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.
Response to Amendment
3. Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment filed on 06/25/2026 is acknowledged. The amendment includes the amending of claims 1, 4, 7-9, 11-13, 16, and 19-20 and the cancellation of claims 5-6, 10, and 17-18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The rejections raised in the Office Action mailed on 03/25/2026 have been overcome by applicant’s amendment received on 06/25/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims (1-4, 7-9, and 11-12), (13-16 and 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 (1-4, 7-9, and 11-12), (13-16 and 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 (1-4, 7-9, and 11-12), (13-16 and 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;
generating a set of weight representations based on the first set of weights;
generating a combined representation by combining the set of weight representations the set of feature representation;
modifying the combined representation by determining, for each representation in the combined representation, at least one of a maximum value, a minimum value, and an average value of components of the representation;
determining, using a neural network hidden layer, a second set of weights based on a modified combined representation;
generating a weighted combined representation by applying the second set of weights to the combined representation;
generating an updated combined representation by combining the weighted combined representation with the combined representation; and
recommending the information to a user based on the updated combined representation.
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 can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Furthermore, the generation of a set of weight representations based on the first set of weights can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Moreover, the generation of a combined representation via the combining of the set of weight representations can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Additionally, the defined modification of the combined representation can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Furthermore, the determining of a second set of weights via a neural network hidden layer can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Moreover, the generation of a weighted combination via the application of the second set of weights to the combined representation can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Additionally, the generation of an updated combined representation via the combining of the weighted combined representation with the combined representation can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Furthermore, the recommendation of information based on the updated combined representation 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 2-4, 7-9, and 11-12 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 generation of weight representations which can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper and does not amount to significantly more.
Additionally, 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.
Furthermore, 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.
Moreover, 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.
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;
generating a set of weight representations based on the first set of weights;
generating a combined representation by combining the set of weight representations the set of feature representation;
modifying the combined representation by determining, for each representation in the combined representation, at least one of a maximum value, a minimum value, and an average value of components of the representation;
determining, using a neural network hidden layer, a second set of weights based on a modified combined representation;
generating a weighted combined representation by applying the second set of weights to the combined representation;
generating an updated combined representation by combining the weighted combined representation with the combined representation; and
recommending the information to a user based on the updated combined representation.
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 can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Furthermore, the generation of a set of weight representations based on the first set of weights can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Moreover, the generation of a combined representation via the combining of the set of weight representations can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Additionally, the defined modification of the combined representation can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Furthermore, the determining of a second set of weights via a neural network hidden layer can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Moreover, the generation of a weighted combination via the application of the second set of weights to the combined representation can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Additionally, the generation of an updated combined representation via the combining of the weighted combined representation with the combined representation can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Furthermore, the recommendation of information based on the updated combined representation 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 14-16 and 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 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;
generating a set of weight representations based on the first set of weights;
generating a combined representation by combining the set of weight representations the set of feature representation;
modifying the combined representation by determining, for each representation in the combined representation, at least one of a maximum value, a minimum value, and an average value of components of the representation;
determining, using a neural network hidden layer, a second set of weights based on a modified combined representation;
generating a weighted combined representation by applying the second set of weights to the combined representation;
generating an updated combined representation by combining the weighted combined representation with the combined representation; and
recommending the information to a user based on the updated combined representation.
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 can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Furthermore, the generation of a set of weight representations based on the first set of weights can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Moreover, the generation of a combined representation via the combining of the set of weight representations can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Additionally, the defined modification of the combined representation can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Furthermore, the determining of a second set of weights via a neural network hidden layer can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Moreover, the generation of a weighted combination via the application of the second set of weights to the combined representation can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Additionally, the generation of an updated combined representation via the combining of the weighted combined representation with the combined representation can be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper. Furthermore, the recommendation of information based on the updated combined representation 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 20 does not contain any additional elements that individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept and the claims are ineligible.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue on Page 08 that “Amended claim 1 recites a specific, unconventional method of processing data for information recommendation. The claim provides a concrete technical solution comprising operations that collectively improve data processing efficiency. Thus, the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea, but rather to a specific improvement to computer technology, specifically, information recommendation systems, and meets the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101”. However, all of the elements of the independent claims are directed towards mental processes, and as a result, there are no additional elements that would trigger an improvement to a computing technology. Indeed, improving a mental process is still a mental process. Specifically, the determining, generating, generating, modifying, determining, generating, generating, and recommending limitations can all be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper, and as a result, involve human judgments, observations and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind and/or pen & paper. Thus, the independent claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “mental process” grouping set forth in the 2019 PEG.
