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 1 October 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that performing vectorization and performing vector concatenation processing are not practically performable in the human mind. Examiner agrees. They do not recite mental processes but mathematical calculations, which are also abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.05(a)(2)(I).
Applicant argues that the invention improves technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The improvement Applicant describes lies solely in the calculation, and an abstract idea alone The mere outcome of performing multi-target feature learning, claimed solely in terms of the idea of an outcome without details of how it is to be accomplished, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1), fails to elevate the act of calculating cross-tower vectors to an additional element. An improved means of calculating which video to recommend to a user where the improvement lies solely in the method of calculation is directed to the calculation itself.
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 1-17 and 20-22 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 20:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “obtaining an object enhanced vector of the target object by performing, by the cloud server, vectorization processing on the historical playback sequence,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “obtaining an object multi-target vector of the target object by sequentially performing, by the cloud server, vector concatenation processing and multi-target feature learning on the object feature vector and the object enhanced vector,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “determining, from the video library based on the object multi-target vector and the video multi-target vector index of each video, a target recommended video corresponding to the target object,” 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 as to which video in the video library corresponds to the object. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “performing, by the cloud server, video recommendation to the user terminal based on the target recommended video corresponding to the target object,” 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, “searching” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to the semantic meaning of the secondary texts. 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 recommending a video. 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 recommending a video is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional elements of the electronic device and the computer-readable storage medium as claimed is generic computer hardware. MPEP § 2106.05(b).
The additional element, “in response to a video recommendation request from a user terminal, obtaining, by a cloud server, an object feature vector of a target object, a historical playback sequence of the target object in a preset historical time period, and a video multi-target vector index of each video in a video library, wherein the cloud server comprises at least one processor and at least one memory, and the video library and the video multi-target vector index of each video are stored in a cloud storage and retrieved by a cloud server,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere instruction to apply the recited abstract ideas on a computer. 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).
In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “in response to a video recommendation request from a user terminal, obtaining, by a cloud server, an object feature vector of a target object, a historical playback sequence of the target object in a preset historical time period, and a video multi-target vector index of each video in a video library, wherein the cloud server comprises at least one processor and at least one memory, and the video library and the video multi-target vector index of each video are stored in a cloud storage and retrieved by a cloud server,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is receiving and transmitting data in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of recommending a video because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
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 15:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “searching a preset feature vector list based on a video identifier of each video to obtain a video enhanced vector of each video correspondingly,” 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, “searching” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to which vectors correspond to the identifier. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “performing vector concatenation processing on a video feature vector and the video enhanced vector of each video to obtain a video concatenated vector of each video correspondingly,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “obtain a video multi-target vector of each video correspondingly,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “creating the video multi-target vector index corresponding to the video multi-target vector of each video,” 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, “searching” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to which vectors correspond to the identifier. 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 indexing a video. 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 indexing a video isn’t integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “performing multi-target feature learning on the video concatenated vector of each video to obtain a video multi-target vector of each video correspondingly,” is mere instruction to use machine learning to obtain a video multi-target vector. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As an ordered combination, the claim merely links the abstract idea of indexing a video to the technical environment of machine learning. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
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).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of recommending a video because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
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 3 and 16:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “obtain video target vectors of the video in a plurality of target dimensions,” 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 collecting information. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “obtaining a target weight in each target dimension,” 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 collecting information. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “performing weighting calculation on the video target vector in each target dimension by using the target weight to obtain a weighted video target vector,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “performing concatenation processing on the weighted video target vectors in the plurality of target dimensions to obtain the video multi-target vector of the video,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers 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 abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely recommending a video. 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 recommending a video is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “performing, for each video, the multi-target feature learning on the video concatenated vector of the video by using a multi-target neural network to obtain video target vectors of the video in a plurality of target dimensions,” is mere instruction to use machine learning to obtain video target vectors of the video in a plurality of target dimensions.” MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As an ordered combination, the claim merely links the abstract idea of indexing a video to the technical environment of machine learning. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
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).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of recommending a video because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
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 17:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “obtaining a historical video identifier and historical playback duration of each historically played video in the historical playback sequence,” 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, “searching” encompasses a collecting information. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “searching a preset feature vector list based on each historical video identifier to obtain a historical video vector set, a quantity of historical video vectors in the historical video vector set being the same as a quantity of the historical video identifiers in the historical playback sequence,” 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, “searching” encompasses a collecting information. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “calculating the total of the historical playback duration in the historical playback sequence to obtain total historical playback duration,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “performing duration normalization processing on each historical playback duration based on the total historical playback duration to obtain normalized playback duration of each historically played video, and determining the normalized playback duration as a video vector weight of the corresponding historically played video,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “performing weighting processing on each historical video vector in the historical video vector set based on the video vector weight to obtain a video weighted vector set,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “performing combination processing on video weighted vectors in the video weighted vector set to obtain the object enhanced vector of the target object,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers 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 abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely recommending a video. 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 claim 5:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “performing the vector concatenation processing on the object feature vector and the object enhanced vector to obtain an object concatenated vector,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “performing concatenation processing on the object target vectors in the plurality of target dimensions to obtain the object multi-target vector of the target object,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers 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 abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely recommending a video. 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 recommending a video is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “performing the multi-target feature learning on the object concatenated vector by using a multi-target neural network to obtain object target vectors of the target object in a plurality of target dimensions,” is mere instruction to use machine learning to obtain object target vectors of the target object in a plurality of target dimensions. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As an ordered combination, the claim merely links the abstract idea of indexing a video to the technical environment of machine learning. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
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).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of recommending a video because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
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 6:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “obtaining a video multi-target vector of each video based on the video multi-target vector index,” 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 collecting information. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “determining an inner product of the object multi-target vector and the video multi-target vector of each video,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “determining the inner product as a similarity score between the target object and the corresponding video,” 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 forming a judgment to use the inner product as a similarity score. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “selecting a specific quantity of videos from the video library based on the similarity scores,” 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, “selecting” encompasses a forming a judgment as to which videos have high scores. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “determining the specific quantity of selected videos as target recommended videos corresponding to the target object,” 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 forming a judgment as to which videos to recommend. 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 indexing a video. 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 claim 7:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “obtaining sample data, the sample data comprising: a sample object feature, a sample video feature, and target parameters in the plurality of target dimensions,” 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 collecting information. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “predicting sample object target vectors of a sample object in the plurality of target dimensions based on the sample object feature,” 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 forming a judgment. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “predicting sample video target vectors of a sample video in the plurality of target dimensions based on the sample video feature,” 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 forming a judgment. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “performing loss calculation by using the target loss model to obtain a target loss result,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “correcting parameters in the object tower and the video tower based on the target loss result to obtain a trained video recall model,” 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, “correcting” encompasses forming a judgment as to what the parameters should be. 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 training a model. 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 training a model is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “inputting the sample object feature into an object tower of the video recall model, and predicting sample object target vectors of a sample object in the plurality of target dimensions based on the sample object feature by using the object tower,” is mere instruction to use machine learning predict sample object target vectors of a sample object in the plurality of target dimensions based on the sample object feature. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “inputting the sample video feature into a video tower of the video recall model, and predicting sample video target vectors of a sample video in the plurality of target dimensions based on the sample video feature by using the video tower,” is mere instruction to use machine learning to predict sample video target vectors of a sample video in the plurality of target dimensions based on the sample video feature. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element, “inputting the sample object target vector, the sample video target vector, and the target parameter into a target loss model, and performing loss calculation by using the target loss model to obtain a target loss result,” is mere instruction to use machine learning to perform loss calculation. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As an ordered combination, the claim merely links the abstract idea of indexing a video to the technical environment of machine learning. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
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).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of training a model because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
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 8:
The claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
The limitation, “obtaining original sample data, the original sample data comprising a plurality of true positive samples and a plurality of true negative samples,” 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 collecting information. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “constructing random negative samples based on the plurality of true positive samples, and removing a part of true negative samples from the plurality of true negative samples, a quantity of the true positive samples, a quantity of the true negative samples remained after the part of true negative samples are removed, and a quantity of the random negative samples exhibiting a preset proportional relationship,” 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, “constructing” encompasses a forming a judgment as to which samples to keep. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “determining the true positive samples as positive samples, and determining the true negative samples remained after the part of true negative samples are removed and the random negative samples as negative samples,” 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 forming a judgment as to which samples to use. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “performing feature association on the positive samples and the negative samples based on an object identifier and the video identifiers to obtain the sample 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, “performing” encompasses a forming a judgment as to what features are associated with a positive outcome and what features are associated with a negative outcome. 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 training a model. 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 claim 9:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “determining a vector inner product of the object click/tap target vector and the video click/tap target vector based on the target loss model,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “determining a predicted value in a click/tap dimension based on the vector inner product and a preset activation function,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “determining a logarithmic loss between the predicted value in the click/tap dimension and the click/tap target value by using a logarithmic loss function,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “determining the logarithmic loss as the target loss result,” 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 loss. 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 performing a calculation. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The abstract idea of performing a calculation is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “inputting the sample object target vector, the sample video target vector, and the target parameter into the target loss model,” is mere instruction to use machine learning to perform a calculation. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As an ordered combination, the claim merely links the abstract idea of indexing a video to the technical environment of machine learning. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
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).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of recommending a video because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
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 10:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “performing truncation processing on the duration target value based on a preset truncation range quantity to obtain a truncation range quantity of duration truncated values,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “determining a target truncated value based on the truncation range quantity of duration truncated values,” 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 as to which value represents a minimum range. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “performing normalization processing on each duration truncated value based on the target truncated value to obtain a normalized duration truncated value,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “determining a vector inner product of the object duration target vector and the video duration target vector,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “determining a predicted value in a duration dimension based on the vector inner product and a preset activation function,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “determining a mean square error loss between the predicted value in the duration dimension and the normalized duration truncated value by using a mean square error loss function,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “determining the mean square error loss as the target loss result,” 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 loss. 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 performing a calculation. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The abstract idea of performing a calculation is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, inputting the sample object target vector, the sample video target vector, and the target parameter into a target loss model,” is mere instruction to use machine learning to perform a calculation. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As an ordered combination, the claim merely links the abstract idea of indexing a video to the technical environment of machine learning. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
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).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of recommending a video because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
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, “outputting target enhanced vectors in the plurality of target dimensions through the multi-target network when the sample data is positive samples, the target enhanced vectors in the plurality of target dimensions comprising a target enhanced vector corresponding to the object tower and a target enhanced vector corresponding to the video tower,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “determining, in each target dimension, a first mean square error between the target enhanced vector corresponding to the object tower and the sample video target vector outputted by the video tower, or a second mean square error between the target enhanced vector corresponding to the video tower and the sample object target vector outputted by the object tower,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “determining the first mean square error and the second mean square error as an object enhanced loss of the sample object and a video enhanced loss of the sample video, respectively, the object enhanced loss and the video enhanced loss being parts of the target loss result” 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 calculations. 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 performing a calculation. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
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 12:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “obtaining loss weights respectively corresponding to the logarithmic loss in the click/tap dimension, the mean square error loss in the duration dimension, the object enhanced loss in the click/tap dimension, the video enhanced loss in the click/tap dimension, the object enhanced loss in the duration dimension, and the video enhanced loss in the duration dimension,” 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 collecting information, i.e., observing the results of the calculations. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “obtaining a preset regularization term,” 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 collecting information. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “performing loss fusion processing on the logarithmic loss in the click/tap dimension, the mean square error loss in the duration dimension, the object enhanced loss in the click/tap dimension, the video enhanced loss in the click/tap dimension, the object enhanced loss in the duration dimension, and the video enhanced loss in the duration dimension based on the loss weights and the regularization term to obtain a fused loss result,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “correcting the parameters in the object tower and the video tower based on the fused loss result to obtain the trained video recall model,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers 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 abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely performing a calculation. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
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 13:
The claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
The limitation, “determining a click/tap parameter and a video duration parameter of the sample object in respect of the sample video,” 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 forming a judgment. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “determining a performance indicator value of the video recall model based on the click/tap parameter,” 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 forming a judgment. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “determining average top duration of the video recall model based on the video duration parameter,” 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 forming a judgment. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “performing a plurality of cyclic tests based on the performance indicator value and the average top duration to obtain a target weight in the click/tap dimension and a target weight in the duration dimension,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers 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 abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely a calculation. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The abstract idea of calculation isn’t integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “inputting the sample object target vector and the sample video target vector into a recommendation prediction layer of the video recall model,” is mere instruction to use machine learning to determine a click/tap parameter and a video duration parameter of the sample object in respect of the sample video. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As an ordered combination, the claim merely links the abstract idea of indexing a video to the technical environment of machine learning. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
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).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of recommending a video because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
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 21:
The abstract idea of calculation isn’t integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “storing the target recommended video corresponding to the target object in the cloud storage,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “in response to the video recommendation request from the user terminal, obtaining, from the cloud storage, the target recommended video for the video recommendation,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the claim merely links the abstract idea of indexing a video to the technical environment of machine learning. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
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).
In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “storing the target recommended video corresponding to the target object in the cloud storage,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is storing and retrieving information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “in response to the video recommendation request from the user terminal, obtaining, from the cloud storage, the target recommended video for the video recommendation,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is storing and retrieving information in a manner that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of storing and retrieving information in memory. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of recommending a video because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
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 22:
The abstract idea of calculation isn’t integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein the video recommendation request from the user terminal is triggered in response to detecting a browsing operation corresponding to the target object by a user,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as being tangentially related to the invention. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the claim merely links the abstract idea of indexing a video to the technical environment of machine learning. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
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).
In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “wherein the video recommendation request from the user terminal is triggered in response to detecting a browsing operation corresponding to the target object by a user,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because official notice is taken that Netflix®’s prior art “more like this” feature recommends content upon browsing to a movie. MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(D).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of recommending a video because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art does not teach applying multi-target feature learning on an object feature vector of a target object and an object enhanced vector of the target objected obtained by performing vectorization processing on a historical playback sequence of the target object in a preset historical time period. Applying multi-target feature learning is not a patentable invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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