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 .
Claims 1-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 – 101 Analysis:
Claim 1 is directed to a method which generates candidate content using topic phrases as input , along with text and image content generation.
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 1 recites the following Abstract idea limitations (of which bolded limitations constitute a ‘mental process’ that covers performance of the limitations in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion).
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, at a computing device, one or more topic phrases;
generating with at least two generative systems image content and text content based on the topic phrases, wherein a first generative system generates the image content and a second generative system generates the text content, wherein the at least two generative systems comprise generative adversarial networks running on the computing device;
generating additional topic phrases with an auto-summarization system based on the image content generated by the first generative system, wherein the auto-summarization system comprises a neural network running on the computing device
generating with the at least two generative systems additional image content and additional text content based on the additional topic phrases, wherein the first generative system generates the additional image content and the second generative system generates the additional text content; and
generating with a third generative system items of candidate content based on the image content, additional image content, text content, and additional text content, wherein each of the items of candidate content comprises at least one image from either the image content or the additional image content and text from either the text content or the additional text content, wherein the third generative system comprises a generative adversarial network running on the computing device; selecting, by a content management system, one of the items of candidate content to be displayed to a user on a webpage, and displaying, by the content management system, the selected one of the items of candidate content to the user on the webpage at a time based on a predicted interest level of the user in an event associated with the one of the items of candidate content.
More specifically, a person can 1) assess/evaluate topic phrases and make a judgment as to corresponding image content and text content, 2) evaluate the image content and make a judgement of corresponding additional topic phrases, 3) evaluate/assess the additional topic phrases and make a judgement on corresponding additional image content and additional text content, 4) evaluate image content, additional image content, text content and additional text content and make a judgement of corresponding candidate content, 5) assess the items of candidate content that are intended for display to a user on a webpage and make a judgment to select one of the items of candidate content based on the assessment.
101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong Two
With regards to the additional elements of :
“ receiving, at a computing device, one or more topic phrases”, these additional element(s) merely apply the judicial exception to be implemented using a computer as a tool to implement an abstract idea. Furthermore, the elements also add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception (Data Gathering for receiving and presenting activities). The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate into a judicial exception into a practical application.
generating with at least two generative systems “… wherein a first generative system generates … and a second generative system generates …; generating additional … with an auto-summarization system … generated by the first generative system; generating with the at least two generative systems … wherein the first generative system generates … , …. Generating with a third generative system, … by a content management system …”, these additional element(s) merely apply the judicial exception to be implemented using a computer as a tool to implement an abstract idea. Furthermore, the elements also add insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception , which include Data Gathering for presenting activities and activities of Selecting a particular data source and/or type of data to be manipulated. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate into a judicial exception into a practical application.
‘ … wherein the at least two generative systems comprise generative adversarial networks running on the computing device …’ , ‘… wherein the auto-summarization system comprises a neural network running on the computing device …’, ‘… wherein the third generative system comprises a generative adversarial network running on the computing device …, these additional elements link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (computing device(s) and generative networks) or field of use in a general manner and also recited at a high level of generality to is essentially encompassing ‘apply it’ with the judicial exception (which the courts have identified as insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application).
“… displaying, by the content management system, the selected one of the items ….” , these additional elements encompass adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception (Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate into a judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B
With regards to the additional elements of :
“ receiving, at a computing device, one or more topic phrases”, these additional element(s) merely apply the judicial exception to be implemented using a computer as a tool to implement an abstract idea. Furthermore, the elements also add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception (Data Gathering for receiving and presenting activities). The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a judicial exception ( see Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 and CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
generating with at least two generative systems “… wherein a first generative system generates … and a second generative system generates …; generating additional … with an auto-summarization system … generated by the first generative system; generating with the at least two generative systems … wherein the first generative system generates … , …. Generating with a third generative system, … by a content management system …”, these additional element(s) merely apply the judicial exception to be implemented using a computer as a tool to implement an abstract idea. Furthermore, the elements also add insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception , which include Data Gathering for presenting activities and activities of Selecting a particular data source and/or type of data to be manipulated. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a judicial exception ( see Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 and CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
“… displaying, by the content management system, the selected one of the items ….” , these additional elements encompass adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception (Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a judicial exception.
The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and thus is not eligible
Claim 2 analysis:
Claim 2 does not resolve the statutory deficiencies of claim 1 as it further recites a mental process for “wherein the topic phrases are based on predictions of user interest”. The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application and also do not recite any additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3 analysis:
Claim 3 does not resolve the statutory deficiencies of claim 1 as it further recites an additional element of “displaying the one of the items of candidate content to a user on a website or an application running on a user computing device” , which is a type of limitation that is an insignificant extra solution activity for selecting data/items and/or application to display/present (data selection). Adding Insignificant extra solution activities to a Judicial exception are identified by the courts as insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Additionally, the courts have identified adding insignificant extra solution activities to a judicial exception as insufficient to qualify as significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4 Analysis
Claim 4 does not resolve the statutory deficiencies of claim 1. It recites an of “the items of candidate content further comprise a layout … , wherein the layout identifies the location of the text in the candidate content”, which is a mental process (a person can evaluate a location of the text and make a judgment as to corresponding items of candidate content). It further recites an additional element of “generated by the third generative system”, which is merely ‘applying’ the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and also an insignificant extra solution activity for data selection (presenting data). The courts have identified this type of limitation as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Additionally, the courts have found adding the words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and adding insignificant extra solution activity (data selection), as insufficient to be significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5 Analysis
Claim 5 does not resolve the statutory deficiencies of claim 1. It recites “determining one or more keywords based on the topic phrases; receiving one or more items of existing image content based on the keywords; generating by the auto-summarization system further additional topic phrases based on the existing image content; generating with the at least two generative systems further additional image content and further additional text the additional based on the further additional topic phrases; and generating with a third generative system additional items of candidate content based on the image content, additional image content, further additional image content, text content, additional text content, and further additional text content”. More specifically, the bolded are considered abstract ideas (mental process). The additional elements: “receiving …”, “generating by the auto-summarization system”, “generating with the at least two generative systems …”, “generating with a third generative system …”. these additional element(s) merely apply the judicial exception to be implemented using a computer as a tool to implement an abstract idea. Furthermore, the elements also add insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception , which include Data Gathering for presenting activities and activities of Selecting a particular data source and/or type of data to be manipulated. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate into a judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, these additional elements amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer (the computer also used as a tool) to perform/implement the abstract idea and also are insignificant extra solution activity (data gathering) in conjunction with the abstract idea. Such limitations /elements have been found by the courts to be insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
Claim 6 Analysis
Claim 6 does not resolve the statutory deficiencies of claim 1 as it further recites a mental process for “determining the one or more keywords based on the topic phrases further comprises searching the topic phrases in one or more databases”. The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application and also do not recite any additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7 Analysis
Claim 7 does not resolve the statutory deficiencies of claim 1 as it further recites the following as a mental process (emphasized as bolded) “wherein receiving the one or more items of existing image content based on the keywords further comprising searching the keywords in one or more image databases”. As explained in the rejection of claim 1, the limitations of “wherein receiving the one or more items of existing image content based on the keywords” were already explained to insufficient to integrate into a judicial exception into a practical application and also do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Claim 8 Analysis
With regards to claim 8, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1. It is noted that the claim does additionally recite (with respect to claim 1), ‘one or more storage devices’ and ‘a processor’; however these additional elements ”, these additional element(s) merely apply the judicial exception to be implemented using a computer as a tool to implement an abstract idea. Accordingly . The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate into a judicial exception into a practical application and also insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a judicial exception ( see Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Analysis of Claims 9-20:
With regards to claim 9, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 2 above.
With regards to claim 10, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 3 above.
With regards to claim 11, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 4 above.
With regards to claim 12, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 5 above.
With regards to claim 13, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 6 above.
With regards to claim 14, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 7 above.
With regards to claim 15, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 8 above.
With regards to claim 16, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 9 above.
With regards to claim 17, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 10 above.
With regards to claim 18, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 11 above.
With regards to claim 19, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 12 above.
With regards to claim 20, it recites limitations of claim 13 and claim 14 above, and thus is rejected under similar rationale as claims 13 and 14 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the independent claims, the applicant argues the features of … “… running of generative adversarial networks to generate text and images, and the selecting and displaying content to a user on a web page a time based on predicted level of user interest in an event associated with the content are not practically performed in the human mind”. In view of these remarks, the examiner respectfully notes that the aspect of ‘selecting’ can be performed in the human mind (as explained in the rejection(s) above, the user can make a judgement to identify/select content for the intent of display. With regards to the running of adversarial networks and the display aspects, those limitations are not mapped to being performed in the mind in the rejection(s) above, and rather they were mapped to additional elements that either generally link (and ‘apply’) the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (computers and generative network(s)) as well as add insignificant extra solution activity for displaying content based on conditions. The courts have identified these types of additional elements are insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and also the courts have identified these types of additional elements as being insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
The applicant argues the claims that depend upon their corresponding independent claim(s) are allowable for reasons presented by the applicant for their corresponding independent claim(s). However this argument is not persuasive since the independent claim(s) have been shown/explained to be rejected above.
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 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 WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am -6 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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights