DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/17/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
• The following is an office action in response to the communication filed 09/17/2026.
• Claims 1, 3, 11, and 20 have been amended.
• Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of Application No. KR1020220160793, filed on 11/25/2022 has been received.
The examiner acknowledges that the instant application is a continuation of PCT/KR2023/016155, filed 10/18/2023.
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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. See MPEP 2106.03(II). In the instant case, claims 1-10 are directed to a medium, and claims 11-19 are directed to a method, and claim 20 is directed to a manufacture. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong 1 of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong 2 of Step 2A). See MPEP 2106.04.
Taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
obtain first metadata information related to a plurality of items of content;
obtain content viewing history information related to a user;
obtain a feature vector definition based on at least one feature in the first metadata information, the feature vector definition comprising an ordered arrangement of a plurality of feature values corresponding to the at least one feature, the ordered arrangement defining respective positions corresponding to the plurality of feature values;
generate a first feature vector for the user by matching one or more feature values in second metadata information related to at least one item of content viewed by the user in the content viewing history information related to the user to corresponding positions in the ordered arrangement, wherein the first feature vector has a fixed dimensionality corresponding to a number of the plurality of feature values in the ordered arrangement;
generate a plurality of second feature vectors, each of the plurality of second feature vectors corresponding to one of the plurality of items of content by matching one or more feature values in the first metadata information related to each of the plurality of items of content to corresponding positions in the ordered arrangement, wherein each of the plurality of second feature vectors has the fixed dimensionality,
compare the first feature vector for the user with the plurality of second feature vectors of the plurality of items of content in a feature vector space; and
generate a recommendation information comprising at least one item of content to the user, among the plurality of items of content, based on a result of the comparison between first feature vector for the user and the plurality of second feature vectors of the plurality of items of content.
The above limitations recite the concept of comparing data and vectors to determine recommendations. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. Specifically, the providing of recommendation information represents marketing and sales behaviors. This is illustrated in Specification [0003], which discusses recommendations in the context of goods and services. Further, these limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Specifically, the analysis of data and vectors to determine recommendations are observations, evaluations, and judgements. These limitations are similar to the mental process of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. Claims 11 and 20 recite the same abstract ideas as claim 1 and accordingly fall within the same grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the MPEP, claims 1, 11, and 20 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the MPEP, claims 1, 11, and 20 recite additional elements, such as an apparatus comprising: a memory storing one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions stored in the memory; operating an apparatus; and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for executing an operation on a computer. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. As such, these computer-related limitations are not found to be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Although these additional computer-related elements are recited, claims 1, 11, and 20 merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Similar to the limitations of Alice, claims 1, 11, and 20 merely recite a commonplace business method (i.e., comparing data and vectors to determine recommendations) being applied on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, claims 1, 11, and 20 generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The courts have identified various examples of limitations as merely indicating a field of use/technological environment in which to apply the abstract idea, such as specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer (see FairWarning v. Iatric Sys.). Likewise, claims 1, 11, and 20 specifying that the abstract idea of comparing data and vectors to determine recommendations is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the MPEP, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1, 11, and 20 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Since claims 1, 11, and 20 recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 1, 11, and 20 are “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Next, under Step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. The instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for at least the following reasons.
Returning to independent claims 1, 11, and 20, these claims recite additional elements, such as an apparatus comprising: a memory storing one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions stored in the memory; operating an apparatus; and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for executing an operation on a computer. As discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although additional computer-related elements are recited, the claims merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Moreover, the limitations of claims 1, 11, and 20 are manual processes, e.g., receiving information, sending information, etc. The courts have indicated that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)). Furthermore, as discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, claims 1 and 11 merely recite the additional elements in order to further define the field of use of the abstract idea, therein attempting to generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such as the Internet or computing networks (see Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC. (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bilski v. Kappos (2010); MPEP 2106.05(h)). Similar to FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., claims 1, 11, and 20 specifying that the abstract idea of comparing data and vectors to determine recommendations is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claim to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. In Alice Corp., the Court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘[a]dd nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’ and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Id. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, viewed as a whole, claims 1, 11, and 20 simply convey the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 11, and 20 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. Further, these claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 fail to identify additional elements and as such, are not indicative of integration into a practical application. As such, under Step 2A, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 are “directed to” an abstract idea and are not integrated into a practical application. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claims 1, 11, and 20, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19, analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, merely further define the commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Further, these limitations generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, under the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1-20 are ineligible.
