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 .
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications received on 8/12/2026. Claims 1, 3, 5-15, 17-18, and 20 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1, 3, 5-15, 17-18, and 20 have been amended. Claims 2, 6, 16, and 19 have been cancelled.
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.
The claims 1, 3, 5-15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: The claims 1, 3, 5-14 are a method, claims 15 and 17 are system, and claims 18 and 20 are a computer readable medium. Thus, each independent claim, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. §101.
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims (1, 15 and 18, taking claim 1 as a representative claim) recite:
A machine-implemented multimedia content recommendation method, comprising:
determining, by a processor of a machine, for any book, first reading data of the book in a plurality of reading sources, the reading sources comprising at least a book recommendation special topic;
determining, by the processor of the machine, recommendation contribution information of the book recommendation special topic for the book based on the first reading data; and
determining, by the processor of the machine, a recommendation form of the book based on the recommendation contribution information;
wherein the determining, by the processor of the machine, the first reading data of the book in the plurality of reading sources comprises:
determining, by the processor of the machine, reading sources of the book in a reading application, the reading sources comprising at least the book recommendation special topic;
determining, by the processor of the machine, a total quantity of first- type readers who read the book through the book recommendation special topic
within a first preset historical period, and a first reading conversion quantity and a first-type reader retention quantity of the book in the book recommendation special topic; and
determining, by the processor of the machine, a total quantity of second-type readers who read the book through other reading sources within the first preset historical period, and a second reading conversion quantity and a second-type reader retention quantity of the book in the other reading sources; and
wherein the determining, by the processor of the machine, recommendation contribution information of the book recommendation special topic for the book based on the first reading data comprises:
determining, by the processor of the machine, a reading contribution proportion of the book recommendation special topic for the book based on the total quantity of first-type readers and the total quantity of second-type readers; and
if the reading contribution proportion is greater than or equal to a preset reading contribution proportion, and the total quantity of first-type readers is greater than or equal to a preset quantity of readers, determining, by the processor of the machine, the recommendation contribution information of the book recommendation special topic for the book at least based on the first reading conversion quantity and the first-type reader retention quantity;
otherwise, determining, by the processor of the machine, the recommendation contribution information of the book recommendation special topic for the book at least based on the first reading conversion quantity, the second reading conversion quantity, the first-type reader retention quantity, and the second-type reader retention quantity.
These limitations, except for the italicized portions, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, recite certain methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as well as commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). The claimed invention recites steps for determining a recommendation based on book related and reader related data. The steps under its broadest reasonable interpretation specifically fall under sales activities. The Examiner notes that although the claim limitations are summarized, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim and all of the claim elements individually, as a whole, and in ordered combination.
Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of:
Claim 1 recites by a processor of a machine
Claim 15 recites an electronic device, comprising: a processor; and a memory, configured to store executable instructions of the processor, wherein the processor is configured to perform a multimedia content recommendation method by executing the executable instructions, comprising:
Claim 18 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform a multimedia content recommendation method, comprising:
The additional elements of listed above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application – MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, these additional elements when considered individually or as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1, 15, and 18 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 15, and 18 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05).
As such, independent claims 1, 15, and 18 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 3, 5-14, 17, and 20 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to the same abstract idea of Independent Claims 1, 15 and 18 without significantly more.
Claim 3 recites wherein the first reading conversion quantity is a quantity of first-type readers who read the book through the book recommendation special topic and whose number of read pages is greater than a preset number of pages; and the second reading conversion quantity is a quantity of second-type readers who read the book through the other reading sources and whose number of read pages is greater than the preset number of pages. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 5 recites wherein the determining, by the processor of the machine, recommendation contribution information of the book recommendation special topic for the book at least based on the first reading conversion quantity and the first-type reader retention quantity comprises: determining a first reading conversion rate of the book in the book recommendation special topic based on the first reading conversion quantity and a first exposure time of target special topic content in the book recommendation special topic, the target special topic content being for recommending the book; determining a minimum reading duration between a reading duration of readers who read the book through the book recommendation special topic and a preset reading duration, and a first correction coefficient corresponding to a first exposure time; and determining the recommendation contribution information of the book recommendation special topic for the book based on the first reading conversion rate, the first-type reader retention quantity, the minimum reading duration, and the first correction coefficient. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 6 recites wherein the determining by the processor of the machine, recommendation contribution information of the book recommendation special topic for the book at least based on the first reading conversion quantity, the second reading conversion quantity, the first-type reader retention quantity, and the second-type reader retention quantity comprises: determining by the processor of the machine, a first reading conversion rate of the book in the book recommendation special topic and a second reading conversion rate of the book in the other reading sources based on the first reading conversion quantity, the second reading conversion quantity, a first exposure time of target special topic content in the book recommendation special topic, and a second exposure time of the book in the other reading sources, the target special topic content being for recommending the book; determining by the processor of the machine, a minimum reading duration between a reading duration of readers who read the book through the book recommendation special topic and a preset reading duration, and a second correction coefficient corresponding to a second exposure time; and determining the recommendation contribution information of the book recommendation special topic for the book based on the first reading conversion rate, the second reading conversion rate, the first-type reader retention quantity, the second-type reader retention quantity, the minimum reading duration, and the second correction coefficient. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 7 recites further comprising: determining by the processor of the machine, second reading data of the book after target special topic content in the book recommendation special topic is searched, the target special topic content being for recommending the book; and determining by the processor of the machine, search contribution information of the book recommendation special topic for the book based on the second reading data; the determining a recommendation form of the book based on the recommendation contribution information comprises: determining by the processor of the machine, the recommendation form of the book based on the recommendation contribution information and the search contribution information. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 8 recites wherein the determining by the processor of the machine, second reading data of the book after target special topic content in the book recommendation special topic is searched comprises: determining by the processor of the machine, an associated search term for the target special topic content in the book recommendation special topic within a second preset historical period; and determining, by the processor of the machine, for each associated search term, a search time of the associated search term within the second preset historical period, and a total reading conversion quantity for the search by using the associated search term and a third reading conversion quantity of the target special topic content. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 9 recites wherein the determining by the processor of the machine, search contribution information of the book recommendation special topic for the book based on the second reading data comprises: determining, by the processor of the machine, for each associated search term, a search contribution proportion of the book recommendation special topic for the book under the associated search term based on the total reading conversion quantity for the search by using the associated search term and the third reading conversion quantity; and if a search time of the associated search term is greater than or equal to a preset search time, and the search contribution proportion is greater than or equal to a preset search contribution proportion, determining by the processor of the machine, the search contribution information of the book recommendation special topic for the book based on the search contribution proportion, a minimum reading duration between a reading duration of readers who read the book through the target special topic content searched based on the associated search term and a preset reading duration, and a third correction coefficient corresponding to the search contribution proportion; otherwise, determining by the processor of the machine that the search contribution information of the book recommendation special topic for the book is 0. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 10 recites wherein if there are a plurality of associated search terms for the target special topic content in the book recommendation special topic, the determining by the processor of the machine search contribution information of the book recommendation special topic for the book based on the second reading data further comprises: using by the processor of the machine a maximum value of search contribution information of the target special topic content under each of the associated search terms as the search contribution information of the book recommendation special topic for the book. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 11 recites wherein the book recommendation special topic comprises topic content, book list content, and multimedia content for recommending the book, and the recommendation contribution information of the book recommendation special topic for the book comprises first recommendation contribution information of the topic content for the book, second recommendation contribution information of the book list content for the book, and third recommendation contribution information of the multimedia content for the book; and the determining by the processor of the machine the recommendation form of the book based on the recommendation contribution information comprises: determining, by the processor of the machine based on the first recommendation contribution information, the second recommendation contribution information, and the third recommendation contribution information, the recommendation form of the book as at least one of the topic content, the book list content, and the multimedia content. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 12 recites wherein the book recommendation special topic comprises topic content, book list content, and multimedia content for recommending the book; the recommendation contribution information of the book recommendation special topic for the book comprises first recommendation contribution information of the topic content for the book, second recommendation contribution information of the book list content for the book, and third recommendation contribution information of the multimedia content for the book; the search contribution information of the book recommendation special topic for the book comprises first search contribution information of the topic content for the book, second search contribution information of the book list content for the book, and third search contribution information of the multimedia content for the book; and the determining by the processor of the machine a recommendation form of the book based on the recommendation contribution information and the search contribution information comprises: determining, by the processor of the machine based on the first recommendation contribution information, the second recommendation contribution information, and the third recommendation contribution information, and the first search contribution information, the second search contribution information, and the third search contribution information, the recommendation form of the book as at least one of the topic content, the book list content, and the multimedia content.
Claim 13 recites wherein if a recommendation form of the book is to recommend the book through target special topic content in the book recommendation special topic, the target special topic content comprises at least a cover, a name, and a recommendation text of the book. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 14 recites further comprising: determining, by the processor of the machine based on attributes and recommendation forms of historical books, attributes of to-be-recommended books suitable for topic content, book list content, and multimedia content in the book recommendation special topic. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 17 recites wherein the first reading conversion quantity is a quantity of first-type readers who read the book through the book recommendation special topic and whose number of read pages is greater than a preset number of pages; and the second reading conversion quantity is a quantity of second-type readers who read the book through the other reading sources and whose number of read pages is greater than the preset number of pages. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 19 recites wherein the determining first reading data of the book in a plurality of reading sources comprises: determining reading sources of the book in a reading application, the reading sources comprising at least the book recommendation special topic; determining a total quantity of first-type readers who read the book through the book recommendation special topic within a first preset historical period, and a first reading conversion quantity and a first-type reader retention quantity of the book in the book recommendation special topic; and determining a total quantity of second-type readers who read the book through other reading sources within the first preset historical period, and a second reading conversion quantity and a second-type reader retention quantity of the book in the other reading sources. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 20 recites wherein the first reading conversion quantity is a quantity of first-type readers who read the book through the book recommendation special topic and whose number of read pages is greater than a preset number of pages; and the second reading conversion quantity is a quantity of second-type readers who read the book through the other reading sources and whose number of read pages is greater than the preset number of pages. The limitation merely further limits the abstract idea and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
For these reasons all claims are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 1, 3, 5-15, 17-18, and 20 are determined to be free of prior art. However, are rejected under 35 USC 101 for reciting ineligible subject matter.
Independent claims 1, 15 and 18 now recite the previous subject matter free of prior art from now cancelled claims 2, 4, 16, and 19.
In addition to the references applied in the previous office action dated 5/12/2026, Lorch and Seo, the closest prior art of record is as follows:
Wang CN 106095867 discloses receiving a book search request comprising search terms and using historical action data related to the user along with the search terms to provide a book recommendation. However, the reference does not disclose a reading contribution portion, a first reading conversion rate based on duration, or search contribution information as required in the claimed invention.
XU CN 110647689 discloses a search input module, a keyword extraction module, book recommendation module, and a purchase confirmation module for recommendation book information to the end user. However, the reference does not disclose a reading contribution portion, a first reading conversion rate based on duration, or search contribution information as required in the claimed invention.
“STUDY ON BOOK RECOMMENDATION SYSTEM” (NPL) discloses the Item Based Cooperative Filtering methodology is described in [13] which is the outcome of combining Cooperative Filtering and Item Based Filtering is used by the RS in this investigation. The rating matrix is used by collaborative filtering to determine ratings, while book attributes are primarily used by item-based search to determine how similar two books are to one another. Numerous uses of the cooperative filtering technology have proved successful. By taking into account opinions in the form of preference ratings, the Collaborative Filtering methodology forecast user preferences for things in an extremely word-of-mouth manner (see page 4). However, the reference does not disclose a reading contribution portion, a first reading conversion rate based on duration, or search contribution information as required in the claimed invention.
It was found that no references alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonable teaches, nor renders obvious the above claims 1, 3, 5-15, 17-18, and 20.
Therefore, none of the cited references disclose or render obvious each and every feature of the claimed invention and the claimed invention is determined to be free of the prior art. Although individually the claimed features could be taught, any combination of references would teach the claimed limitations using a piecemeal analysis, since references would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant's disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e., hindsight reasoning). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The examiner emphasizes that it is the interrelationship of the limitations that renders these claims free of the prior art/additional art.
Therefore, it is hereby asserted by the Examiner that, in light of the above, that the claims 1, 3, 5-15, 17-18, and 20 are free of prior art as the references do not anticipate the claims and do not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in art.
Relevant Prior Art
US 20150006258 discloses providing book recommendations based on the reader’s reading activity
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks directed 35 USC 102/103 are determined to be moot as the prior art rejections are withdrawn in light of the claim amendments. Reasons are set forth under “subject matter free of prior art”.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the remarks directed to 35 USC 101, the examiner maintains that the claims are directed to making recommendations which is a sales activity. The mere recitations the limitations being performed by a processor does not preclude the claims from reciting an abstract idea. As set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), claims that recite a computer can still fall into the grouping of a mental process. However, the examiner does note that the claims have not been characterized as a mental process in the rejection. With respect to the Step 2A prong 2, in view of the reasons set forth above, the mere recitation of a processor and the improvement to the recommendations themselves do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The processor is being recited at a high level of generality and the improvement to the recommendations is part of the abstract idea, not an improvement to the technology or integration into a practical application. As to Step 2B, the claims remain rejected for the same reasons. Considered individually or as a whole, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. More efficient book recommendations improves the abstract idea, at most.
For at least these reasons, the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
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 VICTORIA E. FRUNZI whose telephone number is (571)270-1031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7-4 (EST).
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764. 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.
VICTORIA E. FRUNZI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit TC 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 10/2/2026
Prosecution Insights