Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C 101
Regarding the claims, Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to any judicial exceptions and therefore the claims are not directed to an abstract idea of a process. That “identifying, by the computing engine, for the user, from the computing content pool storing multiple content items and their corresponding content item uniqueness scores, and based on the content item uniqueness scores and the user’s long-tail interest, long-tail content in at least one of the one or more long-tail topics recorded in the user’s profile” and “invoking a computing device to receive online data stream to continuously track online activities of the user directed to the long-tail content, wherein the online data stream indicates that the user’s engagement with the long-tail content in the at least one of the one or more long-tail topics persists in time” cannot be done by a mental process and that the claims as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Additionally, that these claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s argument and respectfully disagrees. Examiner maintains the claims are directed to an abstract idea of a mental process and notes that the additional limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry to observe human behavior. That identifying content based on their uniqueness and a user’s long-tail interest, and tracking a user’s online activity can be done in a human mind or by paper and pen. Stepping into step 2A prong two analysis, examiner evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Whether it is an improvement to the functioning of a computer to a technical field. Examiner finds that these additional limitations of using a computer to identify content from a content pool and receiving online user tracking data do not an integrate this into a practical application as a whole. Applicant cites that these limitations improve a known technical problem of providing information of interests for each individual online users via personalization. However, these limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field. The claims only recite the idea of a solution or outcome, without reciting how a solution to the problem is accomplished. For example “invoking a computing device to receive online data stream..) is simply reciting the outcome of using a computer to receive information without describing where this online data comes from. Using a computer to identify content from a content pool or to receive a user’s online tracking data does not represent anything more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception (identifying a user’s long tail interest based on user activity) to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Furthermore the claim does not recite limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the user of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Examiner notes the following limitations in addition to the abstract idea: obtaining a user’s profile with characterization of the user’s long-tail interest with respect to one or more of a plurality of long-tail topics and at least one of the one or more popular topics, wherein each of the one or more long-tail topics in the user’s profile is associated with a long-tail topic score representing a degree of the user’s interest in the long-tail topic; identifying, by the computer engine, for the user, from the computing content pool; sending the long-tail content and the popular content to the user; invoking a computing device to track online activities of the user directed to the long-tail content; invoking a computing device to receive online data stream to continuously track online activities of the user directed to the long-tail content, wherein the online data stream indicates that the user’s engagement with the long-tail content in the at least one of the one or more long-tail topics persists in time (Step 2B: No) do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the user of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The claims are evaluated as a whole to describe an invention intended to monitor user activities, determine what topics a user are interested in, update a user’s profile based on their activity, and send long-tail content to the user without consideration to a user’s interests. These additional steps of gathering and updating user data require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities.
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 1-2, 4-9, 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea “identifying, from multiple topics, a plurality of long-tail topics based on a topic uniqueness score for each of the multiple topics, wherein the topic uniqueness score is a ratio of a total number of profiles for users in a population and a number of profiles of users in the population who are interested in the topic; identifying, for the user, from the computing content pool storing multiple content items and their corresponding item uniqueness scores, and based on the content item uniqueness scores and the user’s long-tail interest, long-tail content in at least one of the one or more long-tail topics recorded in the user’s profile, wherein the content item uniqueness score of each content item is an aggregated uniqueness score obtained by aggregating topic uniqueness scores of a predetermined number of most relevant long-tail topics involved in the content item; dynamically adapting user interest in the long-tail content to the user profile over time by updating, based on the online activities of the user, at least one long-tail topic score in the user profile associated with the at least one of the one or more long-tail topics”. These steps describe a mental process that may be performed in the human mind including observing data points and evaluating those observations to identify certain content for users.
Furthermore the claim does not recite limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the user of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Claim 1 recites in addition to the abstract idea, obtaining a user’s profile with characterization of a user’s long-tail interest with respect to one or more of the plurality of long-tail topics, wherein each of the one or more long-tail topics in the user’s profile is associated with a long-tail topic score representing a degree of the user’s interest in the long-tail topic; sending the long-tail content to the user; invoking a computing device to track online activities of the user directed to the long-tail content (Step 2B: No). It should be noted the limitations of the current claims are performed by the generically recited computer/processor. The limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. With respect to the limitations above identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above, when re-evaluated these elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, as per OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network) and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 2-7, which depend on claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1, recite the additional elements of “extracting, from the profiles of the users in a-the population, the multiple topics that the users in the population are interested; with respect to each of the multiple topics, computing, based on the profiles of the users, a metric relating to a number of the users in the population who are interested in the topic, and determining the topic uniqueness score for the topic based on the metric; and generating the plurality of long-tail topics based on some of the topics with their respective uniqueness scores. detecting one or more topics associated with the long-tail content, wherein at least one of the one or more topics is a long-tail topic; accessing the topic uniqueness score of each of the at least one long-tail topic; aggregating the topic uniqueness score of the at least one long-tail topic to generate the content uniqueness score for the long-tail content. Wherein the step of updating the at least one long-tail topic score associated with the at least one of the one or more long-tail topics comprises: analyzing the online activities of the user directed to the long-tail content; identifying each long-tail topic that the user interacted with via the long-tail content; with respect to each long-tail topic the user interacted with: determining a level of engagement of the user based on the online activities, computing a current long-tail topic score for the long-tail topic based on the level of engagement, and updating the user's profile based on the current long-tail topic score. if the long-tail topic already exists in the user's profile, retrieving a stored long-tail topic score for the long-tail topic in the user's profile, generating an updated long-tail topic score for the long-tail topic based on the stored long-tail topic score and the current long-tail topic score computed based on the user's activities, storing the updated long-tail topic score for the long-tail topic in the user's profile to represent the updated user's interest in the long-tail topic. if the long-tail topic does not exist in the user's profile, creating a new long-tail interest in the user's profile corresponding to the long-tail topic, determining a new long-tail topic score for the long-tail topic based on the current long- tail topic score, and storing the new long-tail topic score for the long-tail topic in the user's profile to represent the user's new interest in the long-tail topic”. These limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of a mental process.
Therefore, claims 2, 4-7 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 8-9, 11-20 recite similar limitations and are also directed to the abstract idea of a mental process of collecting and analyzing data. These claims are rejected using the same rationale used in claims 1-7 above.
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 1-2, 4-9, 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims 1, 8, 15 recites “obtaining a user’s profile with characterization of the user’s long-tail interest with respect to…” and “is associated with a long-tail topic score representing a degree of the user’s interest in the long-tail topic” lacks antecedent basis. A suggestion for how applicant could resolve the unclear boundaries is amending the claim to specify obtaining a user’s profile with characterization of a user’s long-tail interest with respect to…” and “is associated with a long-tail topic score representing a degree of the user’s long-tail interest in the long-tail topic”. For examination purpose, the instant limitation will be examined as detailed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONY WU whose telephone number is (571)272-2033. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571) 272-4098. 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.
/TONY WU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166