Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This final rejection is in response to the amendments filed on: 07/06/2026.
Claims 1-13, 16, 21, and 26 are cancelled. Claims 14, 15, 17-20, 22-25, 27 and 28 are pending.
The following rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments:
Claim(s) 14, 15, 18-20, 23-25, and 28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is anticipated by Boshy et al (US Patent: 10521824, issued: Dec. 31, 2019, filed: Jan .2, 2014).
Claim(s) 16, 21, and 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boshy et al (US Patent: 10521824, issued: Dec. 31, 2019, filed: Jan .2, 2014) in view of Sharp et al (US Application: US 20180349362, published: Dec. 6, 2018, filed: Jul. 19, 2018).
Claim(s) 17, 22 and 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boshy et al (US Patent: 10521824, issued: Dec. 31, 2019, filed: Jan .2, 2014) in view of Schuetze et al (US Application: US Application: US 2003/0074369, published: Apr. 17, 2003, filed: Oct. 19, 1999).
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 14, 15, 17-20, 22-25, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 14:
The claim recites a method and is one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following, for which the bolded items are interpreted to encompass steps that fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion.
A computer-implemented information recommendation method, comprising: obtaining a list of browsed information of each of a plurality of first users and a first vector corresponding to each of the list of browsed information, wherein the first vector is obtained by using a two-tower model, the two-tower model is trained by randomly dividing information viewed by a same user into two groups as positive samples, and information viewed by different users as negative samples, parameters of two towers are shared, wherein the plurality of first users is determined based on the following steps: for each information category among multiple information categories, sorting users in descending order of numbers of pieces of information that have been browsed by the users within a preset percentage of users as the plurality of first users ; clustering, for each information category, the first vectors corresponding to the plurality of first users under the information category, to obtain one or more vector clusters and a center vector of each of the one or more vector clusters; determining, for each information category, one or more information clusters respectively corresponding to the one or more vector clusters under the information category, wherein each of the one or more information clusters is determined based on a list of browsed information corresponding to a first vector in the vector cluster that corresponds to the information cluster; obtaining a list of browsed information of a second user in response to a browsing request of the second user; determining, in response to determining that the list of browsed information of the second user is not void, a second vector corresponding to the list of browsed information of the second user; calculating a similarity between the second vector and the center vector of each of the one or more vector cluster of the multiple information categories, to determine an information cluster matched with the second vector; and providing recommendations for the second user based on the determined information cluster.
More specifically, the limitations of “… using a two tower model , … by randomly dividing information "viewed by a same user into two groups as positive samples, and information viewed by different users as negative samples, parameters of two towers are shared, wherein the plurality of first users is determined based on the following steps: for each information category among multiple information categories, sorting users in descending order of numbers of pieces of information that have been browsed by the users within a preset percentage of users as the plurality of first users”, “clustering the first vectors …”, “determining one or more information clusters respectively corresponding to …”, “ … a list of browsed information … in response to a browsing request …”, “determining, in response to determining that the list of browse information of the second user is not void …, a second vector corresponding to …”, “calculating a similarity between the second vector and the center vector …to determine and information cluster”, “ recommendations for the second user based on …” may be performed in the human mind. For example 1) a human can make a judgement for a first vector through: step a) evaluation of divided information from positive and negative samples, step b) evaluation each information category, step c) making a judgment to sort users in descending order, 2) a human can mentally evaluate and make a judgement on clustering, for each information category, first vectors, 3) a human can mentally make a judgement on determining, for each information category, one or more information clusters that correspond to particular conditions, 4) a human can evaluate a list of browsed information after making a judgement that a list of browse information of the second user is evaluated as not void, 5) a human can make a judgment on similarity to determine an information cluster based upon manually evaluating vector data (second and center vector of each of the one or more vector clusters of the multiple information categories), 6) a human and make a judgement on recommendations based on evaluation of the determined information cluster.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites additional elements/limitations of “A computer-implemented information recommendation …”, “ obtaining a list of browsed information of each of a plurality of first users and a first vector corresponding to each of the list of browsed information” , “… obtaining a list of browsed information of a second user …”, “providing recommendations for the second user ….”.
With regards to “A computer-implemented information recommendation …” and “using a two-tower model, the two-tower model is trained” , this additional element is considered merely reciting the words ‘apply it’ with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The courts have identified this type of limitation as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
With regards to the additional elements of “ obtaining a list of browsed information of each of a plurality of first users and a first vector corresponding to each of the list of browsed information” , “… obtaining a list of browsed information of a second user …”, “providing recommendations for the second user ….”, these additional elements are considered adding insignificant extra solution activity (‘Mere Data Gathering’) to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have identified this type of limitation is insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, these additional elements identified above when considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, there are additional elements:
“A computer-implemented information recommendation …” and “using a two-tower model, the two-tower model is trained”, this additional element is considered adding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. The courts have found this type of limitation is insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
“ obtaining a list of browsed information of each of a plurality of first users and a first vector corresponding to each of the list of browsed information” , “… obtaining a list of browsed information of a second user …”, “providing recommendations for the second user ….”, these additional elements were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering/outputting and also selection of a particular data source or type to be manipulated. The courts have found limitations that add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
Thus, when considered individually, and in combination, these additional elements fail to amount to ‘significantly more’.
Claims 15, 17 and 18:
With regards to claims 15 and 17-18, they recited further judicial exceptions of mental steps (such as “… determining, based on the obtained list ..”, “determining, in response to determining that the list of browsed information corresponding second user is void, the number of information browsing times that corresponds to each of the one or more information clusters”, and “determining an information cluster that has been browsed the most …”). The additional element(s) found in these claim(s) such as “providing recommendations …” and “the list of browsed information comprises” (the list being obtained) have been explained above in claim 14 as insignificant extra solution activity , and the courts have identified this type of limitation as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and also found this type of limitation to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
Claim 19:
With regards to claim 19, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 14. It is noted that it additionally recites the elements “electronic device, comprising: a memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for causing the electronic device to perform operations”. However these additional elements are considered merely reciting the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The courts have found this type of limitations to be insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and also the courts have identified this type of limitation to be insufficient to amount to ‘significantly more’ than the judicial exception.
Claims 20 and 22-23:
With regards to claims 20-23, they recited further judicial exceptions of mental steps (such as “… determining, based on the obtained list ..”, “determining, in response to determining that the list of browsed information corresponding second user is void, the number of information browsing times that corresponds to each of the one or more information clusters”, and “determining an information cluster that has been browsed the most …”). The additional element(s) found in these claim(s) such as “providing recommendations …” and “the list of browsed information comprises” (the list being obtained) have been explained above in claim 19 as insignificant extra solution activity , and the courts have identified this type of limitation as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and also found this type of limitation to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
Claim 24:
With regards to claim 24, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 14. It is noted that it additionally recites the elements “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores one or more programs comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing device, cause the computing device to implement operations”. However these additional elements are considered merely reciting the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The courts have found this type of limitations to be insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and also the courts have identified this type of limitation to be insufficient to amount to ‘significantly more’ than the judicial exception.
Claims 25 and 27-28:
With regards to claims 25-28, they recited further judicial exceptions of mental steps (such as “… determining, based on the obtained list ..”, “determining, in response to determining that the list of browsed information corresponding second user is void, the number of information browsing times that corresponds to each of the one or more information clusters”, and “determining an information cluster that has been browsed the most …”). The additional element(s) found in these claim(s) such as “providing recommendations …” and “the list of browsed information comprises” (the list being obtained) have been explained above in claim 24 as insignificant extra solution activity , and the courts have identified this type of limitation as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and also found this type of limitation to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to 35 USC 101 and the applicant first argues for claim 14, that its amended language requires ‘real time non -linear multi-layer deep neural networks and self supervised contrastive learning iterations driven by stochastic gradient descent’ [which] are physically and logically impossible to be executed via human faculties [and] requires a special purpose computer, not a mental process”. However this argument is not persuasive for several reasons: 1) limitations being argued are not present in the claim language since the claim language recites nothing in claim 14 about at least aspects of real time, multiple layers, and gradient descent. 2) performing steps such as gradient descent calculations and iterations, can be a mental process , 3) applying a general purpose computer to execute a model for execution / iterations, is considered merely reciting the words ‘apply it’ with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The courts have identified this type of limitation as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and also the courts have identified that this type of limitation is insufficient to be considered significantly more than the judicial exception..
The applicant further argues that paragraphs 0002 and 0034 recites a problem and amended claim 14 addresses a technological solution to the problem [through] utilizing a parameter shared two tower neural network trained through the random splitting of a single user’s history, the server learns high level semantic representations of a user’s latent style taste beyond explicit textual categories”. However this argument is not persuasive since as explained in the 35 USC 101 rejection above, the additional elements merely apply a computer as a tool to execute the tower model to perform judicial exception(s) and also apply a computer to execute training to perform judicial exception(s).
With regards to applicant’s argument that the server ‘isolates’ users under each specific information category and filters for the top preset percentile of active users … [and thus] … the server drastically lowers computational complexity while successfully ensuring style consistence at the recall layer to deliver a seamless, immersive user experience. These remarks merely recite steps that are judicial exceptions and only recite the use of a ‘server’ at a high level of generality. As explained in the 35 USC 101 rejection above, using a ‘server’/computer as a tool to execute/apply a judicial exception is not sufficient to be considered as technological improvement.
With regards to claims 19 and 24, the applicant argues that they are patent eligible subject matter for reasons provided by the applicant for claim 14. However this argument is not persuasive since claim 14 has been shown/explained to be rejected above.
With regards to the claims that depend directly or indirectly upon claims 14, 19 or 24, the applicant argues they are patent eligible by virtue of their dependency. However this argument is not persuasive since claims 14, 19 and 24 have been shown/explained to be rejected above.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am -6 pm.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights