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 remarks filed 16 April 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the training method improves technology because “in the process of training the content detection model in this embodiment of the application, both factors related to the multimedia data itself and factors related to the user are considered.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. That a machine learning model is trained is not an improvement to technology. The application of generic machine learning to new data environments, i.e., generically training generic machine learning to consider both factors related to the multimedia data itself and factors related to the user, does not improve technology. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) (“An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.”); 2106.05(f) (“The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications.”).
That a model is trained is not an improvement. See Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., 134 F.4th 1205, 1216 (Fed. Cir. 2025). How a model is trained is. See Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential). The claims, reciting generic training, do not contain an improvement to training.
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 1-5, 7-11, 14-15, 17-20, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claims 1, 14, and 15:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “wherein at least one category of content feature of first advertisement multimedia data is extracted, each category of content feature of the first advertisement multimedia data is clustered, to obtain a plurality of cluster centers of each category of content feature,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical calculation, and covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “extracting,” “clustering,” and “obtaining,” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to a representation of the data, e.g., that given data belongs in a particular cluster, and that the cluster has a particular center. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. MPEP §§ 2106.04(a)(2)(I), 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “extracting at least one category of content feature of second advertisement multimedia data,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical calculation, and covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “extracting” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to, e.g., a representation of the second multimedia data. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. MPEP §§ 2106.04(a)(2)(I), 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “comparing each category of content feature of the second advertisement multimedia data with respective cluster centers of a corresponding category of content feature, to obtain a cluster center to which each category of content feature of the second advertisement multimedia data belongs,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical calculation, and covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “comparing” and “obtaining” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to, e.g., what cluster the second multimedia data belongs in, and what the corresponding center of that cluster is. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. MPEP §§ 2106.04(a)(2)(I), 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “obtaining a content feature vector of the second advertisement multimedia data based on the cluster center to which each category of content feature of the second advertisement multimedia data belongs,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical calculation, and covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “obtaining” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to, e.g., a representation of the second multimedia data based on the cluster center (e.g., by using the center as the representation). This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. MPEP §§ 2106.04(a)(2)(I), 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “obtaining a user feature vector of a user account,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical calculation, and covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “obtaining” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to, e.g., a representation of the user account. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. MPEP §§ 2106.04(a)(2)(I), 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “using the content feature vector of the second advertisement multimedia data, the user feature vector of the user account, and a label of a behavior category of the user account for the second advertisement multimedia data to output a prediction result of a behavior category of a target user account for target advertisement multimedia data, and the label of the behavior category of the user account for the second advertisement multimedia data comprises at least one of clicks, likes, or completion of playback,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical calculation, and covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “predicting” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to, e.g., whether the target user will like an advertisement. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. MPEP §§ 2106.04(a)(2)(I), 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely a mathematical algorithm for predicting a behavior category of a target user account for target advertisement multimedia data. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B).
The abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm for predicting a behavior category of a target user account for target advertisement multimedia data is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “training the advertisement content detection model using the content feature vector of the second advertisement multimedia data, the user feature vector of the user account, and a label of a behavior category of the user account for the second advertisement multimedia data, wherein the advertisement content detection model is used to output a prediction result of a behavior category of a target user account for target advertisement multimedia data, and the label of the behavior category of the user account for the second advertisement multimedia data comprises at least one of clicks, likes, or completion of playback” is mere instruction to apply abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm for predicting a behavior category of a target user account for target advertisement multimedia data because the outcome of a model trained to output a prediction result of a behavior category of a target user account for target advertisement multimedia data using a content feature vector of second advertisement multimedia data, a user feature vector of the user account, and a label of a behavior category of the user account for the second advertisement multimedia data is recited without details of how the advertisement content detection model is trained, or how the content feature vector, the user feature vector, and the label are used. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “wherein the advertisement content detection model comprises a first cross-feature extraction module and a connection module,” is directed to a technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional element, “inputting the content feature vector of the second advertisement multimedia data and the user feature vector of the user account into the first cross-feature extraction module, to cause the first cross-feature extraction module to extract a cross-feature from the content feature vector of the second advertisement multimedia data and the user feature vector of the user account, to obtain a first feature vector,” is mere instruction to apply abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm for predicting a behavior category of a target user account for target advertisement multimedia data because the outcome of extracting a cross-feature from the content feature vector of the second advertisement multimedia data and the user feature vector of the user account is recited without detail of how the first cross-feature extraction module extracts the cross-feature. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “inputting the content feature vector of the second advertisement multimedia data and the user feature vector of the user account into the connection module, to cause the connection module to connect the content feature vector of the second advertisement multimedia data and the user feature vector of the user account, to obtain a second feature vector,” is mere instruction to apply abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm for predicting a behavior category of a target user account for target advertisement multimedia data because the outcome of connecting the content feature vector of the second advertisement multimedia and the user feature vector of the user account is recited without detail of how the vectors are combined. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “training the content detection model using the first feature vector, the second feature vector, and the label of the behavior category of the user account for the second multimedia data,” is mere instruction to apply abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm for predicting a behavior category of a target user account for target advertisement multimedia data because the outcome of a model trained to output a prediction result of a behavior category of a target user account for target advertisement multimedia data using the first feature vector, the second feature vector, and the label of the behavior category of the user account for the second multimedia data is recited without details of how the advertisement content detection model is trained, or how the first feature vector, the second feature vector, and the label of the behavior category of the user account for the second advertisement multimedia data are used. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere instruction to apply the abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm for predicting a behavior category of a target user account for target advertisement multimedia data because it is mere instruction to apply the abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm for predicting a behavior category of a target user account for target advertisement multimedia data because the machine learning is invoked without details of how it accomplishes the desired function, and merely links the abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm for predicting a behavior category of a target user account for target advertisement multimedia data to the technological environment of machine learning. MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) (“An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. “); 2106.05(f) (“The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications.”); 2106.05(h); see Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., 134 F.4th 1205, 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (“the only thing the claims disclose about the use of machine learning is that machine learning is used in a new environment”).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 2 and 17:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “obtaining an initial content feature vector corresponding to the cluster center to which each category of content feature of the second advertisement multimedia data belongs,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “obtaining” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to the content of the cluster center vector. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “determining the initial content feature vector corresponding to the cluster center to which each category of content feature of the second advertisement multimedia data belongs as the content feature vector of the second advertisement multimedia data,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment to use the cluster center vector as the content feature vector. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely obtaining a content feature vector of the second multimedia data based on the cluster center to which each category of content feature of the second multimedia data belongs. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 3 and 18:
The abstract idea of predicting a behavior category of a target user account for target multimedia data is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “adjusting the content feature vector of the second advertisement multimedia data during a process of training the advertisement content detection model,” is mere instruction to apply the mental process of predicting a behavior category of a target user account for target multimedia data using machine learning as a tool. MPEP § 2106.05(f); see Recentive Analytics, slip op. at 12.
The additional element, “re-determining the adjusted content feature vector corresponding to the cluster center to which each category of content feature belongs as the initial content feature vector corresponding to the cluster center to which the category of content feature belongs,” is mere instruction to apply the mental process of predicting a behavior category of a target user account for target multimedia data using machine learning as a tool. MPEP § 2106.05(f); see Recentive Analytics, slip op. at 12.
The additional element, “after the training of the advertisement content detection model, obtaining content feature vectors corresponding respectively to the plurality of cluster centers of each category of content feature,” is mere instruction to apply the mental process of predicting a behavior category of a target user account for target multimedia data using machine learning as a tool. MPEP § 2106.05(f); see Recentive Analytics, slip op. at 12.
As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the mental process of predicting a behavior category of a target user account for target multimedia data to the technological environment of machine learning. MPEP § 2106.05(h); see Recentive Analytics, slip op. at 13 (“the only thing the claims disclose about the use of machine learning is that machine learning is used in a new environment”).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 4 and 19:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “calculating content feature vectors corresponding respectively to the plurality of cluster centers of each category of content feature based on each category of content feature,” as drafted, recites a calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “determining a content feature vector corresponding to the cluster center to which each category of content feature of the second advertisement multimedia data belongs as the content feature vector of the second advertisement multimedia data,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “determining” encompasses a person forming a judgment to use a particular calculated content feature vector. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely obtaining the content feature vector of the second multimedia data based on the cluster center to which each category of content feature of the second multimedia data belongs. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 5 and 20:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “collecting user information of the user account,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “collecting” encompasses a person observing information about the user account and forming a judgment as to what is relevant to a prediction. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “generating a first user feature of the user account based on the user information of the user account,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to what information makes up the user feature. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “obtaining a second user feature of the user account obtained by pre-training,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “obtaining” encompasses a person observing information about the user account. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “using the first user feature of the user account and the second user feature of the user account as the user feature vector of the user account,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “using” encompasses a person observing information as to the content of the vector. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely obtaining the user feature vector of the user account. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 7 and 22:
The abstract idea of predicting a behavior category of a target user account for target multimedia data is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein the advertisement content detection model comprises a second cross-feature extraction module, a third cross-feature extraction module, and a connection module,” is directed to a technological environment. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The additional element, “inputting the content feature vector of the second advertisement multimedia data and the first user feature into the second cross-feature extraction module, to cause the second cross-feature extraction module to extract a cross-feature from the content feature vector of the second advertisement multimedia data and the first user feature, to obtain a third feature vector,” is mere instruction to apply the mental process of obtaining a third feature vector using machine learning as a tool. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “inputting the content feature vector of the second advertisement multimedia data and the second user feature into the third cross-feature extraction module, to cause the third cross-feature extraction module to extract a cross-feature from the content feature vector of the second advertisement multimedia data and the second user feature, to obtain a fourth feature vector,” is mere instruction to apply the mental process of obtaining a fourth feature vector using machine learning as a tool. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “inputting the content feature vector of the second advertisement multimedia data, the first user feature, and the second user feature into the connection module, to cause the connection module to connect the content feature vector of the second advertisement multimedia data, the first user feature, and the second user feature, to obtain a fifth feature vector,” is mere instruction to apply the mental process of obtaining a fifth feature vector using machine learning as a tool. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “training the advertisement content detection model using the third feature vector, the fourth feature vector, the fifth feature vector, and the label of the behavior category of the user account for the second advertisement multimedia data,” is mere instruction to apply the mental process of predicting a behavior category of a target user account for target multimedia data using machine learning as a tool. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the mental process of predicting a behavior category of a target user account for target multimedia data to the technological environment of machine learning. MPEP § 2106.05(h); see Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., 134 F.4th 1205, 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (“the only thing the claims disclose about the use of machine learning is that machine learning is used in a new environment”).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 8 and 23:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “extracting at least one category of content feature of the target advertisement multimedia data,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “extracting” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to, e.g., a representation of the second multimedia data. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “comparing each category of content feature of the target advertisement multimedia data with the respective cluster centers of the corresponding category of content feature, to obtain the cluster center to which each category of content feature of the target advertisement multimedia data belongs,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “comparing” and “obtaining” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to, e.g., what cluster the second multimedia data belongs in, and what the corresponding center of that cluster is. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “obtaining a content feature vector of the target advertisement multimedia data based on the cluster center to which each category of content feature of the target advertisement multimedia data belongs,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “obtaining” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to, e.g., a representation of the second multimedia data based on the cluster center (e.g., by using the center as the representation). This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “obtaining the user feature vector corresponding to the target user account,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “obtaining” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to, e.g., a representation of the user account. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “obtain a prediction result of a behavior category of the target user account for the target multimedia data,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “predicting” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to, e.g., whether the target user will like an advertisement. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely predicting a behavior category of a target user account for target multimedia data. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The abstract idea of predicting a behavior category of a target user account for target multimedia data is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “inputting the content feature vector of the target advertisement multimedia data and the user feature vector of the target user account into the advertisement content detection model, to obtain the prediction result of the behavior category of the target user account for the target advertisement multimedia data, wherein the advertisement content detection model is trained by the training method for the advertisement content detection model according to claim 1,” is mere instruction to apply the mental process of predicting a behavior category of a target user account for target multimedia data using machine learning as a tool. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the mental process of predicting a behavior category of a target user account for target multimedia data to the technological environment of machine learning. MPEP § 2106.05(h); see Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., 134 F.4th 1205, 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (“the only thing the claims disclose about the use of machine learning is that machine learning is used in a new environment”).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 9:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “calculating an evaluation result of content detection for the target advertisement multimedia data based on the prediction result of the behavior category of the target user account for the target advertisement multimedia data,” as drafted, recites a calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 10:
The abstract idea of predicting a behavior category of a target user account for target multimedia data is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein the method further comprises before obtaining the user feature vector corresponding to the target user account: inputting the content feature vector of the target advertisement multimedia data into a user account recall model, to obtain a target user account corresponding to the target advertisement multimedia data; wherein the user account recall model is trained based on a content feature vector of third advertisement multimedia data, the user feature vector of the user account, and a label of a behavior category of the user account for the third advertisement multimedia data,” is mere instruction to apply the mental process of obtaining a target user account for target multimedia data using machine learning as a tool. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 11:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “collecting user information of the target user account,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “collecting” encompasses a person observing information about the user account and forming a judgment as to what is relevant to a prediction. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “generating a first user feature of the target user account based on the user information of the target user account,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to what information makes up the user feature. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “obtaining a second user feature of the target user account obtained by pre-training,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “obtaining” encompasses a person observing information about the user account. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “using the first user feature of the target user account and the second user feature of the target user account as the user feature vector of the target user account,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “using” encompasses a person observing information as to the content of the vector. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely obtaining the user feature vector corresponding to the target user account. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The abstract idea of predicting a behavior category of a target user account for target multimedia data is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein the inputting the content feature vector of the target advertisement multimedia data and the user feature vector of the target user account into the advertisement content detection model to obtain the prediction result of the behavior category of the target user account for the target advertisement multimedia data comprises: inputting the content feature vector of the target advertisement multimedia data, the first user feature of the target user account, and the second user feature of the target user account into the advertisement content detection model, to obtain the prediction result of the behavior category of the target user account for the target advertisement multimedia data,” is mere instruction to apply the mental process of predicting a behavior category of a target user account for target multimedia data using machine learning as a tool. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As an ordered combination, the invention merely links the mental process of predicting a behavior category of a target user account for target multimedia data to the technological environment of machine learning. MPEP § 2106.05(h); see Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., 134 F.4th 1205, 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (“the only thing the claims disclose about the use of machine learning is that machine learning is used in a new environment”).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
Prior Art
The prior art does not teach the particular data being used in machine learning models. As per claim 10, the prior art does not teach the claimed user account recall model being used to, for a given target multimedia data, identify a user based on the multimedia data, then identify a behavior category of the multimedia data for the user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM SPIELER whose telephone number is (571)270-3883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11-3.
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, Ann Lo can be reached at 571-272-9767. 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.
WILLIAM SPIELER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2159
/WILLIAM SPIELER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights