DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on 12/22/2025. Claims 1-8, 10, 12, 14-16, 18, and 19 are pending in this Office Action. Claims 9, 13, and 17 had been previously cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Remark
In the response filed 12/22/2025, claims 1-6, 8, 12, 14-16, 18, and 19 have been amended, claims 11 and 20 have been cancelled, and no new claim has been added.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 USC 101 rejections:
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts:
Applicant's representative has elected to amend the independent claims to recite "removing, from the plurality of search results, a representation of the suspect historical user interaction with the computing device, wherein the suspect historical user interaction with the computing device could be perceived as offensive when returned in response to the user computer interaction history query".
..,Instead, the amended independent claims are directed to a specific type of search - searching historical user interactions that a user has had with a computing device. The recited search is inherently tied to computing technology - it is a search of user interactions with a computing device, not a search for the nearest pizza restaurant or a search for a historical fact. The amended independent claims improve on the technology of searching historical user interactions by removing results that could be perceived as offensive. Furthermore, these improved results are achieved by an improvement in technology - a combination of steps that use computing technology, such as embeddings, to filter out the potentially offensive results.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Here, the Examiner holds that the amended limitation of "removing,
from the plurality of search results, a representation of the suspect historical user interaction with the computing device, wherein the suspect historical user interaction with the computing device could be perceived as offensive when returned in response to the user computer interaction history query" is recited at a high level of generality. Based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, said limitation involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind without a computer. A person (e.g., a developer) can mentally and manually remove/delete undesirable subject from a search result. As such, said limitation which could be a mental process, and a mental process is incapable of improving in a manner which a computer functions or other technologies. At most, it improves the recited abstract idea and improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea.
Furthermore, other claimed limitations such as generating embeddings, identifying a suspect phrase, generating a suspect phrase embedding, identifying a suspect historical interaction are considered to be mental processes, as well. See below for further details.
Moreover, the additional limitations such as receiving a user history query of user interactions, generating a query response, and providing the query response are considered to be insignificant extra-solution and well-understood, conventional, and routine computer activities. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and based on the broadest and reasonable interpretation, these limitations are considered to be merely as receiving data (i.e., data gathering) and generating response (data outputting) which are insignificant extra-solution and well-understood, conventional, and routine computer activities. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
The courts have identified that “adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception” did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). As such, the above-mentioned extra-solution and/or well-understood, conventional, and routine computer activities recited in claims 1, 8, and 15 are not sufficient to show improvement in computer-functionality or other technology.
Therefore, the 35 USC 101 rejections of claims 1-8, 10, 12, 14-16, 18, and 19 for being directed to ineligible subject matter of abstract idea are maintained.
With respect to 35 USC 103 rejections:
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/22/2025, with respect to 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-8, 10, 12, 14-16, 18, and 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-8, 10, 12, 14-16, 18, and 19 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8, 10, 12, 14-16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter of abstract ideas.
Step 1:
Claims 1-8, 10, 12, 14-16, 18, and 19 are directed to a method/system/storage
medium which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A:
Prong 1:
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
the claim recites the steps of:
generating a query embedding from the user computer interaction history query; [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. A person (e.g., a developer) can mentally and manually create a numerical representation (vector) for a query with aid of a pen and paper]
identifying a suspect phrase derived from the user computer interaction history query; [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind]
generating a suspect phrase embedding from the suspect phrase; [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. A person (e.g., a developer) can mentally and manually create a numerical representation (vector) for the suspect phrase]
identifying a suspect historical user interaction with the computing device that has embedding within a second defined distance of the suspect phrase embedding; [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation,
evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind]
removing, from the plurality of search results, a representation of the suspect historical user interaction with the computing device, wherein the suspect historical user interaction with the computing device could be perceived as offensive when returned in response to the user computer interaction history query [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. A person (e.g., a developer) can mentally and manually remove/delete undesirable subject from a search result]
The above-mentioned steps are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental
Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including
an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional steps of:
receiving a user computer interaction history query, wherein the user
computer interaction history query comprises a criteria for identifying historical user interactions between a user and a computing device; [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. It is considered to be an insignificant extra pre-solution activity of receiving data and data gathering. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g)]
generating a query response to the user computer interaction history query that includes a plurality of search results that represent a plurality of historical user interactions with the computing device that have embeddings within a first defined distance of the query embedding [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. It is considered to be an insignificant extra solution activity of searching and outputting a result. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g)] and
providing the query response in response to the user computer interaction history query [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. It is considered to be an insignificant extra solution activity of outputting the result. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g)]
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and
2106.05(g).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional steps of:
receiving a user computer interaction history query, wherein the user computer interaction history query comprises a criteria for identifying historical user interactions between a user and a computing device; [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. It is considered to be a well-understood, conventional, and routine activity of receiving data and data gathering. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g)]
generating a query response to the user computer interaction history query that includes a plurality of search results that represent a plurality of historical user interactions with the computing device that have embeddings within a first defined distance of the query embedding [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. It is considered to be a well-understood, conventional, and routine activity of searching and outputting a result. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g)] and
providing the query response in response to the user computer interaction history query [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. It is considered to be a well-understood, conventional, and routine activity of outputting
the result. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g)]
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8,
the claim recites the steps to:
generate a query embedding from the user computer interaction history query; [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. A person (e.g., a developer) can mentally and manually create a numerical representation (vector) for a query with aid of a pen and paper]
identify a suspect phrase derived from the user computer interaction history query; [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind]
generate a suspect phrase embedding from the suspect phrase; [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. A person (e.g., a developer) can mentally and manually create a numerical representation (vector) for the suspect phrase]
identify a suspect historical user interaction with the computing device that has embedding within a second defined distance of the suspect phrase embedding; [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation,
evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind]
remove, from the plurality of search results, a representation of the suspect historical user interaction with the computing device, wherein the suspect historical user interaction with the computing device could be perceived as offensive when returned in response to the user computer interaction history query [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. A person (e.g., a developer) can mentally and manually remove/delete undesirable subject from a search result]
The above-mentioned steps are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional steps to:
receive a user computer interaction history query, wherein the user
computer interaction history query comprises a criteria for identifying historical user interactions between a user and a computing device; [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. It is considered to be an insignificant extra pre-solution activity of receiving data and data gathering. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g)]
generate a query response to the user computer interaction history query that includes a plurality of search results that represent a plurality of historical user interactions with the computing device that have embeddings within a first defined distance of the query embedding [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. It is considered to be an insignificant extra solution activity of searching and outputting a result. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g)] and
provide the query response in response to the user computer interaction history query [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. It is considered to be an insignificant extra solution activity of outputting the result. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g)]
Furthermore, the “processing unit” and a "storage medium" are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a
practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional steps to:
receive a user computer interaction history query, wherein the user computer interaction history query comprises a criteria for identifying historical user interactions between a user and a computing device; [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. It is considered to be a well-understood, conventional, and routine activity of receiving data and data gathering. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g)]
generate a query response to the user computer interaction history query
that includes a plurality of search results that represent a plurality of historical user interactions with the computing device that have embeddings within a first defined distance of the query embedding [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. It is considered to be a well-understood, conventional, and routine activity of searching and outputting a result. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g)] and
provide the query response in response to the user computer interaction history query [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. It is considered to be a well-understood, conventional, and routine activity of outputting the result. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g)]
Furthermore, the claim recites generic computer components (e.g., a “processing unit” and a "storage medium") to implement the steps of the invention. Said generic computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and considered to be well-understood, conventional, and routine activities. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15,
the claim recites the steps to:
Infer,
history query; [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. A person (e.g., a developer) can mentally and manually create a numerical representation (vector) for a query with aid of a pen and paper]
identify a suspect phrase derived from the user computer interaction history query; [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind]
infer, ” [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind]
identify a suspect historical user interaction with the computing device that has embedding within a second defined distance of the suspect phrase embedding; [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind]
remove, from the plurality of search results, a representation of the suspect historical user interaction with the computing device, wherein the suspect historical user interaction with the computing device could be perceived as offensive when returned in response to the user computer interaction history query [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. A person (e.g., a developer) can mentally and manually remove/delete undesirable subject from a search result]
The above-mentioned steps are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional steps of:
receive a user computer interaction history query, wherein the user computer interaction history query comprises a criteria for identifying historical user interactions between a user and a computing device; [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. It is considered to be an insignificant extra pre-solution activity of receiving data and data gathering. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g)]
generate a query response to the user computer interaction history query that includes a plurality of search results that represent a plurality of screenshot of historical user interactions with the computing device that have embeddings within a first defined distance of the query embedding, wherein the plurality of screenshots of historical user interactions with the computing device have embeddings within a first defined distance of the query embedding [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. It is considered to be an insignificant extra solution activity of searching and outputting a result. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g)] and
provide the query response in response to the user computer interaction history query [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. It is considered to be an insignificant extra solution activity of outputting the result. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g)]
Moreover, the additional steps of using “a machine learning model” to infer are recited at a high level of generality and merely invokes a machine learning model to infer embeddings without providing any technological details as to how such embeddings are inferred. The steps of using the machine learning algorithm to infer embeddings are extra-solution activities to the central idea of claims. Such insignificant extra-solution activities do not lend patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the claims by integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Furthermore, the "storage medium" is recited so generically that they represent
no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. This limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional steps of:
receive a user computer interaction history query, wherein the user computer interaction history query comprises a criteria for identifying historical user interactions between a user and a computing device; [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. It is considered to be a well-understood, conventional, and routine activity of receiving data and data gathering. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and
2106.05(g)]
generate a query response to the user computer interaction history query
that includes a plurality of search results that represent a plurality of screenshot of historical user interactions with the computing device that have embeddings within a first defined distance of the query embedding, wherein the plurality of screenshots of historical user interactions with the computing device have embeddings within a first defined distance of the query embedding [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. It is considered to be a well-understood, conventional, and routine activity of searching and outputting a result. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g)] and
provide the query response in response to the user computer interaction history query [recited at a high level of generality and based on broadest and reasonable interpretation of the claim, it involves the concepts of observation, evaluation and/or judgement which could be practically performed in the human mind. It is considered to be a well-understood, conventional, and routine activity of outputting the result. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g)]
Moreover, the additional steps of using “a machine learning model” to infer are recited at a high level of generality and merely invokes a machine learning model to infer embeddings without providing any technological details as to how such embeddings are inferred. The steps of using the machine learning algorithm to infer embeddings are extra-solution activities to the central idea of claims. Such insignificant extra-solution activities do not lend patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the claims by integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Moreover, the feature of using a machine learning function to process data is a conventional and well-understood function in the art (See for example Koudas et al., US 2009/0319518, paragraph 130) which is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at high level of generality to the general exception (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Thus, the claimed additional elements individually and in combination do not amount significantly more than abstract idea.
Furthermore, the claim recites generic computer component (e.g., a "storage
medium") to implement the steps of the invention. Said generic computer component is
recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and considered to be well-understood, conventional, and routine activities. Therefore, the claim is not patent
eligible.
Regarding claim 2,
The claim includes a mathematical concept which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than abstract idea found in the independent claims.
Regarding dependent claims 3-5, 12, 16, 18, and 19,
the dependent claims also lack additional elements that sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than abstract idea found in the independent claims. The dependent claims additional limitations are either data definitions or steps (e.g., selected, identified, comparison) that could be performed mentally failing to integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application or to amount significantly to more than abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claims 6, 7, 10, and 14,
The dependent claims using a machine learning model to generate embeddings or select a suspected phrase at a high level of generality without providing any technological details. The steps of using the machine learning algorithm to generate embeddings or select a suspected phrase are extra-solution activities to the central idea of claims. Such insignificant extra-solution activities do not lend patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the claims by integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Moreover, the feature of using a machine learning function to process data is a conventional and well-understood function in the art (See for example Koudas et al., US 2009/0319518, paragraph 130) which is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at high level of generality to the general exception (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Thus, the claimed additional elements individually and in combination do not amount significantly more than abstract idea.
These additional elements do not: (1) improve the functioning of a computer or
other technology; (2) are not applied with any particular machine (except for a generic computer); (3) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state; and (4) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h). In other words, the aforementioned additional element (or combination of elements) recited in the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kuo et al., US 11,507,876 disclosing a method to acquire at least one instance of positive training data based at least in part on at least one source. A set of supplemental positive training data can be generated based at least in part on the at least one instance of positive training data. A machine learning model can be trained to identify inappropriate material based at least in part on the set of supplemental positive training data.
Luo et al., US 10,599,774 disclosing a content review system that generates a semantic vector representing semantic features of text extracted from the content item, for example, using a neural network. By comparing the semantic vector for the extracted text with stored semantic vectors of extracted text previously determined to violate one or more policies, the content review system determines whether the content item contains text that also violates one or more policies. The content review system also reviews stored semantic vectors previously determined to be unsuitable, in order to remove false positives, as well as unsuitable semantic vectors that are sufficiently similar to known suitable semantic vectors and as such may cause content items having suitable text to be erroneously rejected.
Points of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARES JAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a-5:00p.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
supervisor, Amy Ng can be reached on 571-270-1698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hares Jami/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2162
03/12/2026