Applicants argue on Page 08 that “First, as demonstrated by the USPTO Example 47 in the AI Patent Eligibility Guidance, claims reciting a specific neural network architecture or specific post-processing steps are not directed to abstract ideas. Similar to Example 47, which recites a specific neural network architecture for network intrusion detection, amended claim 1 recites a specific processing architecture for information recommendation that improves computer functionality”. However, unlike in Example 47, there are no additional elements in the independent claims being claimed that would trigger an analysis under step 2B. Indeed, as explained above, there are no additional elements that would trigger an improvement to a computing technology. Moreover, improving a mental process is still a mental process.
Applicants argue on Page 08 that “Second, under McRO, Inc. V. Bandai Namco Games Am., Inc., the court held that claims reciting a specific set of rules with a particular order and structure for automatically generating 3D lip synchronization were not directed to abstract ideas. Similarly, amended claim 1 recites a complete, ordered, structured set of rules, not a conventional, routine, or well-understood operation. Rather, it is a specific technical solution to the problem of data processing efficiency in information recommendation systems”. However, unlike in McRO, the limitations of the independent claims contain no additional elements that would trigger an analysis under step 2B. Specifically, McRO recited the improvement of computing animation. In contrast, the instant claims are directed towards recommending information which is a mental process.
Applicants argue on Page 08 that “Third, under CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., the court held that claims directed to a specific improvement to the functionality of a cardiac monitoring device, such as excluding specific interference signals to improve detection accuracy, were not directed to abstract ideas. Analogously, amended claim 1 is directed to a specific improvement to the functionality of an information recommendation system. Just as the claims in CardioNet improved device functionality by excluding interference signals, amended claim 1 improves information recommendation system functionality by performing dimensionality reduction through statistical modification”. However, unlike in CardioNet, the limitations of the independent claims contain no additional elements that would trigger an analysis under step 2B. As explained above, improving a mental process is still a mental process. Specifically, the determining, generating, generating, modifying, determining, generating, generating, and recommending limitations can all be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper, and as a result, involve human judgments, observations and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind and/or pen & paper. Thus, the independent claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “mental process” grouping set forth in the 2019 PEG.
Applicants argue on Page 09 that “The specification at paragraph [0048] explicitly recites a technical benefit, stating that "the amount of data to be processed may be reduced and the data processing procedure is accelerated." Amended claim 1 achieves this benefit through the claimed operations. Specifically, for each representation in the combined representation, amended claim 1 determines at least one of a maximum value, a minimum value, or an average value of components of the representation. This statistical modification compresses the high-dimensional combined representation into a lower- dimensional statistical representation. The reduced-dimensionality data then requires fewer computational resources when processed by the subsequent neural network hidden layer, thereby improving processing speed. The claimed modification of the combined representation using statistical values reduces dimensionality of the representation prior to generation of the second weight set, thereby reducing data processing requirements and accelerating recommendation processing. This constitutes a specific improvement to computer technology itself, meeting the patent-eligibility requirement under Step 2A, Prong 2”. However, there are no additional elements in the independent claims being claimed that would trigger an analysis under step 2B. As explained above, improving a mental process is still a mental process. Specifically, the determining, generating, generating, modifying, determining, generating, generating, and recommending limitations can all be performed by a human via their mind and/or pen & paper, and as a result, involve human judgments, observations and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind and/or pen & paper. Thus, the independent claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “mental process” grouping set forth in the 2019 PEG.
Conclusion
9. 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 2023. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-16, and 19-20 (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 1-4, 7-9, 11-16, and 19-20 (e.g., methods to generate recommendations).
10. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
11. 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
July 12, 2026
/MAHESH H DWIVEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights