DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Prosecution Status
Applicant’s amendments filed 3/13/2026 have been received and reviewed. The status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
1. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to combining commercial content with a media article for a user to recommend products, which is considered a sales or marketing activity, and therefore a form of commercial interaction. Commercial interactions fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claim 1-7 recite a method and at least one step. Claims 8-14 recite a machine-readable non-transitory medium. Claims 15-20 recite a system comprising a memory and one or more processors. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, manufacture, apparatus).
Under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim sets forth a process in which to combined commercial content with a media article is provided for a user to recommend a product, in the following limitations:
searching, from the media article archive having a plurality of media articles, for one or more media articles intended for a user, wherein the media article archive provides a data construct organized with the plurality of media articles and their respective classification labels, each of which indicates whether the corresponding media article is with shopping intention determined based on computational linguistic models and a shopping intention model;
for each of the one or more of the plurality of media articles,
determining, based on a corresponding classification label associated with the media article, whether the media article corresponds to commerce content, and
combining, if the media article is commerce content, the media article with information about a product promoted in the media article to generate a combined content with respect to the media article;
generating an integrated content to be sent to the user that includes the combined content for each of the one or more media articles that corresponds to commerce content and each of the one or more media articles that is not commerce content; and
sending the integrated content to the user.
The above-recited limitations establish a commercial interaction with a consumer to make a product/service recommendation by combining commerce content with a media article. This arrangement amounts to a sales activity or behavior. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claim 1 does recite additional elements:
implemented on at least one processor, a memory, and a communication platform for product recommendation
by an engine having a media article archive,
electronic
meta data
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment. The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs 64-60 indicate that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). In the instant case, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Independent Claims 8 and 15 are parallel in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Regarding Claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20
Claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 set forth:
wherein the classification label of each of the plurality of electronic media articles is determined by:
determining whether the media article is with shopping intention based on computational linguistic models and the shopping intention model; and
classifying the media article as commerce content if the media article is determined to have the shopping intention; and
determining the classification label based on the classification.
learning the shopping intention model by:
obtaining commerce content media articles and respective ground truth classification labels;
generating training data based on the commerce content media articles and respective ground truth classification labels; and
performing the learning of the shopping intention model based on the training data.
identifying, when the media article corresponds to commerce content, a product keyword corresponding to the product promoted by the media article, wherein
the product keyword is to be used to search for the information about product including product sources to be provided to the user in the combined content for the media article.
wherein the step of identifying the product keyword comprises:
obtaining tokens from the media article;
generating a feature vector of the media article based on article embeddings pre-trained;
generating, for each of the tokens, a token feature vector based on token embeddings pre- trained;
recognizing one or more product keywords, each of which corresponds to a consecutive sequence of tokens;
generating a product keyword feature vector for each of the one or more product keywords based on token feature vectors for tokens in the product keyword;
computing a similarity for each pair of the media article feature vector and one of the one or more product keyword feature vectors;
selecting, based on the one or more similarities, a product keyword having a maximum similarity with the media article to represent the product promoted by the media article.
wherein the step of combining to generate the combined content comprises:
searching, based on the product keyword representing the product promoted in the media article, one or more product sources that support commercial transactions of the product; and
ranking, based on a pre-specified ranking criterion, the one or more product sources based on metrics associated with the ranking criterion.
selecting, from the ranked one or more product sources, at least one product source based on a pre-determined condition; and
combining the selected at least one product source with the media article in the combined content in a manner so that when the media article is presented to the user, the at least one product source is made available to the user for accessing relevant information about the product promoted by the media article.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of combining commercial content with a media article for a user to recommend products. While the claims do set forth the additional limitations of “electronic” and “via machine learning”, these recitations are similar to the additional limitations in claim 1, as they do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As such, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and amended to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant initially argues that the claims do not fall within any of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas (see pp 15-17) for the following reasons:
The Office Action alleges that claim 1 falls within groupings of certain methods of organizing human activity. Office Action, page 4. Appellant respectfully disagrees for at least the following reasons. Claim 1 recites "searching, by an engine having a media article archive, from the media article archive having a plurality of electronic media articles, for one or more media articles intended for a user, wherein the media article archive provides a meta data construct organized with the plurality of electronic media articles and their respective classification labels, each of which indicates whether the corresponding electronic media article is with shopping intention determined based on computational linguistic models and a shopping intention model; for each of the one or more of the plurality of electronic media articles, determining, based on a corresponding classification label associated with the electronic media article, whether the electronic media article corresponds to commerce content."
From the above, the recited "searching" is performed by an engine in its media article archive, and the recited "classification label" is stored in a meta data construct provided by the media article archive. These claimed features are related to computing technologies, such as searching electronic content by the engine in its media article archive and making determination based on information in a meta data construct provided by the media article archive. These features extend far beyond fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
Accordingly, Appellant respectfully submits that claim 1 does not fall into any of the abstract idea exceptions provided by the MPEP, and thus claim 1 is patent eligible under Prong One of the Step 2A Analysis.
In response, the Examiner emphasizes that merely claiming features “related to computing technologies” does not, by itself move beyond (i.e., amount to significantly more than) one of the abstract idea groupings. In the present claims, commerce content correspondence and shopping intention is explicitly determined within media articles. This commerce content is then provided to a user. Clearly, such a sequence of operations constitutes a commercial interaction. Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the claims do recite an abstract idea falling into one of the enumerated groupings.
Applicant further asserts that the claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application by providing an improvement to known technical problems in a technical field (see pp 18-19):
The features recited in claim 1 are clearly tied to a practical application, i.e., generating integrated electronic content based on information in a meta data construct and providing the same to user.
Claim 1 provides an improvement to known technical problems in the technical field of providing online data to online users. The exemplary known technical problems include - "it is important to provide as much information as possible on products described in media articles to readers to encourage commercial activities. Unfortunately, many media articles having content related to some products may not present the potential to be leveraged to allow monetization. For example, a media article may not provide necessary information (e.g., a link to a site to sell the product) to lead to meaningful commercial activities. As another example, a media article may mention a category of product (e.g., smart phone) without any specifics to link to any brand or manufacturer, making it impossible to gather useful information on a product to user to motivate further. Another issue is that whatever information a media article provides (such as a link) may have become stale due to passage of time, also making it impossible to lead a reader to a correct site even if the reader is interested. There may be other situations where media articles fail to facilitate user's commerce activities to realize the commercial potential of the articles." See paras. [0002]-[0004] as filed.
Appellant's claimed concept overcomes the above technical problems by providing a "framework for serving online media articles (content) with product information to monetize media articles in a manner that is relevant, up to date, and content-appropriated" (para. [0031]) and "automatically recognizing commerce content, identifying relevant product(s) embedded in the commerce content, discovering the latest and most up-to-date information about the embedded products in accordance with the context of the commerce content, and serving the product information to users who requested the commerce content" (para. [0032]).
Therefore, for the reasons above, in the instant application, any claim limitation that the Office Action may deem to be an abstract idea is integrated into a practical application as the claimed concept provides a technical solution to one or more problems associated with ineffectiveness of the traditional expert diversification scheme. Thus, Appellant respectfully submits that, under Prong Two of the Step 2A Analysis, the claimed concept is integrated into a practical application and therefore is not directed to a judicial exception. Therefore, Appellant respectfully submits that claim 1 is directed to patent eligible subject matter.
In response, the Examiner asserts that the problems presented in paragraphs [0002]-[0004], and repeated by applicant are commercial problems. The quotation of those passages presented by applicant make no mention of technological problems at all, and repeatedly present commercial concerns regarding monetization of media articles’ commercial potential. There is no precedent for a solution to a commercial problem rendering an otherwise ineligible claim eligible. Additionally, applicant’s claimed solution to the commercial problem is to provide integrated content, combining media articles with relevant commercial content. The nature of this integration is not detailed in the claims. That is, the technical operations for combining the media articles and commerce content in electronic format is not claimed. Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the claimed solution is not a technical solution, but rather a commercial solution merely applied generally to a technical environment (i.e., “electronic”).
The Examiner would like to emphasize that if the specific technical manner of integrating commerce content with media articles were described by the disclosure and recited in the claims, such features could potentially render the claims eligible.
Applicant further asserts that claim 1 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea (see pp 19-20):
Further, claim 1 amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. The Berkheimer v. HP Inc, No. 2017-1437 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2018) ("Berkheimer") decision re-emphasized that, "[a]t step two, we consider the elements of each claim both individually and 'as an ordered combination' to determine whether the additional elements 'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent eligible application." Berkheimer, pages 11 and 12. Berkheimer resolved that the "inventive concept" is not restricted to only the additional elements, but may include one or more allegedly abstract elements that, in combination with the additional elements, form the claim's inventive concept. See Id., page 12 (stating, without reference to an "additional" element, that "[t]he question of whether a claim element or combination of elements is well-understood, routine and conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question of fact"). For example, while the Berkheimer Court held independent claim 1 to be directed to "the abstract idea of parsing and comparing data with conventional computer components, the Berkheimer Court nevertheless concluded that dependent claim 4 (which depended on claim 1) was potentially patent-eligible. In concluding that claim 4 could be patent-eligible, the Berkheimer Court did not narrow the inventive concept to merely the additional limitation of "storing a reconciled object structure in the archive without substantial redundancy." Indeed, the general operation of storing data/object structures in some archive without substantial redundancy by itself would clearly have been found to be well- understood, routine, and conventional. Despite this, however, the Berkheimer Court concluded that the claimed invention of claim 4 could be patent-eligible.
Likewise, in the instant case, whether the inventive concept of each claim is well- understood, routine, and conventional is a factual determination that an examiner must first establish for a Section 101 rejection. For at least the foregoing reasons, when each of the claims is considered "as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps" (McRo at 21), it is clear that the inventive concept of each claim is patent-eligible. Even if (for the sake of argument) that each limitation of a claim individually is abstract or generic, "an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces." (BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1349).
In response, the Examiner notes that the courts have repeatedly found operations such as retrieving information in memory, storing information in memory, receiving and transmitting data over a network to be “well-understood, routine, and conventional” (see MPEP 2106.05(d). The claims do not specify computer functions beyond such basic functions. Instead, the claims recite abstract operations generally applied to an electronic environment (i.e. “apply it”). No non-conventional or non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces is recited, and applicant has not asserted which claim limitations are such a non-conventional or non-generic arrangement. As noted above, if specific computer functions to perform the content integration were recited, the claim could potentially be rendered eligible.
For the above reasons, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the claims are held to be ineligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A MISIASZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-6961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday. 8:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Smith can be reached at 571272-6763. 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.
/MICHAEL MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights