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 .
The filing date of the present invention is 01/19/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/29/2024, 12/05/2024, 01/21/2025 and 04/01/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 PEG”).
Regarding claim 1
Step 1: The claim recites method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites multiple mental processes, as explained below. The claim recites, inter alia:
“…wherein each reference sample and the to-be-predicted data each comprise user feature field data and item feature field data, the user feature field data of the to-be-predicted data indicates a feature of a target user, the item feature field data of the to-be-predicted data indicates a feature of a target item, and each target reference sample and the to-be-predicted data have partially identical user feature field data or item feature field data; obtaining target feature information of the to-be-predicted data based on the plurality of target reference samples and the to-be-predicted data, wherein the target feature information comprises a first target eigenvector group and a second target eigenvector group, the first target eigenvector group is vectorized to-be-predicted data, and the second target eigenvector group is obtained by vectorizing the plurality of target reference samples and then performing fusion on vectorized target reference samples; …and determining, based on the output value, whether to recommend the target item to the target user.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical.
In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are 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). The additional element of “obtaining an output value through a deep neural network (DNN) by using the target feature information as input;” as drafted, is reciting generic computer components. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
In addition, the claim limitation “A recommendation method performed by a recommendation device, comprising: obtaining to-be-predicted data; obtaining a plurality of target reference samples from a plurality of reference samples based on a similarity between the to-be-predicted data and the plurality of reference samples,” This limitation as explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
The claim recites “A recommendation method performed by a recommendation device, comprising: obtaining to-be-predicted data; obtaining a plurality of target reference samples from a plurality of reference samples based on a similarity between the to-be-predicted data and the plurality of reference samples,” constitute storing and retrieving information in memory, which the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Regarding claim 2
Step 1: The claim recites method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“wherein the target reference samples further comprise label data, and the step of obtaining the target feature information comprises: obtaining the second target eigenvector group by vectorizing user feature field data, item feature field data, and the label data of the plurality of target reference samples, and then performing fusion on vectorized data.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not appear to recite additional elements that might integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed to a judicial exception, it must be determined if the claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount of significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3
Step 1: The claim recites method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“wherein the target feature information further comprises a third target eigenvector group, wherein the step of obtaining the target feature information comprises: obtaining the third target eigenvector group by performing pairwise interaction between target eigenvectors in a first vector group comprising the first target eigenvector group and the second target eigenvector group.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not appear to recite additional elements that might integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed to a judicial exception, it must be determined if the claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount of significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4
Step 1: The claim recites method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“wherein the step of obtaining the target feature information comprises: concatenating a plurality of first target eigenvectors in the first target eigenvector group to obtain a second eigenvector of the to-be-predicted data; concatenating a plurality of first eigenvectors of each target reference sample to obtain a second eigenvector of each target reference sample, wherein the plurality of first eigenvectors of each target reference sample are obtained by vectorizing the target reference sample; obtaining a similarity between the second eigenvector of each target reference sample and the second eigenvector of the to-be-predicted data;”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
“determining a weight of each target reference sample based on the similarity between the second eigenvector of each target reference sample and the second eigenvector of the to-be-predicted data; and performing fusion on first eigenvectors of the plurality of target reference samples in a same feature field based on the weight of each target reference sample to obtain the second target eigenvector group.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not appear to recite additional elements that might integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed to a judicial exception, it must be determined if the claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount of significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5
Step 1: The claim recites method; therefore, it falls into the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“wherein before the step of obtaining the plurality of target reference samples, the method further comprises: obtaining a plurality of raw samples, wherein each raw sample comprises user feature field data and item feature field data; and performing inverted indexing on the plurality of raw samples by using a plurality of pieces of user feature field data and a plurality of pieces of item feature field data of the to-be-predicted data as elements to obtain the plurality of reference samples.”
This limitation is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (concepts performed in the human mind, including observation and evaluation [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. C.]).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not appear to recite additional elements that might integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed to a judicial exception, it must be determined if the claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount of significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 6-10
Claims 6-10 recites analogous limitations to claim 7 and therefore is rejected on the same ground as claim 7.
Regarding claims 11-15
Claims 11-15 recites analogous limitations to claims 1-5 and therefore is rejected on the same ground as claims 1-5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VAN C MANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7598. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Yi can be reached at 5712707519. 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.
/VAN C MANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2126
Prosecution Insights