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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17 (e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/20/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1,9-10 have been amended.
Claims 7, 11-14 have been canceled.
Claims 15-19 have been added.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 15-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 08/20/2025 have been fully considered and discussed in the next section. Applicant is reminded that the claims must be given its broadest, reasonable interpretation.
With regard to claims 1-6, 8-10 rejection under 35 USC § 101:
Applicant argues that “The proposed amendments create an integrated technical system where each limitation contributes to the overall computer system improvement. The "locality-sensitive-hashing index of user feature vectors and a locality-sensitive-hashing index of content feature vectors" enables efficient similarity computations that directly support the "estimate a prior distribution of expected rewards obtained as a result of execution processing performed by the target user on the target content, based on the content-to-content similarity and the user-to-user similarity." This estimation process integrates with the "update, for the target user and the target content item, a time-decayed cumulative positive-reward counter and a time-decayed cumulative negative- reward counter" to provide dynamic adaptation capabilities. The "derive parameters of a posterior distribution of the expected rewards, using the prior distribution by incrementally adding the time-decayed cumulative reward counters to the prior distribution without recomputing historical rewards" represents a specific computational optimization that improves system performance by avoiding expensive recalculation operations (page 2/8)”.
Examiner disagrees. the recited features of : The "locality-sensitive-hashing index of user feature vectors and a locality-sensitive-hashing index of content feature vectors" enables efficient similarity computations that directly support the "estimate a prior distribution of expected rewards obtained as a result of execution processing performed by the target user on the target content, based on the content-to-content similarity and the user-to-user similarity, that enables efficient similarity computations that directly support the "estimate a prior distribution of expected rewards obtained as a result of execution processing performed by the target user on the target content, based on the content-to-content similarity and the user-to-user similarity." This estimation process integrates with the "update, for the target user and the target content item, a time-decayed cumulative positive-reward counter and a time-decayed cumulative negative- reward counter" to provide dynamic adaptation capabilities. The "derive parameters of a posterior distribution of the expected rewards, using the prior distribution by incrementally adding the time-decayed cumulative reward counters to the prior distribution without recomputing historical rewards" and / or "update, for the target user and the target content item, a time-decayed cumulative positive-reward counter and a time-decayed cumulative negative- reward counter" to provide dynamic adaptation capabilities derive and / or parameters of a posterior distribution of the expected rewards, using the prior distribution by incrementally adding the time-decayed cumulative reward counters to the prior distribution without recomputing historical rewards" represents a specific computational optimization is directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis.
Since analyzing data is part of the abstract idea itself, any improvement obtained by automating the analyzing of the data in an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matters (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.
As such, the claimed features above, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
Indeed, the identified improvements recited by Applicant are really, at best improvements to the performance of the abstract idea (e.g., improvements made in the underlying business method (avoiding expensive recalculation operations) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology.
As such, the examiner finds that any improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is an improvement to a business process. Second, under Step 2a, Prong 2, the improvement to a technology or technological field must be rooted in the additional element. Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. In the instant case the only additional elements of claim 1 are a generic computer, which does not comprise an improvement of the computer itself and/ or the claimed computer components (i.e. processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store at least one program; and at least one processor). As evident by Applicant’s specification “ [0055] Fig. 4 is an example of a block diagram showing a hardware configuration of the information processing apparatus 10 according to the present embodiment. The information processing apparatus 10 according to the present embodiment can be implemented on one or more computers of any type, one or more mobile devices of any type, and one or more other processing platforms of any type”. Accordingly, the claim recites an additional element of generic computer (processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store at least one program; and at least one processor).
These additional elements do not improve computer functionality or another technology or a technical field. They do not implement the abstract idea on a machine that is integral to the claim. The do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Nor do not transform and/or reduce a particular articular to a different state or thing. Nor do they apply he abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond linking its use to a particular technological environment. See Revised Guidance ar 55: MPEP 2106.04 (d) (I) Final Act. A generic computer implementation does not render an abstract idea patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S at 223 (“ [ T] he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent -ineligible abstract idea into a patent -eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea ‘ while adding the words “apply it” is not enough for patent eligibility.”);
Thus, any improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea, is an improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied. Improvements of this nature are not patent eligible (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because there are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract). Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 1-6, 8-10 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “the Office Action's overly restrictive analysis contradicts the Memorandum's framework for evaluating technical improvements. The Memorandum emphasizes that the analysis should focus on whether claims provide "particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome." The proposed amendments clearly recite particular solutions with specific technical implementations rather than abstract ideas. The Office Action's categorical dismissal of these technical specifics as merely "generic computer functions" applies a standard that is inconsistent with the Memorandum's guidance and improperly restrictive given the level of technical detail introduced in the proposed amendments (page 5/8)”.
Examiner disagrees. the PTO’s preliminary guidelines, which have been followed by Examiner, are completely in line with Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent, and provide substantive criteria to both examiners and applicants in defining an abstract idea within a claim and determining overall subject matter eligibility. As such, it is Examiner's position that the office's action is supported by fact and analysis and has provided sufficient rationale and explanation. As thus, the Office Action’s analysis is proper and align with Memorandum's framework for evaluating any and all technical improvements recited with in the claims. As thus, the claim rejection of claims 1-6, 8-10 rejection under 35 USC § 101 is proper and maintained.
Applicant argues that “ The Office Action also suggests that the claimed invention "merely gather[s] data, analyze[s] the data, determine[s] results based upon the analysis, generate[s] tailored content based on the results, and transmit[s] the tailored content." The Office Action also maintains that the additional elements in amended claim 1 are "generic" and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Amended claim 1, however, expressly requires maintaining a locality-sensitive-hashing index of user and content feature vectors in volatile memory. This specialized data structure yields constant-time retrieval of nearest neighbors, eliminating the linear or tree-based scans that conventional recommender engines use. Such an improvement to data storage and retrieval is precisely the type of computer-technology advancement found eligible in Enfish and acknowledged in MPEP 2106.05(a) (page 5/8)”.
Examiner disagrees. The claims here are unlike the claims in Enfish. In Enfish, the distinction made in Alice between, on one hand, computer-functionality improvements and, on the other, uses of existing computers as tools in aid of processes focused on “abstract ideas” (in Alice, as in so many other § 101 cases, the abstract ideas. Enfish claimed invention was an improvement over existing databases because it increased flexibility, led to faster search times, and required less memory. Enfish's claims are directed to a "logical model" for a computer database that includes all the data on a single table, a format the patents describe as "self-referential," as opposed to a standard database model where each entry is in a separate table. Thus, under analysis step 2A, the claims did not constitute an abstract idea.
The identified improvements argued by Applicant are really, at best improvements to the performance of the abstract idea itself (e.g., maintaining a locality-sensitive-hashing index of user and content feature vectors in database (volatile memory) that yields constant-time retrieval of nearest neighbors) is an improvements made in the underlying business method ) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology.
The instant claims utilizing locality-sensitive-hashing index of user and content feature vectors in volatile memory is not an improvement of the computer operations, the functioning of the computer itself or an improvement to another technology or technical field. The instant claims are not Analogous to Enfish and are not patentable under 35 USC § 101. As thus, Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 1-6, 8-10 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “The Office Action further asserts that no improvement to computer operations is present because the machine learning "still operates the same way." Amended claim 1 refutes that point by requiring an incremental posterior update in which time-decayed reward counters are added to the prior distribution without recomputing historical rewards. This streaming update avoids batch reprocessing of click logs. That resource-oriented gain is a concrete improvement to computer processing, not merely a business result. In other words, unlike conventional recommendation systems, the claimed invention implements a specialized computational approach that improves processing efficiency. The claim specifically requires "incrementally adding the time-decayed cumulative reward counters to the prior distribution parameters without recomputing historical rewards," which represents a computational efficiency improvement with tangible technical benefits. This approach reduces computational load compared to systems that must recompute entire historical dataset (page 5/8)”.
Examiner disagrees. an incremental posterior update in which time-decayed reward counters are added to the prior distribution without recomputing historical rewards may be an improvement in data processing efficiency, which is computer use intended use, aspirational, and typical of a computing environment, but is not an improvement in the operations of any additional elements (claimed processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store at least one program; and at least one processor) or technology.
Claim 1 for instance recites, a generic computer, which does not comprise an improvement of the computer itself and/ or the claimed computer components (i.e. processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store at least one program; and at least one processor). As evident by Applicant’s specification “ [0055] Fig. 4 is an example of a block diagram showing a hardware configuration of the information processing apparatus 10 according to the present embodiment. The information processing apparatus 10 according to the present embodiment can be implemented on one or more computers of any type, one or more mobile devices of any type, and one or more other processing platforms of any type”. Accordingly, the claim recites an additional element of generic computer (processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store at least one program; and at least one processor).
These additional elements do not improve computer functionality or another technology or a technical field. They do not implement the abstract idea on a machine that is integral to the claim. The do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Nor do not transform tor reduce a particular articular to a different state or thing. Nor do they apply he abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond linking its use to a particular technological environment. See Revised Guidance ar 55: MPEP 2106.04 (d) (I) Final Act. A generic computer implementation does not render an abstract idea patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S at 223 (“ [ T] he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent -ineligible abstract idea into a patent -eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea ‘ while adding the words “apply it” is not enough for patent eligibility.”);
Furthermore, neither the independent claims nor the dependent claims recite an improvement in another technology or technical field nor do they purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as they are seen to be mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer using a processor and a tangible computer readable medium storing a computer program product configured to store instructions.
Indeed, the identified improvements recited by Applicant are really, at best improvements to the performance of the abstract idea (e.g., improvements made in the underlying business method (an incremental posterior update in which time-decayed reward counters are added to the prior distribution without recomputing historical rewards) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology. Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 1-6, 8-10 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “ Amended claim 1 recites: transmitting a control signal that causes a widget on the user device to present the selected content item in an advertisement display frame. This requirement ties the calculated posterior directly to an automated display mechanism and confines the claim to a specific real-time delivery pipeline, thereby satisfying the practical-application test under MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h)(page 6/8)”.
Examiner disagrees. transmitting a control signal that causes a widget on the user device to present the selected content item in an advertisement display frame is considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely transmitting data. Transmitting data is recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility as it only requires a general purpose computers communicating over a general purpose network (as evidenced from paragraph 55). As such, the claim does not include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic computer, by merely add 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)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the recitation of transmitting a control signal that causes a widget on the user device to present the selected content item in an advertisement display frame, fails to satisfy the practical-application test under MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h). As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1-6, 8-10 rejection under 35 USC § 101is maintained.
Applicant argues that “ In Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., the Court held that claims directed to a self-referential table for a computer database were patent-eligible because they were directed to a specific improvement in the way computers operate. Similarly, the claimed invention here improves computer functionality through specific techniques that enable more efficient similarity calculations and reward processing. The claim involves a specific implementation of a solution to a technological problem in the field of recommendation systems. The use of locality-sensitive hashing, time-decayed reward counters, and incremental parameter updating represents a technological solution to the problem of computational efficiency in processing large datasets, not merely an abstract idea implemented on a general-purpose computer (page 6/8)”.
Examiner disagrees. The claims here are unlike the claims in Enfish. In Enfish, the distinction made in Alice between, on one hand, computer-functionality improvements and, on the other, uses of existing computers as tools in aid of processes focused on “abstract ideas” (in Alice, as in so many other § 101 cases, the abstract ideas. Enfish claimed invention was an improvement over existing databases because it increased flexibility, led to faster search times, and required less memory. Enfish's claims are directed to a "logical model" for a computer database that includes all the data on a single table, a format the patents describe as "self-referential," as opposed to a standard database model where each entry is in a separate table. Thus, under analysis step 2A, the claims did not constitute an abstract idea.
The identified improvements argued by Applicant are really, at best improvements to the performance of the abstract idea itself (e.g., enable more efficient similarity calculations and reward processing and/ or use of locality-sensitive hashing, time-decayed reward counters, and incremental parameter updating for recommendation ) is an improvements made in the underlying business method ) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology.
The instant claims utilizing use of locality-sensitive hashing, time-decayed reward counters, and incremental parameter updating for recommendation is not an improvement of the computer operations, the functioning of the computer itself or an improvement to another technology or technical field. The instant claims are not Analogous to Enfish and are not patentable under 35 USC § 101. As thus, Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 1-6, 8-10 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “Furthermore, the transmission of control signals that cause specific display behavior on a user device through a widget executing on the device represents integration with specific software components rather than generic display functionality. This concrete implementation transforms the abstract idea into a specific practical application integrated with hardware and software components. Taken together, the ordered combination of locality-sensitive-hashing index, constant- time retrieval, incremental posterior update, and control signal to an edge widget transforms raw event data into a compressed parameter store and actuates immediate content display within strict latency bounds. These elements constitute "significantly more" than a generic computer implementation because they deliver measurable computer performance improvements and employ a particular, non-conventional memory architecture. The Office Action's reliance on Affinity and SAP is misplaced; those decisions involved claims that merely invoked generic processing, whereas amended claim 1 recites a concrete data-handling architecture analogous to the self-referential table deemed eligible in Enfish and the flow record approved in Packet Intelligence. For the reasons stated above, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider the rejection in light of the amended claim language and withdraw the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (page 6/8)”.
Examiner disagrees. Transmission of control signals that cause specific display behavior on a user device through a widget executing on the device represents integration is considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely transmitting data. Transmitting data is recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility as it only requires a general purpose computers communicating over a general purpose network (as evidenced from paragraph 55). As such, the claim does not include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic computer, by merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, and /or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and/ or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and / or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
There are two cases that deal with Transformation, Diehr and Abele. The Diehr case dealt with a physical Transformation of liquid rubber into a tire through a curing process. Abele dealt with data Transformation of a human body to CAT scan data representing muscles, bones, tissues, organs, etc. In the case of the instant application, obtaining a measurement of a physical characteristic of the object from a sensor coupled with the object does not perform any Transformation into a different state or thing.
"Transformation" of an article means that the "article" has changed to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing usually means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article. A new or different function or use can be evidence that an article has been transformed. Manufactures and compositions of matter are the result of transforming raw materials into something new with a different function or use. Purely mental processes in which thoughts or human based actions are "changed" are not considered an eligible Transformation. For data, mathematical manipulation per se has not been deemed a Transformation; but, Transformation of electronic data has been found when the nature of the data has been changed such that it has a different function or is suitable for a different use. As such there is no transformation performed in the instance claimed limitation. Clearly, the instant claims do not involve any transformation of an article that has changed to a different state or thing.
As thus, the recitation of transmission of control signals that cause specific display behavior on a user device through a widget executing on the device represents integration with specific software components rather than generic display functionality fails to transform and or integrate the abstract idea into a specific practical application. The claims here are unlike the claims in Enfish (see the above proceeding section) Therefore , the claim rejection of claims 1-6, 8-10 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
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 1-6, 8-10, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception subject matter, specifically an abstract idea. The analysis for this determination is explained below:
Step 1, determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claim (s) 1-6, 8-9, 15-19 are directed to a machine (i.e. an apparatus); claim(s) 10 is directed to a method (i.e. a process); which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
The claimed invention is directed to at least one judicial exception (i.e a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. claim(s) 1, for instance recite(s) the abstract idea of : calculating and presenting rewards for displaying advertisement to a user using the similarity between the plurality of pieces of content and the similarity between the plurality of users. Claim 1 recites the following the abstract idea limitations (s) of: “ maintain a locality-sensitive-hashing index of user feature vectors and a locality- sensitive-hashing index of content feature vectors acquire a content-to-content similarity that is a similarity between a target content and one or more pieces of other content, and a user-to-user similarity that is a similarity between a target user and one or more other users; update, for the target user and the target content item, a time-decayed cumulative positive-reward counter and a time-decayed cumulative negative-reward counter in which each newly observed reward is multiplied by a discount factor that decreases with reward age estimate a prior distribution of expected rewards obtained as a result of execution processing performed by the target user on the target content, based on the content-to-content similarity and the user-to-user similarity; derive parameters of a posterior distribution of the expected rewards, using the prior distribution by incrementally adding the time-decayed cumulative reward counters to the prior distribution without recomputing historical rewards sample an expected-reward value from the posterior beta distribution and transmit, based on the sampled expected-reward value satisfying a delivery criterion, a control signal that causes a user device associated with the target user to display the target content item in an advertisement display frame provided by a widget executing on the user device”.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim (s), only recites the additional elements of: (apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store at least one program; and at least one processor configured to operate as instructed by the program; locality-sensitive-hashing index). The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add 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)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the additional elements of server comprising at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program, (locality-sensitive-hashing index) to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computers communicating over a general purpose network (as evidenced from paragraphs 25, 36, 55), therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations are considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, storing and/or transmitting data:
transmit, based on the sampled expected-reward value satisfying a delivery criterion, a control signal that causes a user device associated with the target user to display the target content item in an advertisement display frame provided by a widget executing on the user device;
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e.MPEP Step 2B=No).
For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible. Same Judicial analysis is applied here to independent claims 9-10.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8,15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims merely add further details that narrow that abstract idea of, without significantly more. The dependent claims 2-8 appears to merely further limit the abstract idea of Certain methods of organizing Human Activity” as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), by adding the additional steps of “acquire
Therefore, the dependent claims, only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Thus, the dependent claim (s), further narrows the abstract idea and/or recite additional elements previously rejected in the independent claim 1.
Accordingly, the claim (s) fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term : the Beta distribution. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 9-10, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) or 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 9-10 recite the limitation of : using the prior distribution by incrementally adding the time-decayed cumulative reward counters to the prior distribution without recomputing historical rewards sample an expected-reward value from the posterior beta distribution . It is unclear what Applicant is referring to by using the prior distribution by incrementally adding the time-decayed cumulative reward counters to the prior distribution without recomputing historical rewards sample an expected-reward value from the posterior beta distribution , since Beta was never defined and/ or calculated. Appropriate correction and/ or clarification is required. For the purpose of this Examination, the above limitation is interpretated as one of the prior calculated distribution parameters.
Claim 16 recites formula for calculating Alpha and Beta parameters for a posterior distribution, however the variables ( k , yk, yl, j xi,xjsjk ) of the formula are not defined and are not clear what the variables stand for in order to calculate Alpha and Beta for prior posterior distribution. Appropriate correction and/ or clarification is required. Examiner is unable to find support for the claimed feature in the specification. Thus, the Examiner is unable to determine the meets and bounds of the claimed features.
Claim 17 recites (Alpha and Beta) posterior distribution formula (s), however the variables of the formulas are not defined and are not clear what the variables stand for, in order to calculate Alpha and Beta for prior distribution. It is unclear what this variables stands for. Examiner is unable to find support for the claimed feature in the specification. Thus, the Examiner is unable to determine the meets and bounds of the claimed features.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 /103
The Examiner is unable to find a prior art that teaches the limitations of claim 1, 9-10 : maintain a locality-sensitive-hashing index of user feature vectors and a locality- sensitive-hashing index of content feature vectors acquire a content-to-content similarity that is a similarity between a target content and one or more pieces of other content, and a user-to-user similarity that is a similarity between a target user and one or more other users; update, for the target user and the target content item, a time-decayed cumulative positive-reward counter and a time-decayed cumulative negative-reward counter in which each newly observed reward is multiplied by a discount factor that decreases with reward age estimate a prior distribution of expected rewards obtained as a result of execution processing performed by the target user on the target content, based on the content-to-content similarity and the user-to-user similarity; derive parameters of a posterior distribution of the expected rewards, using the prior distribution by incrementally adding the time-decayed cumulative reward counters to the prior distribution without recomputing historical rewards sample an expected-reward value from the posterior beta distribution and transmit, based on the sampled expected-reward value satisfying a delivery criterion, a control signal that causes a user device associated with the target user to display the target content item in an advertisement display frame provided by a widget executing on the user device.
Thus, claims 1-6, 8-10, 15-19 contain limitations that appear to overcome the prior art of record, and do not appear to be limitations that would be obvious to combine with the prior art of record should references which teach said limitations be found.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 15-19 recite subject matter that would be allowable over the prior art if the Applicant were to be able to overcome the 35 USC § 101 and 35 USC § 112 rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Bernhardsson et al, US Pub No: 2019/0138551 A1, teaches system and methods of classifying content items.
Wu et al, US Pub No: 2020/0177942 A1 , teaches content item similarity detection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Affaf Ahmed whose telephone number is 571-270-1835. The examiner can normally be reached on [M- R 8-6 pm ].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AFAF OSMAN BILAL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622