DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. Claim 5 recites the limitation "wherein determining the second set of weights based on the combined representation comprises: modifying the combined representation to generate the modified combined representation " in Page 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as no “modified combined representation” is claimed earlier in the claim, in parent dependent claim 4, or in parent independent claim 1. Dependent claims 6-12 are rejected for incorporating the deficiencies of dependent claim 5. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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. Specifically, it is unclear as to what the claimed “at least one” in the limitation “ generating the modified combined representation based on the determined at least one ” refers to. Claim 10 recites the limitation " w herein recommending the information to a user comprises: applying the second set of weights to the combined representation to generate the weighted combined representation " in Pages 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as no “weighted combined representation” is claimed earlier in the claim, in parent dependent claim 4, or in parent independent claim 1. Dependent claims 11-12 are rejected for incorporating the deficiencies of dependent claim 10. Claim 17 recites the limitation "wherein determining the second set of weights based on the combined representation comprises: modifying the combined representation to generate the modified combined representation " in Page 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as no “modified combined representation” is claimed earlier in the claim, in parent dependent claim 16, or in parent independent claim 13. Dependent claims 18-19 are rejected for incorporating the deficiencies of dependent claim 17. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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. Specifically, it is unclear as to what the claimed “at least one” in the limitation “generating the modified combined representation based on the determined at least one ” refers to. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 6 . 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. 7 . Claims (1-12), (13-19), and (20) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter 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. Under the 2019 PEG, when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (step 2A prong 1), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is integrated into a practical application (step 2A prong 2). If an abstract idea is present in the claim without integration into a practical application, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (step 2B). In the instant case, claims (1-12), (13-19), and (20) are directed to a method, electronic device , and computer-readable storage medium respectively. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories. However, the claims also fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Under Step 2A Prong 1, the test is to identify whether the claims are “directed to” a judicial exception. The examiner notes that the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea in that the instant application is directed to mental processes, specifically recommending information. The examiner further notes that claims (1-12), (13-19), and (20) recite a method, electronic device, and computer-readable storage medium for recommending information which is similar to themes defined above of method of mental processes such as performing the recommendation of information, and is similar to the abstract idea identified in the 2019 PEG in grouping “c” in that the claims recite certain methods of mental processes such as performing the recommendation of information. The limitations, substantially comprising the body of the claim, recite a process of recommending information. The examiner notes that the claimed invention recommends information. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps in recommending information , and the steps of the claims involve mental processes, the claim recites an abstract idea consistent with the “mental processes” grouping set forth in the 2019 PEG. Claim 1: A method of recommending information, comprising: determining, based on a set of feature representations of a plurality of features associated with information recommendation, a first set of weights indicating importance of the plurality of features; determining a second set of weights based on the set of feature representations and the first set of weights; and recommending the information to a user based on the set of feature representations, the first set of weights and the second set of weights . These limitations, as drafted, is an apparatus that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of mental processes specifically recommending information. Recommending information has long before the modern computer was invented, and continues to be predominantly a product of human endeavor. The instant application is directed to recommending information. Additionally, the determining of a first set of weights based on feature representations and can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Furthermore, the determination of a second set of weights can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Moreover, the recommendation of information can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper . Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of recommending information , and the steps involved human judgments, observations and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind and/or pen & paper, the claim recites an abstract idea consistent with the “mental process” grouping set forth in the 2019 PEG. If the claims are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea, it must then be determined under Step 2A Prong 2 whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. The Examiner notes that considerations under Step 2A Prong 2 comprise most the consideration previously evaluated in the context of Step 2B. The Examiner submits that the considerations discussed previously determined that the claim does not recite “significantly more” at Step 2B would be evaluated the same under Step 2A Prong 1 and result in the determination that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The instant application fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the instant application merely recites words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea. The instant application is directed to an apparatus instructing the reader to implement the identified apparatus of mental processes of recommending information. The elements of the claim do not themselves amount to an improvement to the computer, to a technology or another technical field. Here, the claim elements entirely comprise the abstract idea, leaving little if any aspects of the claim for further consideration under Step 2A Prong 2. In short, the claims have failed to integrate a practical application (see at least 84 Fed. Reg. (4) at 55). Under the 2019 PEG, this supports the conclusion that the claim is directed to an abstract idea, and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B. While many considerations in Step 2A need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the outcome will be the same. Here, on the basis of the additional elements other than the abstract idea, considered individually and in combination as discussed above, the Examiner respectfully submits that the claim 1 does not contain any additional elements that individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept and the claims are ineligible. With respect to the dependent claims do not recite anything that is found to render the abstract idea as being transformed into a patent eligible invention. The dependent claims are merely reciting further embellishments of the abstract idea and do not claim anything that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. With respect to the dependent claims, they have been considered and are not found to be reciting anything that amounts to being significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2-12 are directed to further embellishments of the central theme of the abstract idea in that the claims are directed to further embellishments of the recommending information of the steps of claim 1 and do not amount to significantly more. Specifically, claim 2 is directed towards the determination of weights via an applied model which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more. Furthermore, claim 3 is directed towards the defining of the features which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more. Moreover, claim 4 is directed towards the determination of weights which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more. Additionally, claim 5 is directed towards the determination of weights which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more. Furthermore, claim 6 is directed towards the modification of a representation which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more. Moreover, claim 7 is directed towards the generation of a modification of a representation which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more. Additionally, claim 8 is directed towards the generation of a modification of a representation based off of generated statistics which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more. Furthermore, claim 9 is directed towards the determination of weights which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more. Moreover, claim 10 is directed towards the recommendation of content based off of generated applied weights which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more. Additionally, claim 11 is directed towards the generation of a modification of a representation which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more. Furthermore, claim 12 is directed towards the determination of weights and representations which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more. Claim 13: An electronic device, comprising: at least one processor; and a storage device for storing at least one program which, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: determining, based on a set of feature representations of a plurality of features associated with information recommendation, a first set of weights indicating importance of the plurality of features; determining a second set of weights based on the set of feature representations and the first set of weights; and recommending the information to a user based on the set of feature representations, the first set of weights and the second set of weights . These limitations, as drafted, is an apparatus that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of mental processes specifically recommending information. Recommending information has long before the modern computer was invented, and continues to be predominantly a product of human endeavor. The instant application is directed to recommending information. Additionally, the determining of a first set of weights based on feature representations and can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Furthermore, the determination of a second set of weights can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Moreover, the recommendation of information can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper . Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of recommending information , and the steps involved human judgments, observations and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind and/or pen & paper, the claim recites an abstract idea consistent with the “mental process” grouping set forth in the 2019 PEG. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing components such as an electronic device, at least one processor, and a storage device do not take the claim out of certain methods of mental processes grouping. Therefore, the limitation is directed to an abstract idea. If the claims are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea, it must then be determined under Step 2A Prong 2 whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. The Examiner notes that considerations under Step 2A Prong 2 comprise most the consideration previously evaluated in the context of Step 2B. The Examiner submits that the considerations discussed previously determined that the claim does not recite “significantly more” at Step 2B would be evaluated the same under Step 2A Prong 1 and result in the determination that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The instant application fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the instant application merely recites words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea. The instant application is directed to an apparatus instructing the reader to implement the identified apparatus of mental processes of recommending information. The elements of the claim do not themselves amount to an improvement to the computer, to a technology or another technical field. Here, the claim elements entirely comprise the abstract idea, leaving little if any aspects of the claim for further consideration under Step 2A Prong 2. In short, the claims have failed to integrate a practical application (see at least 84 Fed. Reg. (4) at 55). Under the 2019 PEG, this supports the conclusion that the claim is directed to an abstract idea, and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B. While many considerations in Step 2A need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the outcome will be the same. Here, on the basis of the additional elements other than the abstract idea, considered individually and in combination as discussed above, the Examiner respectfully submits that the claim 13 does not contain any additional elements that individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept and the claims are ineligible. With respect to the dependent claims do not recite anything that is found to render the abstract idea as being transformed into a patent eligible invention. The dependent claims are merely reciting further embellishments of the abstract idea and do not claim anything that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. With respect to the dependent claims, they have been considered and are not found to be reciting anything that amounts to being significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 14-19 are directed to further embellishments of the central theme of the abstract idea in that the claims are directed to further embellishments of the recommending information of the steps of claim 13 and do not amount to significantly more. Specifically, claim 14 is directed towards the determination of weights via an applied model which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more. Furthermore, claim 15 is directed towards the defining of the features which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more. Moreover, claim 16 is directed towards the determination of weights which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more. Additionally, claim 17 is directed towards the determination of weights which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more. Furthermore, claim 18 is directed towards the modification of a representation which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more. Moreover, claim 19 is directed towards the generation of a modification of a representation which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more. Claim 20: A computer-readable storage medium having computer programs stored thereon which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising: determining, based on a set of feature representations of a plurality of features associated with information recommendation, a first set of weights indicating importance of the plurality of features; determining a second set of weights based on the set of feature representations and the first set of weights; and recommending the information to a user based on the set of feature representations, the first set of weights and the second set of weights . These limitations, as drafted, is an apparatus that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of mental processes specifically recommending information. Recommending information has long before the modern computer was invented, and continues to be predominantly a product of human endeavor. The instant application is directed to recommending information. Additionally, the determining of a first set of weights based on feature representations and can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Furthermore, the determination of a second set of weights can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Moreover, the recommendation of information can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper . Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of recommending information , and the steps involved human judgments, observations and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind and/or pen & paper, the claim recites an abstract idea consistent with the “mental process” grouping set forth in the 2019 PEG. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing components such as a computer-readable storage medium and a processor do not take the claim out of certain methods of mental processes grouping. Therefore, the limitation is directed to an abstract idea. If the claims are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea, it must then be determined under Step 2A Prong 2 whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. The Examiner notes that considerations under Step 2A Prong 2 comprise most the consideration previously evaluated in the context of Step 2B. The Examiner submits that the considerations discussed previously determined that the claim does not recite “significantly more” at Step 2B would be evaluated the same under Step 2A Prong 1 and result in the determination that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The instant application fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the instant application merely recites words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea. The instant application is directed to an apparatus instructing the reader to implement the identified apparatus of mental processes of recommending information. The elements of the claim do not themselves amount to an improvement to the computer, to a technology or another technical field. Here, the claim elements entirely comprise the abstract idea, leaving little if any aspects of the claim for further consideration under Step 2A Prong 2. In short, the claims have failed to integrate a practical application (see at least 84 Fed. Reg. (4) at 55). Under the 2019 PEG, this supports the conclusion that the claim is directed to an abstract idea, and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B. While many considerations in Step 2A need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the outcome will be the same. Here, on the basis of the additional elements other than the abstract idea, considered individually and in combination as discussed above, the Examiner respectfully submits that the claim 13 does not contain any additional elements that individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept and the claims are ineligible. 9/8/2022 (Foreign) 2013/0013448 (Bradley et al., 1/10/2013) 2022/0215296 (Chen et al., 7/7/2022) Chen et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0215296) Rahman et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0233124). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 8 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 9 . The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 10 . Claims 1, 3, 13, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0215296). 11 . Regarding claims 1, 13, and 20, Chen teaches a method, electronic device, and computer-readable storage medium comprising: A) determining, based on a set of feature representations of a plurality of features associated with information recommendation, a first set of weights indicating importance of the plurality of features (Paragraph 51); B) determining a second set of weights based on the set of feature representations and the first set of weights (Paragraph 51); and C) recommending the information to a user based on the set of feature representations, the first set of weights and the second set of weights (Paragraphs 51-52). The examiner notes that Chen teaches “determining, based on a set of feature representations of a plurality of features associated with information recommendation, a first set of weights indicating importance of the plurality of features” as “The server 300 is configured to construct a feature combination set including a plurality of feature combinations in response to the content obtaining request transmitted by the terminal 100; obtain feature value sets respectively corresponding to the feature combinations; determine weight values corresponding to the combined features based on the feature values of the combined features; construct weight value sets corresponding to the feature combinations based on the weight values of the combined features; and respectively determine effectivenesses of the feature combinations based on the weight value sets of the feature combinations” (Paragraph 51). The examiner further notes that the determination of the weight values (which are based on feature values) teaches the claimed determination of a first set of weights. The examiner further notes that Chen teaches “determining a second set of weights based on the set of feature representations and the first set of weights” as “The server 300 is configured to construct a feature combination set including a plurality of feature combinations in response to the content obtaining request transmitted by the terminal 100; obtain feature value sets respectively corresponding to the feature combinations; determine weight values corresponding to the combined features based on the feature values of the combined features; construct weight value sets corresponding to the feature combinations based on the weight values of the combined features; and respectively determine effectivenesses of the feature combinations based on the weight value sets of the feature combinations” (Paragraph 51). The examiner further notes that the determination of the weight values sets (i.e. the claimed second set of weights) teaches the claimed determining. The examiner further notes that Chen teaches “recommending the information to a user based on the set of feature representations, the first set of weights and the second set of weights” as “The server 300 is configured to construct a feature combination set including a plurality of feature combinations in response to the content obtaining request transmitted by the terminal 100; obtain feature value sets respectively corresponding to the feature combinations; determine weight values corresponding to the combined features based on the feature values of the combined features; construct weight value sets corresponding to the feature combinations based on the weight values of the combined features; and respectively determine effectivenesses of the feature combinations based on the weight value sets of the feature combinations” (Paragraph 51) and “Next, the server 300 is further configured to determine a target feature combination based on the effectivenesses of the feature combinations, so as to determine target recommendation content based on the target feature combinations. In actual implementation, the effectivenesses of the feature combinations may be ranked to obtain a corresponding ranking result, so that a target quantity of feature combinations are selected from the feature combination set based on the ranking result. The selected feature combinations are used as target feature combinations, and feature combination is performed on original features of to-be-recommended content based on the target feature combinations to obtain target combined features, to determine a CTR of a target user on the to-be-recommended content based on the target combined features, determine the target recommendation content based on the CTR, and push the target recommendation content to the terminal 100” (Paragraph 52). The examiner further notes that the determination of target recommendation content is based off of the determined weight value sets ((i.e. the claimed second set of weights) which are based off of weight values ((i.e. the claimed first set of weights) which are based on features)). Regarding claims 3 and 15, Chen further teaches a method and electronic device comprising: A) wherein the plurality of features includes at least one of: a user identification, user behavior statistics, an information identification, information attributes, traffic attributes and device attributes (Paragraph 69). The examiner notes that Chen teaches “wherein the plurality of features includes at least one of: a user identification, user behavior statistics, an information identification, information attributes, traffic attributes and device attributes” as “The server receives a user request transmitted by a terminal, extracts to-be-recommended content from a content database according to the user request (where the user request may include information such as a user ID and a current time), and transfers both the user request and the to-be-recommended content to a feature center. The feature center sorts out related information of the user request and the to-be-recommended content into a structured form (such as a string list, or a key-value pair), so as to obtain original features (such as user ID, user age, and content ID) of the to-be-recommended content, and transfer the original features to a feature combination module” (Paragraph 69). The examiner further notes that features can include various different types of data including a user ID (i.e. the claimed user identification). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 12 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 1 3 . The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 1 4 . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 1 5 . Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0215296) as applied to claims 1, 3, 13, 15, and 20 above, and further in view of Rahman et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0233124). 1 6 . Regarding claims 2 and 14, Chen does not explicitly teach a method and electronic device comprising: A) wherein determining the first set of weights comprises: obtaining the first set of weights by applying a logistic regression model to the set of feature representations. Rahman , however, teaches “wherein determining the first set of weights comprises: obtaining the first set of weights by applying a logistic regression model to the set of feature representations” as “weights for the feature vectors 420 are determine (308), preferably by the model training engine 202. In one or more cases, the model training engine 202 may determine one or more weights of the feature vectors 420 by applying a logistic regression model 422 to the feature vectors 420 and generating logistic regression weights 424 for the feature vectors 420” (Paragraph 51). The examiner further notes that although Chen uses a model to determine its weights (See Paragraph 89), there is no explicit teaching that such a model is an LR model. Nevertheless, the secondary reference of Rahman teaches the concept of using an LR model to determine weights corresponding to features. The combination would result in the use of an LR model as the model that determines the weights of Chen . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of instant invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because teaching Rahman’s would have allowed Chen’s to provide a method for improving the recommendation of data to users, as noted by Rahman (Paragraph 3). 17. Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0215296) as applied to claims 1, 3, 13, 15, and 20 above, and further in view of Brothers et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2016/0350645) . 18. Regarding claims 4 and 16, Chen further teaches a method and electronic device comprising: C) determining the second set of weights based on the combined representation (Paragraph 51). The examiner further notes that Chen teaches “determining the second set of weights based on the combined representation” as “The server 300 is configured to construct a feature combination set including a plurality of feature combinations in response to the content obtaining request transmitted by the terminal 100; obtain feature value sets respectively corresponding to the feature combinations; determine weight values corresponding to the combined features based on the feature values of the combined features; construct weight value sets corresponding to the feature combinations based on the weight values of the combined features; and respectively determine effectivenesses of the feature combinations based on the weight value sets of the feature combinations” (Paragraph 51). The examiner further notes that the determination of the weight values sets results in a generation of a second set of weights. Moreover, the combination (See Brothers below) would result in the second set of weights being generated based off of the application of the subset of weights. Chen does not explicitly teach: A) wherein determining the second set of weights comprises: generating a set of weight representations by dividing the first set of weights into a plurality of subsets, each subset forming a weight representation; B) generating a combined representation by combining the set of weight representations with the set of feature representations . Brothers , however, teaches “wherein determining the second set of weights comprises: generating a set of weight representations by dividing the first set of weights into a plurality of subsets, each subset forming a weight representation” as “Progressing on to feature classification layers 745 of the neural network, the NN engine reads a portion or subset of the weights 750 of the first fully-connected feature classification layer 755 and processes each of the intermediate results of the N images through layer 755” (Paragraph 83) and “if there are 16 million 16-bit parameters for layer 755 and 32 KB of storage for weights 750 in internal memory 705, the NN engine reads a subset of weights 750 into internal memory 705, e.g., 16 K of weights 750, applies the subset of weights 750 to all N images, and adds the contributions for the subset of weights 750 to the intermediate results for the N images stored in internal memory 705. The NN engine then reads the next subset of weights 750, e.g., the next 16 K of weights 750, into internal memory 705, thereby overwriting the first subset of weights 750, and so on” (Paragraph 84) and “generating a combined representation by combining the set of weight representations with the set of feature representations” as “Progressing on to feature classification layers 745 of the neural network, the NN engine reads a portion or subset of the weights 750 of the first fully-connected feature classification layer 755 and processes each of the intermediate results of the N images through layer 755” (Paragraph 83) and “if there are 16 million 16-bit parameters for layer 755 and 32 KB of storage for weights 750 in internal memory 705, the NN engine reads a subset of weights 750 into internal memory 705, e.g., 16 K of weights 750, applies the subset of weights 750 to all N images, and adds the contributions for the subset of weights 750 to the intermediate results for the N images stored in internal memory 705. The NN engine then reads the next subset of weights 750, e.g., the next 16 K of weights 750, into internal memory 705, thereby overwriting the first subset of weights 750, and so on” (Paragraph 84). The examiner further notes that although Chen teaches the generation of weights based off of generated applied first weights, there is no explicit teaching of such generated applied first weights being a subset of those generated first weights. Nevertheless, Brothers teaches the application of a subset of weights. The combination would result in the applied generated first weights of Chen to be a subset of its generated first weights. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of instant invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because teaching Brothers’s would have allowed Chen’s to provide a method for reducing memory usage, as noted by Brothers (Paragraph 23). Allowable Subject Matter 19. Claim s 5 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Specifically, although the prior art (See Chen ) clearly generates second weights, and Brothers applies a subset of weights, the detailed claim language directed towards the second set of weights being determined based on the defined modified combined representation is not found in the prior art, in conjunction with the limitations of the parent claims. Dependent claims 6-9 and 18-19 are deemed allowable for depending on the deemed allowable subject matter of dependent claim s 5 and 17 respectively. Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Specifically, although the prior art (See Chen ) clearly generates second weights, and Brothers applies a subset of weights, the detailed claim language directed towards the recommendation being based on the defined updated combined representation is not found in the prior art, in conjunction with the limitations of the parent claims. Dependent claims 11-12 are deemed allowable for depending on the deemed allowable subject matter of dependent claim 10. Conclusion 20 . The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. PGPUB 2013/0013448 issued to Bradley et al. on 10 January 202 3 . The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1-20 (e.g., methods to generate recommendations ). U.S. PGPUB 2012/0197751 issued to Zatkin et al. on 02 August 2012 . The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1-20 (e.g., methods to generate recommendations). Contact Information 21 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mahesh Dwivedi whose telephone number is (571) 272-2731. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 8:20 am – 4:40 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Rones can be reached (571) 272-4085. The fax 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 Information 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). Mahesh Dwivedi Primary Examiner Art Unit 2168 March 23, 2026 /MAHESH H DWIVEDI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168