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 Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 04/01/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 15, and 17 are currently amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and examined below.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-20 is/are directed towards a statutory category (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (Step 1, Yes).
Step 2A Prong One:
Claim 1 recites (additional elements underlined):
A method for information recommendation, comprising:
determining, by one or more processors of a recommendation server, a historical interaction parameter of a target user for associated information of each candidate object in a candidate object set, wherein the historical interaction parameter quantifies past user interaction stored in a structured database;
determining, by the one or more processors, a target interaction parameter corresponding to each candidate object, wherein the target interaction parameter represents a minimum interaction requirement for the target user to advance from a current level to a target user level defined in a hierarchical level classification system;
calculating, by the one or more processors, a differential score for each candidate object between the target interaction parameter and the historical interaction parameter for that candidate object;
ranking, by the one or more processor, the candidate objects in the candidate object set based on the differential score of each candidate object to obtain a ranking result, wherein candidate objects with smaller differential scores are ranked higher to identify object closest to enabling level advancement; and
transmitting, by the recommendation server to a user device over a computer network, the associated information of the top-ranked candidate objects from the ranking result to the target user.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations outlined above that describe or set forth the abstract idea, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s). That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified below, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed in the mind. These limitations are considered a mental process because the limitations include an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. These limitations are also similar to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” and/or “collecting and comparing known information” which were determined to be mental processes in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified above do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Therefore, the claim recite a mental process (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth an advertising/marketing activity. Advertising/marketing fall within the certain method of organizing human activity enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a fundamental economic principle or practice because advertising/marketing is related to commerce and economy, a commercial interaction (e.g., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations), and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Therefore, the claim recites a certain method of organizing human activity (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
The limitations outlined above that describe or set forth the abstract idea are also considered mathematical concepts at least because the above limitations determine a historical interaction parameter, determine a target interaction parameter, calculate a differential score, rank the candidate objects based on the differential score, and transmit the associated information of the top ranked candidate objects from the ranking result to the target user. These limitations are similar to “organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations” which was determined to be a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical concept (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
Step 2A Prong Two:
In Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) outlined above are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional element(s) amount adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) does not integrate the judicial exception similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. The Examiner notes that “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter" (see pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., in a computer environment). The courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, improves any other technology or technical field, applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, applies the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation (Step 2A Prong Two, No).
Step 2B:
In Step 2B, the additional elements of also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong Two. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A Prong Two overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation (Step 2B, No).
Claims 2-7 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 1 (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes). Claims 2-7 do not recite any other additional elements. Therefore, claims 2-7 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 8 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 8 also recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One (i.e., mathematical concept, certain method of organizing human activities, and mental processes). Claim 8 recites the additional elements of “An electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; and a storage apparatus configured to store one or more programs; wherein the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement acts comprising,” “in a structured database,” and “system.” For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 8 also does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 9-14 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 8 (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes). Claims 9-14 do not recite any other additional elements. Therefore, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 8, claims 9-14 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 15 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 15 also recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One (i.e., mathematical concept, certain method of organizing human activities, and mental processes). Claim 15 recites the additional elements of “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, wherein the program, when executed by a processor, implements acts comprising,” “in a structured database,” and “system.” However, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 8, claim 15 also does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 16-20 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 15 (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes). Claims 16-20 do not recite any other additional elements. Therefore, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 15, claims 16-20 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Prior Art
The Examiner notes that after a comprehensive search on the claims as currently amended, the claims currently overcome prior art. The closest prior art found to date are the following:
Zambelli et al. (US 2024/0061911 A1) discloses the concept of dividing content into a normal set and an exclusive set, ranking content of the normal set based on a user preference vector, creating a prioritized list of tiers of content, publishing the prioritized list of tiers of content to the network and restricting access to certain tiers of the prioritized list of tiers of content, receiving a selection of a first content from a first tier (that is an unrestricted tier) associated with a first user account, determining a social engagement factor (SEF) for the first user account based on an amount of social media activity over the network associated with the first content and attributed to the first user account, and based on the SEF for the first user account, electronically enabling access to a higher priority tier of the prioritized list of tiers of content for the first user account. Zambelli et al. also disclose the concept of privileges being provided to users based on tracking social media activity. However, Zambelli et al. does not appear to explicitly determine a historical interaction parameter of a target user for associated information of each candidate object in a candidate object set; ranking the candidate objects in the candidate object set based on the historical interaction parameter of the target user for the associated information of each candidate object and the target interaction parameter corresponding to each candidate object, to obtain a ranking result; and recommending, based on the ranking result, the associated information of the candidate objects to the target user as claimed. While Zambelli et al. determines a historical interaction parameters of the user and determines a target interaction parameter, Zambelli et al. does not appear to do so for associated information of each candidate object in a candidate object set as claimed. Additionally, while Zambelli et al. ranks promotions, Zambelli et al. does so based on a user preference, not based on historical interaction parameter of the target user for the associated information of each candidate object set and the target interaction parameter corresponding to each candidate object to obtain a ranking result as claimed.
Yi et al. (US 2018/0011854 A1) discloses the concept of ranking candidate objects in the candidate object set based on the historical interaction parameter of the target user. However, Yi et al. does not appear to rank the candidate objects based on the target interaction parameter corresponding to each candidate object as claimed.
Wai (US 2021/0090119 A1) discloses the concept of ranking promotions based on a ranking target (e.g., orders per impression, a quantity of profit per impression, quantity of clicks per impression). However, Wai does not appear to rank the candidate objects in the candidate objects set based on both the historical interaction parameter of the target user for the associated information of each candidate object and the target interaction parameter corresponding to each candidate object as claimed.
Fuller et al. (US 2019/0050911 A1) discloses a reward system for influencers in a social media marketing campaign. However, Fuller et al. also does not appear to disclose the above limitations.
Milner (US 2017/0262451 A1) discloses a system and method for automatically calculating a category-based social influence score. However, Milner also does not appear to disclose the above limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Argument A: “As amended, claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea, but rather a specific, server-implemented technical process for targeted information recommendation in a networked e-commerce/user-level system.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com L.P. (Fed. Cir. 2014) in which the claimed invention solved the business challenge of retaining website visitors that is particular to the Internet, here the claimed invention amounts to merely reciting the performance of a business practice along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet. The claimed invention here is not necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.
Argument B: “These steps involve server-scale database access, real-time quantitative scoring/ranking, and networked transmission-operations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind due to data volume, speed, and infrastructure requirements. The claim as a whole is not directed to a mental process. The rejection asserts direction to advertising/marketing because the invention relates to recommending information for user level advancement (privileges). However, the claim does not set forth or describe fundamental economic practices, commercial interactions, or managing personal behavior. It recites a technical server process for quantified database analysis, differential computation, and prioritized network transmission to enable efficient level advancement. The core is technological data processing and delivery, not organizing human activity. The differential score involves basic arithmetic, but this is not the focus. The claim is directed to a specific application in networked recommendation, not a mathematical formula. Therefore, the claims do not recite, and are certainly not directed to, a judicial exception.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations that describe or set forth the abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One are considered a mental process because the limitations include an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. These limitations are similar to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” and/or “collecting and comparing known information” which were determined to be mental processes in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). Therefore, the claims do recite a mental process.
The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a certain method of organizing human activity. Paragraph 25 of the specification states that “the candidate object may specifically include one or more of an advertisement.” Advertising falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity enumerated groupings. Therefore, the claims do recite a certain method of organizing human activity.
The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth mathematical concepts at least because the above limitations determine a historical interaction parameter, determine a target interaction parameter, calculate a differential score, rank the candidate objects based on the differential score, and transmit the associated information of the top ranked candidate objects from the ranking result to the target user. Therefore, the claims do recite a mathematical concept.
Argument C: “Even if aspects of evaluation/comparison or marketing-related ranking were considered an abstract idea, the claim as a whole integrates any such alleged abstract idea into a practical application by improving computer/network functionality and data processing efficiency in recommendation systems, in which: - structured database access for historical parameters and hierarchical level rules applies any alleged exception in a specific technical context of server-side data retrieval and rule application, - differential score calculation and ranking with smaller differentials higher identify "objects closest to enabling level advancement," solving the technical problem of inefficient content delivery (wasting bandwidth/network resources on hard-to-upgrade objects in e-commerce platforms), and - transmitting top-ranked associated information over a computer network prioritizes delivery based on computed upgrade ease, improving network resource allocation, reducing latency or bandwidth consumption, and enhancing real-time personalization on user devices. These features reflect an improvement to the functioning of the recommendation server and networked system (efficient resource use, targeted delivery). The claim is not merely "applying" an abstract idea on a generic computer (in contrast with Alice). It provides a specific technological solution to inefficient recommendation in hierarchical user-level systems. Thus, the claims integrate any alleged exception into a practical application.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, there is no indication from the claims or specification that the claimed invention improves computer/network functionality and data processing efficiency in recommendation systems, wasting bandwidth/network resources, improving network resource allocation, or reducing latency or bandwidth consumption. Second, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other task (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Argument D: “Because integration exists at Step 2A Prong Two, Step 2B is not required. If reached, the additional elements (server database access, differential scoring/ranking, prioritized network transmission) provide an inventive concept as they are not well- understood, routine, or conventional-rather, the specification discloses novel prioritization for quick upgrades via targeted delivery, and no cited art teaches this architecture.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Step 2B, the additional elements of also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong Two. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A Prong Two overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation (Step 2B, No).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAM REFAI whose telephone number is (313)446-4822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. 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.
/SAM REFAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights