Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/20/2026 has been entered.
3. The following is a non-Final Office Action. In response to Examiner’s Final Action of 02/20/2026, Applicant, on 05/20/2026, amended Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 14, 16 and 20; Claims 2, 5, 6, 8-13, 15 and 17-19 are as originally or previously presented.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
4. Applicant’s amendments and arguments are acknowledged.
5. Claim Objections added in light of Applicant’s amendments.
6. The prior 35 USC §101 rejection maintained despite Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
Claim Objections
7. Claims 1, 14 and 20 objected to for the following informalities: the Claims recite “based on when the conversion possibility degree being is greater than a threshold” at lines 21, 23 and 23 respectively, instead of “based on when the conversion possibility degree is greater than a threshold”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim interpretation
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
9. Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
10. Here, in independent Claims 1, 14 and 20 Claim limitations: “an aggregate weight prediction network configured to, for each user of the user object set, generate an aggregate weight”, “a plurality of feature processing networks configured to, for each user of the user object set, generate respective aggregate features”, “a following degree feature generator configured to, for each user of the user object set, generate a following degree feature”, “an object feature extraction network configured to, for each user of the user object set, extract an object feature”, “a conversion prediction feature generator configured to, for each user of the user object set, generate the conversion prediction feature”, have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use generic placeholders “an aggregate weight prediction network configured to”, “a plurality of feature processing networks configured to”, “a following degree feature generator configured to”, “an object feature extraction network configured to”, “a conversion prediction feature generator configured to” coupled with functional language “generate”, “generate”, “generate”, “extract”, “generate”, respectively, without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholders are not preceded by structural modifiers. Since the claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), Claims 1, 14 and 20 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof. A review of the figures and specification shows that the corresponding structure is disclosed at Figure 5 (aggregate weight prediction network, feature processing network, conversion prediction feature generator) and at Figure 4 (following degree feature generator, object feature extraction network, conversion prediction feature generator) and at paragraphs 159, 67, 68, 71 and 47 respectively of the Specification, which is interpreted as software.
In Claim 13 the limitation: “behavior prediction network corresponding to the interactive behavior being configured to predict the behavior occurrence possibility degree corresponding to the interactive behavior” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses generic placeholder "behavior prediction network .. configured to”, coupled with functional language “predict”, without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Since the claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), Claim 13 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the figures and specification shows that the corresponding structure is disclosed at Figure 4 and at paragraph 112 of the Specification, which is interpreted as software.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
For more information, see MPEP §2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011). See also MPEP §2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
11. 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.
12. Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, although they are drawn to statutory categories of method (process), apparatus (machine) or medium (manufacture), they are also directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
13. At Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claim 1 recites An object processing method, comprising: receiving .. a request for transmitting content associated with a target resource object; acquiring .. a user object set indicating one or more users ..; for each user of the user object set: acquiring a historical interaction feature of the user with a historical resource object corresponding to the target resource object; acquiring a historical status feature, generated based on at least one of (i) time information indicating an interaction moment at which the historical interaction feature is generated or (ii) value information of the historical resource object at the interaction moment, indicating a change of a resource attribute of the historical resource object; generating .. a conversion prediction feature of the user for the target resource object at a current time based on the historical interaction feature and the historical status feature; obtaining .. a conversion possibility degree indicating a probability of the user performing an acquisition operation .. with respect to the target resource object at the current time based on the conversion prediction feature through an object conversion prediction model; and including the user in a target audience of the content associated with the target resource object based on when the conversion possibility degree is greater than a threshold; and transmitting .. the content associated with the target resource object to target users included in the target audience, wherein the feature generation model includes: an aggregate weight prediction .. for each user of the user object set .. based on previous following status features and a previous aggregate weight; .. for each user of the user object set, .. respective aggregate features and respective following status features corresponding to respective interaction moments based on previous aggregate features, previous following status features, the aggregate weight, the historical interaction feature, and the historical status feature; .. for each user of the user object set, .. a following degree feature based on a weighted combination of the respective following status features; .. for each user of the user object set, .. an object feature of the corresponding user; and.. for each user of the user object set, .. the conversion prediction feature based on fusion of the following degree feature and the object feature of the corresponding user, which, under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation in light of the Specification [Examiner notes, for example, ‘offline purchase or online purchase. .. through the Internet’ at paragraph 31], is an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, particularly fundamental economic principles or practices (including mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) because including the user in a target audience of the content associated with the target resource object based on the conversion possibility degree being greater than a threshold is a business practice for mitigating risk and involving commercial interactions. Furthermore, it is also an abstract idea of Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), because generating a conversion prediction feature of the user for the target resource object at a current time based on the historical interaction feature and the historical status feature is a process that, under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, can be performed in the mind since it involves evaluation, judgement or observation. Claims 14 and 20 recite a similar abstract idea.
At Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception (abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application because the independent Claims, including any additional elements such as via a communication interface configured to communicate through a network, from a storage device, an application program, through the network, by processing circuitry, a plurality of feature processing networks, a following degree feature generator, an object feature extraction network, a conversion prediction feature generator, processing circuitry coupled to the communication interface, A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions thereon, which, when executed by processing circuitry, individually, and in combination, when viewed as a whole, are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the Claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, and the Claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant Claims, is not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(h); 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 using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant Claims, is also not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The independent Claims are therefore directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B of the analysis, the independent Claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because any such additional elements such as those listed above, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine activity or use of computers (as evidenced by Figures 1, 9, 10 and paragraphs 22, 26, 166-172 of the Specification in the instant Application, and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. 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 using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as in the instant independent Claims, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more").
At Step 2A Prong One, dependent Claims 2-13 and 15-19 incorporate (and therefore recite) the abstract idea noted in independent Claims from which they depend, and further recite extensions of that abstract idea.
At Step 2A Prong Two, dependent Claims 2-6, 9, 10 and 15-19 do not include any additional elements beyond those included in the list above with respect to the independent Claims from which they depend. These dependent Claims therefore do not integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2A Prong Two for the independent Claims.
At Step 2A Prong Two for dependent Claims 7, 8 and 11-13, the judicial exception (abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application because the Claims, including additional elements such as those listed above for the independent Claims and a feature processing network, an aggregate weight prediction network, a conversion link, individually, and in combination, when viewed as a whole, are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, and the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(h); 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 using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant claims, is also not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The Claims are therefore directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B, dependent Claims 2-6, 9, 10 and 15-19 do not include any additional elements beyond those included in the list above with respect to the independent Claims from which they depend. These dependent Claims therefore do not recite anything that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2B for the independent Claims.
At Step 2B, dependent Claims 7, 8 and 11-13 do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because any such additional elements such as those listed above for the independent Claims and a feature processing network, an aggregate weight prediction network, a conversion link, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine activity or use of computers (as evidenced by Figures 1, 9, 10 and paragraphs 22, 26, 166-172 of the Specification in the instant Application, and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. 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 using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as in the instant Claims, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more").
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-eligible subject matter. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573__ U.S. 2014.
Response to Arguments
14. Applicant's arguments filed 05/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are found not persuasive with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
15. Applicant argues (at p. 13) that, at Step 2A Prong Two of the Subject Matter Eligibility analysis, the amended claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because amended language such as “an aggregate weight prediction network, .. a plurality of feature processing networks .. cannot reasonably be interpreted as directed to an abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity or mental processes”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in detail at paragraph 13 above in this office action, the amended claims recite an abstract idea falling under the categories of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes. As noted at MPEP 2106.04(I): “The Supreme Court’s decisions make it clear that judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and that even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions. .. Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all").
Examiner also notes that limitations such as an aggregate weight prediction network, a plurality of feature processing networks, are additional elements, as noted in the above analysis at Step 2A Prong Two; such generic computer elements are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Conclusion
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Cramer (US Patent Publication 20120078710 A1) describes a method and system for using machine learning to generate intent-informed product recommendations based on behavior, particularly generating personalized recommendations of products, services, sources of information, and other resources that are relevant to the intent of a given user within an e-commerce environment.
Iyer et al. (US Patent Publication 20230245197 A1) describes a method and system for determining a probability of affinity or conversion using real-time signals to guide recommendations during a browsing session.
Malhotra et al. (US Patent Publication 20220277210 A1) describes a method and system for analyzing the sequence of user activities in connection with a current user activity to predict a user intent.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARJIT S BAINS whose telephone number is (571)270-0317. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Wu Rutao can be reached on (571)272-6045. 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.
/SARJIT S BAINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights