DETAILED ACTION
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. The following is a Final Office action. In response to Examiner’s Non-Final Action of 09/24/2025, Applicant, on 12/22/2025, amended Claims 1-3, 5, 10, 11 and 14-20. Claims 4, 6-9, 12 and 13 are as originally presented.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
3. Applicant’s amendments and arguments are acknowledged.
4. The prior Claim Objections withdrawn in light of Applicant's amendments.
5. The prior 35 USC §101 rejection of Claims maintained despite Applicant's amendments and arguments.
6. The prior 35 USC §103 rejection of Claims withdrawn in light of Applicant's amendments and arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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 .. based on the request, a user object set indicating one or more users ..; and 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; and 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, 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, by processing circuitry through at least one neural network model, by the processing circuitry, 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
10. Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered; they are found persuasive with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, which has therefore been withdrawn, but are found not persuasive with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
11. Applicant argues (at p. 13) that, at Step 2A Prong Two of the Subject Matter Eligibility analysis, the amended claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application because the claims “improve the computer functionality by generating time-aware and value-aware recommendations”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in detail at paragraph 9 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 processing circuitry is an additional element, 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
12. 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.
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Fadli (US Patent Publication US 20190340629 A1) describes a system and method for determining a micro-moment value that indicates an optimal time for a customer to receive a targeted advertisement.
Qu et al. (US Patent Publication US 20210065251 A1) describes techniques for modeling the dynamic evolutions of both users and advertisements for more effective click-through rate prediction.
Zakai-or et al. (US Patent Publication US 20160267503 A1) describes a system and method for automatically generating a statistical model capable of providing probabilities of successful future interactions with one or more potential customers.
Ernster et al. (US Patent Publication US 20210287247 A1) describes systems and methods for providing advertisements to users based on external factors and triggering events.
Lee (US Patent Publication US 20130179267 A1) describes a system and method for providing an advertisement based on a user circumstance.
14. 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