Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/790,773

NEURAL CONTEXTUAL BANDIT BASED COMPUTATIONAL RECOMMENDATION METHOD AND APPARATUS

Final Rejection §DP
Filed
Jul 31, 2024
Priority
Apr 03, 2020 — continuation of 11/113,745 +2 more
Examiner
AIRAPETIAN, MILA
Art Unit
3688
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Yahoo Assets LLC
OA Round
2 (Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
10m
Est. Remaining
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allowance Rate
709 granted / 972 resolved
+20.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
1004
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
32.6%
-7.4% vs TC avg
§103
51.5%
+11.5% vs TC avg
§102
11.6%
-28.4% vs TC avg
§112
1.5%
-38.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 972 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant's amendments overcome the rejections and they are withdrawn. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/ patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/ patents/process/file/efs/guidance/ eTD-info-I.jsp. Claims 21, 31 and 40 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 14 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12067607. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The difference between the application claims and the patent claims lies in the fact that the patent claim includes more elements (e.g., determining a plurality of user-item pairs, each user-item pair relating the user with one of the items of the plurality of items) and is thus more specific. Instant claims 21, 31 and 40 fully “read-on” or are anticipated by reference claims 1, 14 and 20 of U.S. Patent No.12067607. This is a non-statutory, obviousness-type Double Patenting rejection with an anticipation analysis. See MPEP 804(II)(B)(1). Allowable Subject Matter The claims are directed to eligible subject matter and are not obvious over the closest prior art of record. The claims, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, add additional elements that integrate the previously identified abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP Step 2A - Prong 2). They would be allowable upon approval of a Terminal Disclaimer to overcome the double patenting rejection above. The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the combination of: determining, via a computing device, a feature vector user representation using information about a user; determining, via the computing device, a feature vector item representation using information about an item; determining, via the computing device, a distance between the feature vector item representation and the feature vector user representation in a feature space that positions feature vector item representations having no user feedback nearer to the feature vector user representation than feature vector item representations having negative user feedback; and determining, via the computing device, whether or not to select the item for inclusion in an item recommendation for the user based on the determined distance between the feature vector item representation and the feature vector user representation. Conclusion 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILA AIRAPETIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3202. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-6:00 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, 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. /MILA AIRAPETIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 31, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 23, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 15, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP
Apr 10, 2026
Response Filed
Jun 24, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12657614
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, AND PROGRAM
1y 11m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12632889
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DYNAMICALLY DETERMINING EVENT CONTENT ITEMS
3y 2m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12626297
RECOMMENDING ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS BASED ON USER SPECIFICATION
4y 4m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12567099
MACHINE LEARNING COLLABORATION TECHNIQUES
2y 8m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12561724
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR GENERATING RECOMMENDATION REASON, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
3y 1m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+14.3%)
2y 10m (~10m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 972 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month