Subject Matter Allowable Over the Prior Art
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the evidence obtained and made of record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of applicant’s invention as the noted features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art.
The most relevant prior art made of record includes previously cited Yoon et al. (US 20190179915 A1), hereinafter Yoon, in view of previously cited Chen et al. (US 20220374761 A1), hereinafter Chen, newly cited Shacham et al. (US 20170372266 A1), hereinafter Shacham, and previously cited NPL reference U, originally cited in the Office action dated 01/06/2026.
Although individually the references teach concepts such as generating a feature vector definition, predefined positions in a vector, a first feature vector and a plurality of second feature vectors, comparing the vectors, and providing a recommendation, none of the references teach nor render obvious that obtaining a feature vector definition based on metadata, comprising an ordered arrangement of a plurality of values, generating vectors by matching information pertaining to content viewed or items to a corresponding position in the ordered arrangement, where the vectors have fixed dimensionality, comparing the vectors, and generating recommendations.
Previously cited Yoon discloses a method of recommendation (Yoon: [0094]). Yoon further discloses predicting a user latent vector from user information obtained from the specific user based on the usage history database, including information such as a viewing time, the number of viewings, and a rating of an individual movie for each user (Yoon: [0007]; [0061]). Yoon additionally discloses latent vectors for an item based on an item database (Yoon: [0017]). Yoon additionally discloses generating a recommendation by calculating a score of the user using the inner product of the user latent vector and the item latent vector (Yoon: [0094]). Yet Yoon does not explicitly disclose the limitations pertaining to the feature definition, the ordered arrangement, and the fixed dimensionality.
Previously cited Chen teaches a recommendation method (Chen: [0054]). Chen further teaches that the dimension of the content item vectors is defined by the number of possible features (Chen: [0055]). Chen additionally teaches a user profile vector is defined, that is encoded in the same vector space as the content item vectors. That is, the user profile vector has the same dimensionality and defines values for the same set of features as the content item vectors (Chen: [0059]). Yet Chen does not explicitly disclose all of the limitations with respect to the recommendation based on the specific vector comparison.
Newly cited Shacham teaches a recommendation method (Shacham: [0015]). Shacham teaches accessing feature vector encoding rules describing a vector position for each type of feature that is included in the respective machine learning model's feature set. More specifically, the feature vector encoding rules may state that, for example, a feature for a skills metric is to be stored at a position X1 of a feature vector, an aggregate industry feature is to be stored a position X2, a previous job title feature is to be stored at a position X3. A feature vector can be assembled according to any number of pre-defined features having their own assigned vector position. (Shacham: [0064]). Yet Shacham does not teach the limitations pertaining the recommendations based on the specific vectors.
Previously cited NPL Reference U initially cited in the Office action dated 01/26/2024, teaches recommendations based on word vector embeddings. Proximity of vectors may be determined. Behavioral patterns of users may be analyzed using vectors. Yet U does not explicitly teach all of the limitations pertaining to the vector arrangements and the specific vectors.
While these references arguably teach the claimed limitations using a piecemeal analysis, these references would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant's disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e., hindsight reasoning). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Accordingly, claims 1, 11, and 20, taken as a whole, are indicated to be allowable over the cited prior art. The examiner emphasizes that it is the interrelationship of the limitations that renders these claims allowable over the prior art/additional art. Claims 2-10 and 12-19 depend from claims 1 and 11, and therefore the dependent claims are also indicated as containing allowable subject matter.
The examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as combining various references from the totality of the evidence to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of the Applicant's claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
It is thereby asserted by the examiner that, in light of the above and in further deliberation over all the evidence at hand, that the claims are allowable as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 09/17/2026, have been fully considered.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant argues the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the claims “cannot practically be performed in the human mind and do not fall within any enumerated grouping of abstract ideas” (Remarks page 13). The examiner disagrees. The MPEP enumerates groupings of abstract ideas, thereby synthesizing the holdings of various court decisions to facilitate examination. See MPEP 2106.04. Among the enumerated groupings is the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping, which includes activity that falls within the enumerated sub-grouping of commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. Also among the enumerated groupings are “Mental Processes,” which recite concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. With respect to the claims, the examiner notes that the additional elements are not analyzed under Step 2A, Prong 1. The amendments further recite limitations such as generating vectors and comparing the vectors to generate recommendations. These amendments represent certain methods of organizing human activity. Applicant’s specification details that the recommendation may be provided for shopping purposes (see specification [0003]). In sum, the claims are directed towards marketing and sales activities and behaviors. Furthermore, the claims recite mental processes. Specifically, the analysis of data and vectors to determine recommendations are observations, evaluations, and judgements. These limitations are similar to the mental process of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. Accordingly, these claims recite Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes.
Applicant argues the claims do not recite an abstract idea and are integrated into a practical application because the claims represent “a specific technical solution that improves the functioning of content recommendation systems by enabling accurate recommendations with minimal user data and reduced computational resources” (Remarks pages 13-14). The examiner disagrees. The MPEP provides guidance on how to evaluate whether claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For example, the MPEP states “the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.” The MPEP further states that “[t]he specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art,” and that, “conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner…the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology” (see MPEP 2106.04). That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. Looking to the specification is a standard that the courts have employed when analyzing claims as it relates to improvements in technology. For example, in Enfish, the specification provided teaching that the claimed invention achieves benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, in Core Wireless the specification noted deficiencies in prior art interfaces relating to efficient functioning of the computer. Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs. Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed Cir. 2018). With respect to McRO, the claimed improvement, as confirmed by the originally filed specification, was “…allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters…’” and it was “…the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks”. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016).
While the examiner acknowledges that improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field may constitute integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), the instant claims do not provide a technical improvement. Rather, the claims provide an improvement to the abstract idea of comparing data and vectors to determine recommendations. With respect to Applicant’s arguments regarding the improvement to accuracy with minimal data, the examiner notes that improving accuracy is merely an improvement to the abstract idea and not a technical improvement. Additionally, paragraph [0075] of Applicant’s specification is noted which states provision of “a technical improvement for reducing the use of computer resources.” However, this statement is not supported with any other information as to how the improvement is being made to existing technology, and therefore, it is considered to be a conclusory statement of improvement. Furthermore, the claims do not reflect any sort of improvement to technology and merely include high level generic additional elements.
Although the claims include computer technology such as an apparatus comprising: a memory storing one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions stored in the memory; operating an apparatus; and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for executing an operation on a computer, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. Put another way, these additional elements are merely used to apply the abstract idea of product management using comparisons in a technological environment without effectuating any improvement or change to the functioning of the additional elements or other technology. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the courts in cases such as Enfish, Core Wireless, and McRO. Unlike precedential cases, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement to computer capabilities. The instant claims are not directed to technological improvements but are directed to improving the product recommendations. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in a more accurate process for recommendation, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving the server and/or computer components that operate the system. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing data sets related to products and users while still employing the same server and/or computer components used in conventional systems to improve recommendations, e.g. a business method, and therefore is merely applying the abstract idea using generic computing components. As such, the claims are not eligible.
Applicant argues the claims provide significantly more because the claims “are not well-understood, routine or conventional activities” (Remarks pages 14-15). The examiner disagrees. One consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Evaluation of this consideration includes evaluating whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Cases have found that additional elements are more than "apply it" or are not "mere instructions" when the claim recites a technological solution to a technological problem. Applicant's claims provide no similar technological solution to a technological problem. Rather, the claims at issue only merely recite the abstract idea of comparing data and vectors to determine recommendations along with the requirement to perform it on a set of generic computer components. For example, Applicant's claims merely recite steps of comparing data and vectors to determine recommendations with generic computer components being recited in a generic manner. The specificity of the claims is directed toward the abstract idea of comparing data and vectors to determine recommendations and not toward any technology, and accordingly, is insufficient to provide significantly more. While additional elements are included within the claims, they are claimed in a generic manner and merely perform generic functions. Applicant’s disclosure does not articulate or suggest how these additional elements function, individually or in combination, in any manner other than using generic functionality. As such, the claims represent mere instructions to apply an abstract idea to a general purpose computer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA MAE MITROS whose telephone number is (571)272-3969. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30-6.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/ANNA MAE MITROS/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
