via Internet e-mail. If such a reply is submitted by Applicant via Internet e-mail, a paper copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERROD KEATON whose telephone number is 571-270-1697. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 5:00pm.
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 MICHELLE BECHTOLD can be reached at 571-431-0762. 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.
/SHERROD L KEATON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2148
3-4-2026