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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the instant application is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Specifically, the claims are directed toward at least one judicial exception without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is in accordance with the guidelines of the USPTO, applies to all statutory categories, and is explained in detail below.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), which is a two-prong inquiry. In prong 1, it must be determined whether the claim recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon, and if so, in prong 2, it must be determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea in step 2a, it must additionally be determined in step 2b whether the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. MPEP §2106.04.
STEP 1. Per Step 1 of the two-step analysis, the claims are determined to include a method of recommending content, as in independent claim 1 and in the claims that depend therefrom. Such methods fall under the statutory category of “process”. Therefore, the claims are directed to a statutory eligibility category.
Step 2A, prong 1. The invention is directed to a method of recommending content, which is a sales method and, hence, a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As such, the claims include an abstract idea. When considering the limitations individually and as a whole the limitations directed to the abstract idea are:
“A method comprising”:
“generating, using a …and a first …, a first plurality of content recommendations, wherein the first … comprises a first search query and first historic information associated with an entity, and the first plurality of content recommendations is presented via a … of a …”;
“receiving a selection of a content recommendation of the first plurality of content recommendations”;
“generating, using the … and a second …, a second plurality of content recommendations, wherein the second prompt comprises a second search query and second historic information associated with the entity”;
“generating a ranked order of the second plurality of content recommendations using a history of entity interactions including the selection of the content recommendation of the first plurality of content recommendations”;
“determining a plurality of context-aware recommendations by optimizing a permutation of the ranked order of the second plurality of content recommendations”; and
“causing the plurality of context-aware recommendations to be presented via the … of the …”.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. a generic computing system performing generic functions including generic processing of data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. MPEP §2106.04. Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the Mayo framework, the examiner holds that the claims are directed to concepts identified as abstract.
STEP 2B. Because the claims include one or more abstract ideas, the examiner now proceeds to Step 2B of the analysis, in which the examiner considers if the claims include individually or as an ordered combination limitations that are "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. This includes analysis as to whether there is an improvement to either the "computer itself," "another technology," the "technical field," or significantly more than what is "well-understood, routine, or conventional" in the related arts.
The instant application includes in claim 1 additional limitations to those deemed to be abstract ideas. When taken individually, these limitations are
“generative machine learning model”;
“prompt”;
“user interface”; and
“device”.
In the instant case, claim 1 is directed to above mentioned abstract idea. Technical functions such as sending, receiving, displaying and processing data are common and basic functions in computer technology. The individual limitations are recited at a high level and do not provide any specific technology or techniques to perform the functions claimed.
Looking to MPEP §2106.05(d), based on court decisions well understood, routine and conventional computer functions or mere instruction and/or insignificant activity have been identified to include: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321,120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TU Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); O/P Techs., /no., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F,3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090,1093 (Fed. Cir, 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPG2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink," (emphasis added)}; Insignificant intermediate or post solution activity -See Bilski v. Kappos, 581 U.S. 593, 611 -12, 95 USPQ2d 1001,1010 (2010) (well-known random analysis techniques to establish the inputs of an equation were token extra-solution activity); In Bilski referring to Flook, where Flook determined that an insignificant post-solution activity does not makes an otherwise patent ineligible claim patent eligible. In Bilski, the court added to Flook that pre-solution (such as data gathering) and insignificant step in the middle of a process (such as receiving user input) to be equally ineffective. The specification and Claim does not provide any specific process with respect to the display output that would transform the function beyond what is well understood. Like as found in Electric Power Group, Bilski, the technical process to implement the input and display functions are conventional and well understood.
In addition, when the claims are taken as a whole, as an ordered combination, the combination of steps does not add "significantly more" by virtue of considering the steps as a whole, as an ordered combination. The instant application, therefore, still appears only to implement the abstract idea to the particular technological environments using what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the related arts. The steps are still a combination made to the abstract idea. The additional steps only add to those abstract ideas using well-understood and conventional functions, and the claims do not show improved ways of, for example, an unconventional non-routine functions for authorizing the timing of a payment and to activate a display screen based on a trigger or camera functions that could then be pointed to as being "significantly more" than the abstract ideas themselves. Moreover, examiner was not able to identify any "unconventional" steps, which, when considered in the ordered combination with the other steps, could have transformed the nature of the abstract idea previously identified. The instant application, therefore, still appears to only implement the abstract ideas to the particular technological environments using what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the related arts.
Further, note that the limitations, in the instant claims, are done by the generically recited computing devices. The limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computing device and require no more than a generic computing devices to perform generic functions.
CONCLUSION. It is therefore determined that the instant application not only represents an abstract idea identified as such based on criteria defined by the Courts and on USPTO examination guidelines, but also lacks the capability to bring about "Improvements to another technology or technical field" (Alice), bring about "Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself" (Alice), "Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine" (Bilski), "Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing" (Diehr), "Add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field" (Mayo), "Add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application" (Mayo), or contain "Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment" (Alice), transformed a traditionally subjective process performed by humans into a mathematically automated process executed on computers (McRO), or limitations directed to improvements in computer related technology, including claims directed to software (Enfish).
Dependent claims 2-7, which impose additional limitations, also fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter because the limitations cannot be considered statutory. In reference to claims 2-7, these dependent claims have also been reviewed with the same analysis as independent claim 1. The dependent claims have been examined individually and in combination with the preceding claims, however they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1; where all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, "addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary." Content Extraction &. Transmission LLC v, Wells Fargo Bank, Natl Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If applicant believes the dependent claims are directed towards patent eligible subject matter, applicant is invited to point out the specific limitations in the claim that are directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
Claim 8 recites a “processor” and a “memory device”. Claim 15 recites a “machine-readable storage medium”. These are generic elements. Claims 8 and 15 are otherwise similar to claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons. Claims 9-14 and 16-20 depend from claims 8 and 15, respectively, are similar to claims 2-7, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0292663 A1 (hereinafter “Baker”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0232652 A1 (hereinafter “Kadioglu”).
With respect to claim 1, Baker discloses
“A method comprising”: Baker, abstract;
“generating, using a generative machine learning model and a first prompt, a first plurality of content recommendations, wherein the first prompt comprises a first search query and first historic information associated with an entity, and the first plurality of content recommendations is presented via a user interface of a device”; Baker ¶ 0005 (content recommendations are generated using search and transaction history of user);
“receiving a selection of a content recommendation of the first plurality of content recommendations”; Baker ¶ 0028 (user can select recommendation);
“generating, using the generative machine learning model and a second prompt, a second plurality of content recommendations, wherein the second prompt comprises a second search query and second historic information associated with the entity”; Baker ¶ 0006 (second plurality of recommendations is generated using transaction history of user with similar demographics); and
“causing the plurality of context-aware recommendations to be presented via the user interface of the device”. Baker ¶ 0028 (recommendations are displayed to user).
Baker does not explicitly disclose ranking the recommendations. Kadioglu discloses
“generating a ranked order of the second plurality of content recommendations using a history of entity interactions including the selection of the content recommendation of the first plurality of content recommendations”; Kadioglu ¶ 0005 (ranked list is based on interaction prediction score); and
“determining a plurality of context-aware recommendations by optimizing a permutation of the ranked order of the second plurality of content recommendations”. Kadioglu ¶ 0005 (recommendations are optimized by presenting them in ranked order according to interaction likelihood).
Both Baker and Kadioglu relate to recommending content. Baker, abstract; Kadioglu, abstract. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the ranking feature as taught by Kadioglu in the method of Baker with the motivation of optimizing user interaction with recommended content while satisfying user preferences and constraints. Kadioglu ¶¶ 0002-0004.
With respect to claims 2, 9, and 16, Kadioglu discloses
“wherein the plurality of context-aware recommendations includes the second plurality of content recommendations arranged in an order based on one or more attributes of the second plurality of content recommendations”. Kadioglu ¶ 0005 (likelihood of interaction is an attribute).
With respect to claims 3, 10, and 17, Baker discloses
“wherein the history of entity interactions includes one or more entity interactions associated with the entity during a time period”. Baker ¶ 0005 (transaction history necessarily includes interactions with an entity during a time period).
With respect to claims 4, 11, and 18, Kadioglu discloses
“wherein the history of entity interactions includes one or more content recommendations generated by the generative machine learning model”. Kadioglu ¶ 0005 (historical user interaction data and historical user content recommendation information are used).
With respect to claims 5, 12, and 19, Baker discloses
“wherein generating the ranked order of the second plurality of content recommendations further comprises: executing a machine learning model to generate a context, wherein the context is used to
adjust a probability score of one or more content recommendations of the second plurality of content recommendations”. Baker ¶¶ 0005, 0006 (ML model is used generate a context based on transaction history; context necessarily affects probability of interacting with content).
With respect to claims 6, 13, and 20, Kadioglu discloses
“wherein the machine learning model is trained using a real-time loss that is based on the history of entity interactions and the second plurality of content recommendations”. Kadioglu ¶ 0005 (historical user interaction data and historical user content recommendation information are used to adjust recommendations).
With respect to claims 7 and 14, Kadioglu discloses
“wherein determining the plurality of context-aware recommendations further comprises: generating a number of ranked lists using the second plurality of content recommendations; and selecting a ranked list from the number of ranked lists that maximizes a reward function representing a maximum likelihood of the entity interacting with a content recommendation at a position of the ranked list given the context”. Kadioglu ¶ 0005 (each plurality of recommendations is ranked based on likelihood of interactions; list of highest likelihood recommendations is presented to user).
With respect to claim 8, Baker discloses
“A system comprising”: Baker, abstract;
“at least one processor”: Baker ¶ 0098; and
“at least one memory device coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the at least one memory device comprises instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform at least one operation comprising”: Baker ¶ 0098.
Claim 8 is otherwise rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
With respect to claim 15, Baker discloses
“A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform at least one operation comprising”: Baker ¶ 0098.
Claim 15 is otherwise rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0200430 A1 (hereinafter “Varma”) discloses a probability classification algorithm. Varma ¶ 0098.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0254641 A1 (hereinafter “Miller”) discloses recommending content using a multi-modal memory. Miller, abstract.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0330279 A1 (hereinafter “Truong”) discloses the use of multiple machine learning models. Truong ¶ 0048,
Chen, Jianfeng, "Research on the Application of Machine Learning-based Artificial Intelligence Algorithms in Recommendation Systems", 2023 Int'l Conf. on Artificial Intelligence and Automation Control 979-8-3503-8380-5/23 (Year: 2023) (hereinafter “Chen”) discloses the use of machine learning algorithms in item recommendation. Chen, abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN D CIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3402. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-6:30.
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, Jeffrey A Smith can be reached at (571) 272-6763. 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.
ETHAN D. CIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/ETHAN D CIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688