DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 05/20/2026.
Claims 1-7, 9-17 and 19-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative claim 1, recites a system, which is a statutory class, comprising one or more processor and a non-transitory memory, coupled to the one or more processors, and storing instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the system to:
receive entity data associated with a plurality of entities, the entity data comprising quantitative data and descriptive attribute data;
generate one or more vectors for each entity of the plurality of entities based on the corresponding entity data for the entity, wherein each vector of the one or more vectors comprises a plurality of dimensions corresponding to components of the entity data;
compute vector distances between corresponding vectors for all entities of the plurality of entities to produce a distance matrix having a corresponding vector distance between the corresponding vectors of any two entities of the plurality of entities, and wherein the
computed vector distance is a measure of similarity between the corresponding vectors of any two entities of the plurality of entities;
receive, from a first user device associated with a first entity, a match request;
identify one or more second entities based on the match request and the computed
vector distances from the distance matrix; and
transmit, to the first user device, an indication of the one or more second entities.
The steps of
receive entity data associated with a plurality of entities, the entity data comprising quantitative data and descriptive attribute data;
generate one or more vectors for each entity of the plurality of entities based on the corresponding entity data for the entity, wherein each vector of the one or more vectors comprises a plurality of dimensions corresponding to components of the entity data;
compute vector distances between corresponding vectors for all entities of the plurality of entities to produce a distance matrix having a corresponding vector distance between the corresponding vectors of any two entities of the plurality of entities, and wherein the
computed vector distance is a measure of similarity between the corresponding vectors of any two entities of the plurality of entities;
receive, from a first user device associated with a first entity, a match request;
identify one or more second entities based on the match request and the computed
vector distances from the distance matrix; and
transmit, to the first user device, an indication of the one or more second entities,
as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a system for optimally matching users of a media platform. The above identified steps recite commercial interactions such as sales activities and/or tailored personalized marketing relating to matching users of a media platform.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interaction such as tailored personalized marketing, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of one or more processor and a non-transitory memory, first user device, second user device. The first and second user device is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions of receive entity data; computing one or more vectors; computing a vector distance; receive a match request; identify one or more second entities; and transmit an indication of the one or more second entities) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 of one or more processor and a non-transitory memory, first user device, second user device amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional elements are similar to the additional elements found by courts to be mere instructions to apply an exception because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery to perform an existing process such as: a common business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 US 208, 223; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334); providing a user with tailored information like advertisements based on information known about the user such as a location, address, or personal characteristics and a time of day is a fundamental practice long prevalent in our system); In re Morsa, 809 F. App’x 913, 917 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. That is, one or more processor and a non-transitory memory, first user device, second user device, performing commercial interactions including: receive entity data; computing one or more vectors; computing a vector distance; receive a match request; identify one or more second entities; and transmit an indication of the one or more second entities, amount to mere instructions to apply the steps to a computer comprising of a processor.
Thus, claims 1 and 11 are not eligible.
As for dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in claims 1 and 11. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 1-20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed 05/20/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
8. Applicant argued that ‘…To determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners are to: (1) identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea; and (2) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(a).
As stated in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), methods of organizing human activity are directed to concepts such as: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). On page 4 of the Office Action, the Examiner states that claim 1 is directed to "tailored personalized marketing relating to matching users of a media platform." Applicant submits that regardless of whether the claims recite a judicial exception, the eligibility of the claims is self-evident as a clear improvement to a
technology…” Remarks pages 8-10
9. Examiner notes that for abstract idea directed to "Certain Methods of organizing
Human Activity" and specifically abstract idea that fall within the subgrouping of
commercial and legal activities namely advertising, marketing and sales activities, the
courts have determined that steps directed to gathering data, analyzing data,
determining results generating tailored content, and transmitting the tailored content are
all part of the abstract idea itself. In the instant case, the argued limitation are all
directed to gathering, generating, analyzing data and determining results in the process of performing advertising, marketing of sales activities. As such, the argued limitations are clearly part of the identified abstract idea and fall squarely within the "Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity." Thus, the rejection has been maintained."
10. Applicant argued that "…In prong 2, "examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception [a] claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception [when the] claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application the claim is not directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and is eligible." M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(d). Applicant submits that the claims, as a whole, integrate any recited judicial exception into a practical application that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Applicant submits that the claims recite more than "a method of organizing human activity." Even if the claims were deemed to involve an abstract concept relating to matching users of a media platform, the claims nevertheless integrate that concept into a practical technological application because the claims require the generation of vectors for each entity, which normalizes the entities into a common space, and the computation of vector distances, based on the generated vectors, to determine similarities between a pair of vectors that correspond to a pair of entities. These features impose meaningful technological constraints that confine the claims to a particular environment and prevent the claim from preempting the abstract concept of matching users more broadly…” Remarks pages 10-11
11. Examiner notes that aside from the "one or more processor and a non-transitory memory, first user device, second user device" which are "additional elements', the remainder of the claims have been identified as part of the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using a general-purpose computer (i.e., processing device coupled to a data storage device executing software). In order to overcome a 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 2 the purported improvement must be rooted in the "additional elements'. Additional elements are defined as those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. Thus, the "additional elements" as a whole are just a processing device coupled to a data storage device executing software upon which an abstract idea is merely being applied which is insufficient to transform the abstract idea into a practical application. Any purported improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matter. Thus, the rejection has been maintained.
12. Applicant argued that “…Since the claims integrate any recited judicial exception into a practical application that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and provides an improvement to a computer, technology or technical field, Applicant submits that the claims do not satisfy step 2A and are directed to eligible subject matter.
However, even if Step 2A were satisfied, Step 2B would still render the pending claims patent-eligible. A claim directed to a judicial exception is eligible subject matter if the additional elements recited in the claims provide "significantly more" than the recited judicial exception." See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05. Applicant submits that the claims add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field and thus, provide significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, claim 1 recites "generate one or more vectors" based on entity data, "compute vector distances" between vectors for corresponding entities and "produce a distance matrix" of vector distances. The use of vectors, vector distances and a distance matrix do not appear to be routine or conventional activities in the field. The use of vectors and vector distances provides a clear improvement to the matching users of a media platform.
The claims recite significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. The claims require the generation of vectors from entity data, and the computation of vector distances between vectors to produce a distance matrix. These limitations collectively define a specific execution model that enables transformation of external data for an entity to a normalized form that can be used to form a matrix that defines similarities between entities, which is not a conventional or routine implementation of "matching" logic. Rather than merely applying a rule on a generic computer, the claims specify a transformation and comparison system to achieve the claimed features. Thus, the additional elements recited in the claim provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform any alleged abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Applicant also wants to remind the Examiner that "[e]xaminers should keep in mind that the courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic. DDR Holdings, LLC V. Hotels.com, LP, 773 F.3d 1245, 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014)." See M.P.E.P. § 2106.07(a)(II). Applicant's recitation of generating vectors and computing vector distances is clearly a combination of components that perform functions that are not generic. Since the claims include additional elements that provide "significantly more" than the judicial exception identified by the Examiner, Applicant submits that the claims do not satisfy step 2B and are directed to eligible subject matter…” Remarks pages 11-12
13. Examiner notes that in order to overcome a 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2b it is the "additional elements" that must be considered "significantly more". Additional elements are defined as those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. In the instant case, the only "additional elements" found in the claim are one or more processor and a non-transitory memory, first user device, second user device, which is merely a general-purpose computer upon which the abstract idea is being applied. Thus, the additional elements cannot be considered significantly more than the abstract idea. The purported improvement of the technology such as "addresses a specific and discrete technical arrangement and methodology for using vectors and vector distances to match entities" in the manner claimed is part of the abstract idea itself and, as such, cannot be considered "significantly more" than the abstract idea under Step 2b. Thus, the rejection has been maintained.
14. Applicant further argued that “Applicant also wants to remind the Examiner that "[e]xaminers should keep in mind that the courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic. DDR Holdings, LLC V. Hotels.com, LP, 773 F.3d 1245, 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014)." See M.P.E.P. § 2106.07(a)(II). Applicant's recitation of generating vectors and computing vector distances is clearly a
combination of components that perform functions that are not generic. Since the claims include additional elements that provide "significantly more" than the judicial exception identified by the Examiner, Applicant submits that the claims do not satisfy step 2B and are directed to eligible subject matter…” Remarks page 12
15. Examiner notes that the instant claims bear no similarity to the DDR Holdings
decision, because the instant claim merely generates vector and compute vector and transmit entities, whereas the claims in DDR Holding describe how the user interface
manipulates the data in such a way that rather than directed the user to page requested
by the link as would normally occur in a networking environment, the invention changes
the normal functioning of such networking environment and instead of sending the claim
to a landing page of the link, the invention displays the landing page as part of the
currently accessed domain. The instant invention does nothing that could even be
remotely similar to the claims of DDR. Furthermore, in DDR, the Court noted that a
claim may amount to more than any abstract idea recited in the claims when it
addresses a business challenge, where that challenge is particular to a specific
technological environment, such as the Internet. 773 F.3d at 1257. Here, claim 1
addresses a specific and discrete technical arrangement and methodology for using vectors and vector distances to match entities. This is not a technical problem.
The solution does not involve the improvement of the computer processor or the
computer database. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
16. Applicant argued that “…On September 26, 2025, the USPTO also issued an Appeals Review Panel decision in Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 which vacated the Board's new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Ex Parte Desjardins decision analyzed eligibility in terms of whether the claims were directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field under longstanding Federal Circuit precedent
in Enfish and McRO, Inc. See also, MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(l) and 2106.05(a).
Ex Parte Desjardins explained that Enfish ranks among the Federal Circuit's leading cases on the eligibility of technological improvements and recognized that "[m]uch of the advancement made in computer technology consists of improvements to software that, by their very nature, may not be defined by particular physical features but rather by logical structures and processes." 822 F.3d at 1339. Moreover, because "[s]oftware can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology, just as hardware improvements can," the Federal Circuit held that the eligibility determinations should tum on whether "the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea." Id. at 1336.
(Desjardins, page 8). Remarks page13
17. Examiner notes that in Ex Parte Desjardins decision, the present invention is directed towards generating vector and computing vector and then transmit entities. In the Ex parte Desjardins decision, the particular claims were determined to be significantly more because the claims addressed specific problems from conventional continuous learning (forgetting). In the present case, the implementation of learning models is similar to OIP Technology, wherein an offer is determined/generated,
provided to a consumer, and information is collected to further refine further offers being
determined/generated. As such, the Examiner asserts the claimed invention is directed
towards a judicial exception without significantly more and the rejection has been
maintained.
18. Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/20/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 (U.S.C. 102/103(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 (U.S.C. 102/103(a) has been withdrawn.
19. The prior art Perelli-Minetti (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/00864480); Salkola (U.S. Patent No. 10,803,050) and Xie et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,399,922) do not explicitly teach the amended limitation “compute vector distances between corresponding vectors for all entities of the plurality of entities to produce a distance matrix having a corresponding vector distance between the corresponding vectors of any two entities of the plurality of entities, and wherein the computed vector distance is a measure of similarity between the corresponding vectors of any two entities of the plurality of entities”. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 (U.S.C. 102/103(a) has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
20. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
21. Pavletic et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0295114) discloses the Euclidean value for a distance may be determined using a Pythagorean or other approach, whereby a subset of the dimensions are used to determine a distance in N dimensional space. This distance can be normalized to establish a pseudo-correlation score representative of the system's estimation of a difference or other type of distance measure between users, which is then utilized to determine an effective “cost” of sending a referral to the other user. As noted in the example below, a user may be able to share 10 offers with similar users or only 2 with dissimilar users, the similarity estimated from the user feature vectors (see at least paragraph 0128).
22. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
23. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARILYN G MACASIANO whose telephone number is (571)270-5205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12:00-9:00 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, llana Spar can be reached at 571)270-7537. 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.
/MARILYN G MACASIANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622 08/22/2026
Prosecution Insights