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 .
Status of the Application
This Action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed May 8, 2026. Claims 1-2, 9 and 11-12 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/8/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, claims 1-20 are directed toward at least one judicial exception without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP 2106, the rationale for this determination is explained below:
Representative claim 1 is directed towards an apparatus, claim 11 is directed towards a method, which are statutory categories of invention.
Although, claim 1 is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim however, is directed towards an abstract idea. The limitations that recite the abstract ideas are: obtain viewing group information of a user by inputting context information including profile information of the user and use history information, wherein the viewing group information corresponds to at least one viewing group representing the user among a plurality of pre-stored viewing groups;
display an advertisement content identified based on the obtained viewing group information, obtain feedback information of the user related to the displayed advertisement content; output a viewing group representing the user from among the plurality of pre-stored viewinq groups based on the input context information, obtaining updated viewing group information representing the user. These limitations, comprise commercial interactions including, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behavior; business relations; and managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions. And are thus, directed towards the abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements provided by the claim as a whole are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to generally “apply” the abstract by computer components. In particular the claim recites the additional elements of: a display; a memory storing a trained first artificial intelligence model; of the electronic apparatus into the first artificial intelligence model; control the display to; and update the trained first artificial intelligence model to a second artificial intelligence model retrained based on the input context information and the obtained feedback information, such that the second artificial intelligence model is specified for the user, wherein the trained first artificial intelligence model, based on the stored plurality of pre-stored viewing groups, is configured to, wherein the second artificial intelligence model is a model that is used in, which merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract ideas, see MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(h). Simply implementing the abstract idea by computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to applying the abstract idea on a computer. Viewing these limitations individually, the limitations generically referring to a display, a memory, a trained first artificial intelligence model, at least one processor, an electronic apparatus, a second artificial intelligence model, do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment1. Viewing these limitations as a combination, the claims merely instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with a high-level of generality executing data processing functions. Merely applying an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept). Therefore, the limitations of the claim as a whole, when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
A review of dependent claims 1-10, likewise, do not recite any limitations that would remedy the deficiencies outlined above as they do not add any elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more. While they may slightly narrow the abstract idea by further describing it, they do not make it less abstract and are rejected accordingly. Further still, claim 11-20 suffer from substantially the same deficiencies as outlined with respect to claim 1-10 and are also rejected accordingly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's filed arguments have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive.
A. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection Applicant argues that the claims are directed to a technological improvement rather than an abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to an abstract idea, grouped under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because they entail commercial interactions including, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behavior; business relations; (using user feedback to improve advertisement selection accuracy) and managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions (obtaining user provided profile, use history and feedback). Applying the claims via an AI model does not remove them from the realm of the abstract idea. See SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a ‘‘series of mathematical calculations based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those calculations’’ are directed to abstract ideas). In contrast to Enfish and McRO, Applicant’s claims do not provide any technological improvements derived from technical evidence supplied by Applicant’s specification.
Applicant submits that paragraph [0306] of the specification demonstrates that the disclosed invention improves technology. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0306] only acknowledges a problem of catastrophic forgetting but does not describe how to prevent the problem, as was the case in Desjardins, which provided a solution, hence an improvement. Applicant’s claims merely update the algorithm with feedback information, which too, is unlike Diamond v. Diehr, where its algorithm was used to transform a particular article to a different state or thing.
Applicant submits that the claims are integrated into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Merely applying the abstract idea by a computer apparatus using artificial intelligence algorithm does not constitute a practical application integrated by the additional elements. See TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea”). That the retraining process is a technological operation that enhances the performance of the Al model in identifying appropriate advertisement content based on dynamically changing input parameters, does not amount to a technological improvement but rather solving an entrepreneurial problem.
As such, the claims as a whole, in view of Alice, do not connote an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the Examiner considers that the current 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection has not been overcome by the Applicant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Errol CARVALHO whose telephone number is (571)272-9987. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30-7:00 Alt Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571-270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E CARVALHO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
1 See, Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2360 (2014) (noting that none of the hardware recited “offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,’ that is, implementation via computers” (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010))).
Prosecution Insights