DETAILED ACTION
1. This is a Non-Final Office Action Correspondence in response to RCE arguments/amendments filed for U.S. Application No. 18/592140 on November 10, 2025.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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
3. Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner in hopes of reaching a resolution in light of the compact prosecution.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The Information Disclosure Statement filed on November 11, 2025 was reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
On Pg. 10 of remarks in regards to 35 U.S.C. 101, relating to claim 1, Applicant states “These steps are machine-implemented computations that cannot be practically
performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. They require large scale hardware for storing and analyzing such matrices and computing target latent feature vectors. The specification explains that in some examples, such calculations require "distributed file system[s]" that are "designed to store very large files reliably across machines in a large cluster." Para. [0071]. It should be clear that a mere human even if armed with pen and paper with any practicality perform such operations that would require large scale storage and computer power. It is not practical for a human mind to factorize matrices and compute latent scores for real world data "in a way that would yield meaningful results." See "The Memo," p. 13-14. The memorandum emphasizes that Examiners should "not expand this grouping in a manner that encompasses claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind."
Examiner replies that “using processing circuitry” is seen as elements that are used to apply computer functions that not additional elements. The Applicant is reciting abstract limitations and loosely trying to associate the abstract limitations with a hardware, such as using processing circuitry. The phrase “using processing circuitry” merely serves a placeholder of a generic component implementing the abstract idea. “A human brain or pen and paper” can serve as the “generic component” implementing the abstract idea.
Below is a sample of the claim with the replaced “generic component”:
“identifying, using “A human brain or pen and paper”, a plurality of content items with respective metadata corresponding to the query”, “for each of the plurality of content items, computing, using “the human brain or pen and paper”, a semantic score by comparing the respective metadata and the query”, “associating, in a matrix and using “the human brain or pen and paper”, the plurality of content items with a plurality of user profiles based on user viewing activity data stored at a database for the plurality of user profiles”, “factorizing, using “the human brain or pen and paper”, the matrix to generate two matrices, wherein a first of the two matrices represents latent features for the plurality of user profiles and a second of the two matrices represents latent features for the plurality of content items”, “calculating, using “the human brain or pen and paper”, a target latent feature vector by performing a dot product of the two matrices; computing, using the processing circuitry, a latent score by performing a similarity comparison of the target latent feature vector and the second of the two matrices”, “determining, using “the human brain or pen and paper”, a first factor proportional to an amount of user viewing activity data for the user profile”, “for the plurality of content items, computing, using “the human brain or pen and paper”,, respective combined scores by combining the latent score weighted by the first factor and a respective semantic score weighted by a second factor that is a function of the first factor, wherein as one of the first factor or the second factor increases, the other of the first factor or the second factor decreases”.
The above is the listing of a claim, the Examiner replaced the generic component implementing the abstract limitations, all the limitations can be performed using the human brain or a pen and paper. Applicant has not discussed how the contents are identified (typically storing in storage pointer to the contents), Applicant has not discussed how the contents are compared (typically storing the result of the comparison or describing a function that is using the comparison), Applicant has not discussed how the contents are factorized (typically storing the result of the factor or describing a function that is using the factor), Applicant has not discussed how the contents are calculated (typically storing the result of the calculation, or using the calculation to perform an action).
Applicants statement “It should be clear that a mere human even if armed with pen and paper with any practicality perform such operations that would require large scale storage and computer power”,
Examiner replies that the Applicant’s does not address the concerns of the limitations. There is no mentioning of storing any of the above limitations into a storage. There is language of storing information into a database but the database can be a written table, or a person categorizing the information. There is no mentioning of having computer hardware components using the identified, calculated, factored, or compared data.
In response to claim 42, Examiner has objected to the claim since the claim depends upon rejected claims. Claim 42 discuses the process of how the data is collected using machines connected in a large cluster that utilizes a distributed file system, this can not be performed in the human mind and cannot be performed with pen and paper due to “plurality of machines connected in a large cluster”.
Examiner replies that the abstract idea is maintained. The limitations causing the information to be displayed on the display is seen as well understood computer functions. For example, causing, by the processing circuitry, to be displayed, at a display, the plurality of content items at display positions ordered based on the respective combined scores is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In addition, Examiner replies for example, causing, by the processing circuitry, to be displayed, at a display, the plurality of content items at display positions ordered based on the respective combined scores is seen MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (iii). Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Double Patenting
5. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
6. Claims 21-42 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21-41 of copending U.S. Patent Application No.18/592150 (herein as ‘Application’). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications discuss identifying content items based upon a latent and semantic score, storing the scores into a structure and then blending the scores together to identify a list of sorted results.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
As to claim 21 Application teaches a method comprising: receiving a query for content, the query associated with a user profile; identifying, using processing circuitry, a plurality of content items with respective metadata corresponding to the query; for each of the plurality of content items, computing, using the processing circuitry, a semantic score by comparing the respective metadata and the query; associating, in a matrix and using the processing circuitry, the plurality of content items with a plurality of user profiles based on user viewing activity data stored at a database for the plurality of user profiles; factorizing, using the processing circuitry, the matrix to generate two matrices, wherein a first of the two matrices represents latent features for the plurality of user profiles and a second of the two matrices represents latent features for the plurality of content items; calculating, using the processing circuitry, a target latent feature vector by performing a dot product of the two matrices computing, using the processing circuitry, a latent score by performing a similarity comparison of the target latent feature vector and the second of the two matrices; determining, using the processing circuitry, a first factor proportional to an amount of user viewing activity data for the user profile; for the plurality of content items, computing, using the processing circuitry, respective combined scores by combining the latent score weighted by the first factor and a respective semantic score weighted by a second factor that is a function of the first factor, wherein as one of the first factor or the second factor increases, the other of the first factor or the second factor decreases; and causing, by the processing circuitry, to be displayed, at a display, the plurality of content items at display positions ordered based on the respective combined scores. (Claim 21 Application).
As to claim 22 Application teaches a further comprising: in response to determining that the first factor meets or exceeds a pre-determined threshold, determining a similarity confidence level (Claim 22 Application).
As to claim 23 Application teaches a wherein the user viewing activity data stored at the database for the plurality of user profiles comprises one or more of user ratings, explicit user feedback, implicit user feedback, user recommendations, user interactions, or user reviews (Claim 23 Application).
As to claim 24 Application teaches a wherein comparing the respective metadata and the query comprises: identifying one or more keywords of the query; and comparing each of the one or more keywords to one or more terms of the respective metadata (Claim 24 Application).
As to claim 25 Application teaches a further comprising generating at least one of a searchable index or a searchable inverted index for the one or more keywords of the query (Claim 25 Application).
As to claim 26 Application teaches a wherein the target latent feature vector comprises target features corresponding to one or more of title, creation date, director, producer, writer, production studio, actors, characters, dialog, subject matter, genre, objects, settings, locations, themes, or legal clearance to third party copyrighted material associated with the query (Claim 26 Application).
As to claim 27 Application teaches a wherein computing the latent score comprises computing a cosine similarity of the target latent feature vector and the second of the two matrices (Claim 27 Application).
As to claim 28 Application teaches a wherein causing, by the processing circuitry, to be displayed, at the display, the plurality of content items at the display positions ordered based on the respective combined scores comprises causing to be displayed content items of the plurality of content items having highest combined scores of the respective combined scores (Claim 28 Application).
As to claim 29 Application teaches a wherein factorizing the matrix to generate the two matrices comprises factorizing the matrix using a collaborative filtering model.
As to claim 30 Application teaches a system for arranging an order of displayed content, the system comprising: one or more communication paths configured to receive a query; and control circuitry configured to: receive, via the one or more communication paths, a query for content, the query associated with a user profile; identify, using the control circuitry, a plurality of content items with respective metadata corresponding to the query; for each of the plurality of content items, compute, using the control circuitry, a semantic score by comparing the respective metadata and the query; associate, in a matrix and using the control circuitry, the plurality of content items with a plurality of user profiles based on user viewing activity data stored at a database for the plurality of user profiles; factorize, using the control circuitry, the matrix to generate two matrices, wherein a first of the two matrices represents latent features for the plurality of user profiles and a second of the two matrices represents latent features for the plurality of content items; calculate, using the control circuitry, a target latent feature vector by performing a dot product of the two matrices; compute, using the control circuitry, a latent score by performing a similarity comparison of the target latent feature vector and the second of the two matrices; determine, using the control circuitry, a first factor proportional to an amount of user viewing activity data for the user profile; for the plurality of content items, compute, using the control circuitry, respective combined scores by combining the latent score weighted by the first factor and a respective semantic score weighted by a second factor that is a function of the first factor, wherein as one of the first factor or the second factor increases, the other of the first factor or the second factor decreases; and cause, by the control circuitry, to be displayed, at a display, the plurality of content items at display positions ordered based on the respective combined scores (Claim 28 Application).
As to claim 32 Application teaches wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: in response to determining that the first factor meets or exceeds a pre-determined threshold, determine a similarity confidence level (Claim 28 Application).
As to claim 33 Application teaches wherein the user viewing activity data stored at the database for the plurality of user profiles comprises one or more of user ratings, explicit user feedback, implicit user feedback, user recommendations, user interactions, or user reviews (Claim 28 Application).
As to claim 34 Application teaches wherein the control circuitry, when comparing the respective metadata and the query, is configured to: identify one or more keywords of the query; and compare each of the one or more keywords to one or more terms of the respective metadata (Claim 28 Application).
As to claim 35 Application teaches wherein the control circuitry is further configured to generate at least one of a searchable index or a searchable inverted index for the one or more keywords of the query (Claim 28 Application).
As to claim 36 Application teaches wherein the target latent feature vector comprises target features corresponding to one or more of title, creation date, director, producer, writer, production studio, actors, characters, dialog, subject matter, genre, objects, settings, locations, themes, or legal clearance to third party copyrighted material associated with the query (Claim 28 Application).
As to claim 37 Application teaches wherein the control circuitry, when computing the latent score, is configured to compute a cosine similarity of the target latent feature vector and the second of the two matrices (Claim 28 Application).
As to claim 38 Application teaches wherein the control circuitry, when causing to be displayed, at the display, the plurality of content items at the display positions ordered based on the respective combined scores, is configured to cause to be displayed content items of the plurality of content items having highest combined scores of the respective combined scores (Claim 28 Application).
As to claim 39 Application teaches wherein the control circuitry, when factorizing the matrix to generate the two matrices, is configured to factorize the matrix using a collaborative filtering model (Claim 28 Application).
As to claim 40 Application teaches a
40. (New) The system of claim 39, wherein the collaborative filtering model comprises one or more of a Bayesian network model, a clustering model, a latent semantic model, a Probabilistic Latent Semantic Analysis model, a Latent Dirichlet Allocation model, or a Markov Decision Process model (Claim 28 Application).
As to claim 41 Application teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions thereon that, when executed, perform a method for arranging an order of displayed content, the method comprising: receiving a query for content, the query associated with a user profile; identifying, using processing circuitry, a plurality of content items with respective metadata corresponding to the query; for each of the plurality of content items, computing, using the processing circuitry, a semantic score by comparing the respective metadata and the query; associating, in a matrix and using the processing circuitry, the plurality of content items with a plurality of user profiles based on user viewing activity data for the plurality of user profiles; factorizing, using the processing circuitry, the matrix to generate two matrices, wherein a first of the two matrices represents latent features for the plurality of user profiles and a second of the two matrices represents latent features for the plurality of content items; calculating, using the processing circuitry, a target latent feature vector by performing a dot product of the two matrices; computing, using the processing circuitry, a latent score by performing a similarity comparison of the target latent feature vector and the second of the two matrices; determining, using the processing circuitry, a first factor proportional to an amount of user viewing activity data for the user profile; for the plurality of content items, computing, using the processing circuitry, respective combined scores by combining the latent score weighted by the first factor and a respective semantic score weighted by a second factor that is a function of the first factor, wherein as one of the first factor or the second factor increases, the other of the first factor or the second factor decreases; and causing, by the processing circuitry, to be displayed, at a display, the plurality of content items at display positions ordered based on the respective combined scores. (Claim 41 Application).
As to claim 42 Application teaches a wherein the calculating the target latent feature vector is determined using a plurality of machines connected in a large cluster that utilizes a distributed file system (Claim 21 Application).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §101
7. 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.
8. Claims 21-41 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 21, specifically claim 21 recites, “identifying using processing circuitry, a plurality of content items with respective metadata corresponding to the query” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying different content items related to the text of the question.
“for each of the plurality of content items, computing using processing circuitry, a semantic score by comparing the respective metadata and the query” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally computing a score between the text of the question and the content.
“associating, using processing circuitry, in a matrix, the plurality of content items with a plurality of user profiles based on user viewing activity data for the plurality of user profiles” in the context of this claim encompasses the user using a pen and paper to write associations between the items and user based on viewing data.
“factorizing, using processing circuitry, the matrix to generate two matrices, wherein a first of the two matrices represents latent features for the plurality of user profiles and a second of the two matrices represents latent features for the plurality of content items” in the context of this claim encompasses the user using a pen and paper to write draw separate matrices that illustrate the associations of two structures between the items and user based on viewing data.
“calculating, using processing circuitry, a target latent feature vector by performing a dot product of the two matrices” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally computing a score between the text of the question and the content.
“computing, using processing circuitry a latent score by performing a similarity comparison of the target latent feature vector and the second of the two matrices” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally computing a score between the text of the question and the content.
“determining a first factor proportional to an amount of user viewing activity data for the user profile” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally computing a score between the text of the question and the content.
“for the plurality of content items, computing respective combined scores by combining the latent score weighted by the first factor and a respective semantic score weighted by a second factor that is a function of the first factor, wherein as one of the first factor or the second factor increases, the other of the first factor or the second factor decreases” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally computing a score between the text of the question and the content.
These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can identify content based upon a question, compute a score for the content, associate the content within matrices, separate the data, then perform second calculations to determine a set of items and then to rank the items. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 21 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example “using processing circuitry” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome include: MPEP 2106.05 (f) (i) Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
For example, "receiving a query for content, the query associated with a user profile” do 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 elements are insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitations recite the concept of receiving a query from a user which is generic and routine.
For example, causing, by the processing circuitry, to be displayed, at a display, the plurality of content items at display positions ordered based on the respective combined scores is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites "receiving a query for content, the query associated with a user profile” and “causing, by the processing circuitry, to be displayed, at a display, the plurality of content items at display positions ordered based on the respective combined scores”.
For example, “using processing circuitry”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP 2106.05(d); 2106.05(d)(II)(iv).
For example, "receiving a query for content, the query associated with a user profile”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP 2106.05(d); 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
For example, causing, by the processing circuitry, to be displayed, at a display, the plurality of content items at display positions ordered based on the respective combined scores is seen MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (iii). Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 22, specifically claim 22 recites "in response to determining that the first factor meets or exceeds a pre-determined threshold, determining a similarity confidence level”. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can identify content based upon a question, compute a score for the content, associate the content within matrices, separate the data, then perform second calculations to determine a set of items and then to rank the items. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
For example, “in response to determining that the first factor meets or exceeds a pre-determined threshold, determining a similarity confidence level” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally mapping segments to different indexes or different definitions.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 22 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 23, specifically claim 23 recites no new abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 23 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “wherein the user viewing activity data stored at the database for the plurality of user profiles comprises one or more of user ratings, explicit user feedback, implicit user feedback, user recommendations, user interactions, or user reviews” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The elements used are just routine data attributes.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the user viewing activity data for the plurality of user profiles comprises one or more of user ratings, explicit user feedback, implicit user feedback, user recommendations, user interactions, or user reviews”.
For example, “wherein the user viewing activity data for the plurality of user profiles comprises one or more of user ratings, explicit user feedback, implicit user feedback, user recommendations, user interactions, or user reviews”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (iv).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 24, specifically claim 24 recites, “identifying one or more keywords of the query” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying different content items related to the text of the question.
“and comparing each of the one or more keywords to one or more terms of the respective metadata” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally computing a score between the text of the question and the content.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 24 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 25, specifically claim 25 recites, “generating at least one of a searchable index or a searchable inverted index for the one or more keywords of the query” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally creating an index based upon words within a question.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 25 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 26, specifically claim 26 recites no new abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 26 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “wherein the target latent feature vector comprises target features corresponding to one or more of title, creation date, director, producer, writer, production studio, actors, characters, dialog, subject matter, genre, objects, settings, locations, themes, or legal clearance to third party copyrighted material associated with the query” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The elements used are just routine data attributes.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the target latent feature vector comprises target features corresponding to one or more of title, creation date, director, producer, writer, production studio, actors, characters, dialog, subject matter, genre, objects, settings, locations, themes, or legal clearance to third party copyrighted material associated with the query”.
For example, “wherein the target latent feature vector comprises target features corresponding to one or more of title, creation date, director, producer, writer, production studio, actors, characters, dialog, subject matter, genre, objects, settings, locations, themes, or legal clearance to third party copyrighted material associated with the query”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (iv).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 27, specifically claim 27 recites, “wherein computing the latent score comprises computing a cosine similarity of the target latent feature vector and the second of the two matrices” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally computing a score for two matrices.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 27 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 28, specifically claim 28 recites no new abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 28 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “wherein causing by the processing circuitry to be displayed at the display the plurality of content items at the display positions ordered based on the respective combined scores comprises causing to be displayed content items of the plurality of content items having highest combined scores of the respective combined scores” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The elements used are just routine data attributes.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein causing by the processing circuitry to be displayed at the display the plurality of content items at the display positions ordered based on the respective combined scores comprises causing to be displayed content items of the plurality of content items having highest combined scores of the respective combined scores”.
For example, “wherein causing by the processing circuitry to be displayed at the display the plurality of content items at the display positions ordered based on the respective combined scores comprises causing to be displayed content items of the plurality of content items having highest combined scores of the respective combined scores”, is seen MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (iii). Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 29, specifically claim 29 recites, “wherein factorizing the matrix to generate the two matrices comprises factorizing the matrix using a collaborative filtering model” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally computing a score for two matrices.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 29 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a method.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 30, specifically claim 30 recites no new abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 30 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “wherein the collaborative filtering model comprises one or more of a Bayesian network model, a clustering model, a latent semantic model, a Probabilistic Latent Semantic Analysis model, a Latent Dirichlet Allocation model, or a Markov Decision Process model” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The elements used are just routine data attributes.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “wherein the collaborative filtering model comprises one or more of a Bayesian network model, a clustering model, a latent semantic model, a Probabilistic Latent Semantic Analysis model, a Latent Dirichlet Allocation model, or a Markov Decision Process model”.
For example, “wherein the collaborative filtering model comprises one or more of a Bayesian network model, a clustering model, a latent semantic model, a Probabilistic Latent Semantic Analysis model, a Latent Dirichlet Allocation model, or a Markov Decision Process model”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP 2106.05(d); (II), (ii).
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one independent claim, 31, specifically claim 31 recites, “identifying using the control circuitry, a plurality of content items with respective metadata corresponding to the query” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally identifying different content items related to the text of the question.
“for each of the plurality of content items, computing using the control circuitry, a semantic score by comparing the respective metadata and the query” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally computing a score between the text of the question and the content.
“associating, in a matrix and using the control circuitry,, the plurality of content items with a plurality of user profiles based on user viewing activity data for the plurality of user profiles” in the context of this claim encompasses the user using a pen and paper to write associations between the items and user based on viewing data.
“factorizing using the control circuitry, the matrix to generate two matrices, wherein a first of the two matrices represents latent features for the plurality of user profiles and a second of the two matrices represents latent features for the plurality of content items” in the context of this claim encompasses the user using a pen and paper to write draw separate matrices that illustrate the associations of two structures between the items and user based on viewing data.
“calculating using the control circuitry, a target latent feature vector by performing a dot product of the two matrices” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally computing a score between the text of the question and the content.
“computing using the control circuitry a latent score by performing a similarity comparison of the target latent feature vector and the second of the two matrices” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally computing a score between the text of the question and the content.
“determining using the control circuitry a first factor proportional to an amount of user viewing activity data for the user profile” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally computing a score between the text of the question and the content.
“for the plurality of content items, computing respective combined scores by combining the latent score weighted by the first factor and a respective semantic score weighted by a second factor that is a function of the first factor, wherein as one of the first factor or the second factor increases, the other of the first factor or the second factor decreases” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally computing a score between the text of the question and the content.
These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can identify content based upon a question, compute a score for the content, associate the content within matrices, separate the data, then perform second calculations to determine a set of items and then to rank the items. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The independent claim of 31 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example “using processing circuitry” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome include: MPEP 2106.05 (f) (i) Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
For example, "receiving a query for content, the query associated with a user profile” do 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 elements are insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitations recite the concept of receiving a query from a user which is generic and routine.
For example, "one or more communication paths configured to receive a query” do 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 elements are insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitations recite the concept of providing a communication path to transmit a question.
For example, "and control circuitry configured to” do 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 elements are insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitations recite the concept of providing a processor to execute the commands.
For example, causing, by the processing circuitry, to be displayed, at a display, the plurality of content items at display positions ordered based on the respective combined scores is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2B, the claim recites “using processing circuitry”, "receiving a query for content, the query associated with a user profile”, "one or more communication paths configured to receive a query”, "and control circuitry configured to”, “causing, by the processing circuitry, to be displayed, at a display, the plurality of content items at display positions ordered based on the respective combined scores”.
For example, “using processing circuitry”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP 2106.05(d); 2106.05(d)(II)(iv).
For example, "receiving a query for content, the query associated with a user profile”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP 2106.05(d); 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
For example, "one or more communication paths configured to receive a query”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP 2106.05(d); 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
For example, "and control circuitry configured to”, is seen as computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality). MPEP 2106.05(d); 2106.05(d)(II)(ii).
For example, causing, by the processing circuitry, to be displayed, at a display, the plurality of content items at display positions ordered based on the respective combined scores is seen as MPEP 2106.05(g) iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 32, specifically claim 32 recites "in response to determining that the first factor meets or exceeds a pre-determined threshold, determining a similarity confidence level”. These limitations could be reasonably and practically performed by the human mind, for instance based on a human can identify content based upon a question, compute a score for the content, associate the content within matrices, separate the data, then perform second calculations to determine a set of items and then to rank the items. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
For example, “in response to determining that the first factor meets or exceeds a pre-determined threshold, determining a similarity confidence level” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally mapping segments to different indexes or different definitions.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 32 recites no new additional elements.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to Step 1, the claims are directed to a system.
With respect to Step 2A Prong one dependent claim, 33, specifically claim 33 recites no new abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claim of 33 recites elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome:
For example, “wherein the user viewing activity data for the plurality of user profiles comprises one or more of user ratings, explicit user feedback, implicit user fe