DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This action is in response to amendment filed 4/3/2026, in which claims 1, 11, and 19 was amended, and claims 1 - 20 was presented for further examination.
3. Claims 1 – 20 are now pending in the application.
Remarks
4.1 As per rejection of claims 1 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, applicant argues in substance in pages 9 – 10 that based on the new amendment features of “the method being performed by a processor of an electronic device in a user profile based data processing field ……..in response to a user feature query request inputted by a user on a display of the electronic device, displaying the user profile on the display for viewing of the user, and receiving an operation performed by the user on controls of the display according to the user profile”, that the claim is statutory.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicants’ argument, Examiner respectfully responds that the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim recites using a generic computer to acquire user interaction or task data, storing or not storing the data based on generated time, generating a user profile data from the acquired data, display the profile data based on user request, and receiving an operation perform by the user on the display device. As clearly indicated in the detail rejection below, the claims are not different from the action performed by user with the aid of pen and paper because the claims are amount to information gathering, deciding whether to store the acquired data based on user selected criteria, and providing the analyzed output data.
4.2 Thus, the rejection is maintained.
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.
5.1 Claims 1 - 20 are directed are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1,
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the limitation of
acquiring a plurality of pieces of user data and a generation time of a last piece of user data among the plurality of pieces of user data (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper (i.e. observation)).
generating, each time a piece of first user data is read from the plurality of pieces of user data, a user feature corresponding to the first user data (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper (i.e. valuation)).
storing the user feature corresponding to the first user data into a target database when a generation time of the first user data is consistent with the generation time of the last piece of user data (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper (i.e. judgement)).
not storing the user feature corresponding to the first user data into the target database when the generation time of the first user data is inconsistent with the generation time of the last piece of user data (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper (i.e. judgement)).
and generating a user profile based on the user feature in the target database in response to a user feature query request inputted by a user on a display of the electronic device (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper (i.e. evaluation)).
displaying the user profile on the display for viewing of the user, and receiving an operation performed by the user on controls of the display according to the user profile (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and paper (i.e. judgement)).
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of
storing the user feature corresponding to the first user data into a target database when a generation time of the first user data is consistent with the generation time of the last piece of user data (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
not storing the user feature corresponding to the first user data into the target database when the generation time of the first user data is inconsistent with the generation time of the last piece of user data (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
displaying the user profile on the display for viewing of the user, and receiving an operation performed by the user on controls of the display according to the user profile (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity and is well understood, routine, and conventional activity of evaluating data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))))).
Although the additional element limits the identified judicial exceptions. The limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional element
storing the user feature corresponding to the first user data into a target database when a generation time of the first user data is consistent with the generation time of the last piece of user data (this step is directed to organizing information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity and is well understood, routine, and conventional activity of organize data).
not storing the user feature corresponding to the first user data into the target database when the generation time of the first user data is inconsistent with the generation time of the last piece of user data (the step is directed to organizing information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity and is well understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))))).
displaying the user profile on the display for viewing of the user, and receiving an operation performed by the user on controls of the display according to the user profile (the step is directed to presenting information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity and is well understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))))).
As explained above, the additional element are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving and storing information and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The recitation of a computer to perform these limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
acquiring a first user feature query request (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper).
determining, in response to the first user feature query request, whether a target user feature is stored by searching in the target database (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
decomposing the target user feature into the plurality of sub-user features when the target user feature is not stored in the target database and the target user feature is composed of a plurality of sub-user features in the target database (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
and performing a user feature query based on the plurality of sub-user features (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. judgement)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
acquiring a first user feature query request (the step is directed to receiving information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
determining, in response to the first user feature query request, whether a target user feature is stored by searching in the target database (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
decomposing the target user feature into the plurality of sub-user features when the target user feature is not stored in the target database and the target user feature is composed of a plurality of sub-user features in the target database (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
and performing a user feature query based on the plurality of sub-user features (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein said determining, in response to the first user feature query request, whether the target user feature is stored by searching in the target database (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
comprises: converting, in response to the first user feature query request, the first user feature query request into a second user feature query request with a same meaning as the first user feature query request (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
and determining, in response to the second user feature query request, whether the target user feature is stored by searching in the target database (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
wherein said determining, in response to the first user feature query request, whether the target user feature is stored by searching in the target database (the step is directed to receiving information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
comprises: converting, in response to the first user feature query request, the first user feature query request into a second user feature query request with a same meaning as the first user feature query request (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
and determining, in response to the second user feature query request, whether the target user feature is stored by searching in the target database (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
prior to said determining, in response to the first user feature query request, whether the target user feature is stored by searching in the target database (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
performing permission verification on a sender of the first user feature query request (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
wherein said determining, in response to the first user feature query request, whether the target user feature is stored by searching in the target database comprises: when the permission verification on the sender passes (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
determining, in response to the first user feature query request, whether the target user feature is stored by searching in the target database (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
prior to said determining, in response to the first user feature query request, whether the target user feature is stored by searching in the target database (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
performing permission verification on a sender of the first user feature query request (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
wherein said determining, in response to the first user feature query request, whether the target user feature is stored by searching in the target database comprises: when the permission verification on the sender passes (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
determining, in response to the first user feature query request, whether the target user feature is stored by searching in the target database (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein said performing the permission verification on the sender of the first user feature query request comprises: acquiring an identifier of the sender (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
determining a permission range of the sender based on the identifier of the sender; determining that the permission verification on the sender passes, when the permission range of the sender comprises permission to query the target user feature (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
and determining that the permission verification on the sender fails, when the permission range of the sender does not comprise the permission to query the target user feature (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
wherein said performing the permission verification on the sender of the first user feature query request comprises: acquiring an identifier of the sender (the step is directed to receiving information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
determining a permission range of the sender based on the identifier of the sender (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
determining that the permission verification on the sender passes, when the permission range of the sender comprises permission to query the target user feature the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
and determining that the permission verification on the sender fails, when the permission range of the sender does not comprise the permission to query the target user feature the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated,
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
prior to said determining, in response to the first user feature query request, whether the target user feature is stored by searching in the target database (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
determining a query interface corresponding to the first user feature query request, wherein said determining, in response to the first user feature query request, whether the target user feature is stored by searching in the target database (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
comprises: determining, in response to the first user feature query request and based on the query interface corresponding to the first user feature query request, whether the target user feature is stored by searching in the target database (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
prior to said determining, in response to the first user feature query request, whether the target user feature is stored by searching in the target database (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
determining a query interface corresponding to the first user feature query request (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
wherein said determining, in response to the first user feature query request, whether the target user feature is stored by searching in the target database (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
comprises: determining, in response to the first user feature query request and based on the query interface corresponding to the first user feature query request, whether the target user feature is stored by searching in the target database (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated,
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein said determining the query interface corresponding to the first user feature query request (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
comprises: determining that the query interface corresponding to the first user feature query request is an On-Line Transaction Processing (OLTP) interface, when the first user feature query request comprises a user identifier (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
and determining that the query interface corresponding to the first user feature query request is an On-Line Analytical Processing (OLAP) interface, when the first user feature query request does not comprise the user identifier (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
wherein said determining the query interface corresponding to the first user feature query request (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
comprises: determining that the query interface corresponding to the first user feature query request is an On-Line Transaction Processing (OLTP) interface, when the first user feature query request comprises a user identifier (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
and determining that the query interface corresponding to the first user feature query request is an On-Line Analytical Processing (OLAP) interface, when the first user feature query request does not comprise the user identifier (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated,
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
determining whether an abnormal user feature exists in the target database (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
generating prompt information when the abnormal user feature exists in the target database (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
and pushing the prompt information to prompt the user that the abnormal user feature exists in the target database (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. judgement)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
determining whether an abnormal user feature exists in the target database (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
generating prompt information when the abnormal user feature exists in the target database (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
and pushing the prompt information to prompt the user that the abnormal user feature exists in the target database (the step is directed to providing information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated,
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein said determining whether the abnormal user feature exists in the target database comprises: acquiring a first user feature stored in the target database at any moment and at least one second user feature within a predetermined duration before the any moment (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
performing a statistical analysis on the at least one second user feature to obtain a distribution range of the first user feature (Mathematical process of evaluating information).
determining that the abnormal user feature exists in the target database when the first user feature is not within the distribution range and determining that no abnormal user feature exists in the target database when the first user feature is within the distribution range (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
wherein said determining whether the abnormal user feature exists in the target database comprises: acquiring a first user feature stored in the target database at any moment and at least one second user feature within a predetermined duration before the any moment (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
performing a statistical analysis on the at least one second user feature to obtain a distribution range of the first user feature (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
determining that the abnormal user feature exists in the target database when the first user feature is not within the distribution range and determining that no abnormal user feature exists in the target database when the first user feature is within the distribution range (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated,
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter.
Step 2A Prong 1: The judicial exceptions of claim 1 are incorporated, the limitation of
wherein said generating, each time a piece of the first user data is read from the plurality of pieces of user data, the user feature corresponding to the first user data (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
comprises: selecting, each time a piece of the first user data is read from the plurality of pieces of user data, a generation approach for the user feature corresponding to the first user data based on a calculation caliber and an application scenario, the generation approach being a stream generation approach or a batch generation approach (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
and generating the user feature corresponding to the first user data based on the generation approach for the user feature corresponding to the first user data (Mental Process performed in human mind using a pen and a paper (i.e. evaluation)).
Step 2A Prong 2: the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of
wherein said generating, each time a piece of the first user data is read from the plurality of pieces of user data, the user feature corresponding to the first user data (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
comprises: selecting, each time a piece of the first user data is read from the plurality of pieces of user data, a generation approach for the user feature corresponding to the first user data based on a calculation caliber and an application scenario, the generation approach being a stream generation approach or a batch generation approach (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
and generating the user feature corresponding to the first user data based on the generation approach for the user feature corresponding to the first user data (the step is directed to evaluating information, which is understood to be significant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation recited at high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 11 – 18 recites an electronic device, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. As per other analysis, claims 11 - 18 are electronic device claim correspond to method claims 1 — 8 respectively, thus the rationale discussed above regarding claims 1 —8 are applied to claims 11 - 18.
Claim 19 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. As per other analysis, claim 19 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim correspond to method claim 1, thus, the rationale discussed above regarding claim 1 is applied to claim 19.
Claim 20 recites a computer product, which is one of the four statutory categories of eligible matter. As per other analysis, claim 20 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim correspond to method claim 1, thus, the rationale discussed above regarding claim 1 is applied to claim 20.
5.2 Claim 20 does not fall within a statutory category of invention. The claim is directed to the program itself, not a process occurring as a result of executing the program, a machine programmed to operate in accordance with the program nor a manufacture structurally and functionally interconnected with the program in a manner which enables the program to act as a computer component and realize its functionality. Therefore, the claim is not-statutory under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
6. Claims 1, 10 – 11, and 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al (CN 110543509 A), in view of Wei et al (CN 114238716 A), and further in view of Park et al (US 2017/0024442 A1).
As per claim 1, Chang et al (CN 110543509 A) discloses,
A data processing method based on a user profile (pg.3 line 13; “obtaining a user access record from the analysis database; analyzing the user access record”, where user access record is analogous to “user profile” as claimed).
the method being performed by a processor of an electronic device in a user profile based data processing field (pg.11 lines 13 – 17; “a processor, a communication interface, a memory, and a communication bus, where the processor and the communication interface complete communication between the memory and the processor through the communication bus, a memory for storing a computer program; The processor is used for realizing the following steps when executing the program stored in the memory, collecting access records of a user”)
the method comprising: acquiring a plurality of pieces of user data (pg.3 line 13; “obtaining a user access record from the analysis database”).
and a generation time of a last piece of user data among the plurality of pieces of user data (pg.6 lines 33 – 35; “T represents the timestamp corresponding to the user access record, and V represents the user access record; wherein, the user access record comprises: user characteristic information, access objects and access time”, where access time is interpreted as “generation time”).
generating, each time a piece of first user data is read from the plurality of pieces of user data, a user feature corresponding to the first user data (pg.4 lines 30 – 31; “analyzing the user access record, and acquiring user characteristic information, access objects, access time”, where acquiring user characteristic information is analogous to “ generating …… a user feature” as claimed).
and generating a user profile based on the user feature in the target database (pg.3 line 13; “analyzing the user access record”, and pg.4 lines 32 – 34; “obtaining user distribution corresponding to each access object according to the user characteristic information and the access object in each user access record; and respectively obtaining the corresponding heat distribution of each access object according to the access object and the access time in each user access record”, where analyzing user record to obtain user characteristic information and generates user heat distribution information is analogous to “generating user profile based on the user feature” as claimed).
Chang does not specifically disclose storing the user feature corresponding to the first user data into a target database when a generation time of the first user data is consistent with the generation time of the last piece of user data, not storing the user feature corresponding to the first user data into the target database when the generation time of the first user data is inconsistent with the generation time of the last piece of user data; and generating a user profile based on the user feature in the target database.
However, Wei et al (CN 114238716 A) in an analogous art discloses,
storing the user feature corresponding to the first user data into a target database when a generation time of the first user data is consistent with the generation time of the last piece of user data (pg.6 lines 10 – 12; “acquiring the acquisition time of the user data; recognizing that the acquisition time is in the target time range, and determining that the user data is valid; or, recognizing that the acquisition time is not in the target time range, and determining that the user data is invalid” and pg.9 line 32; “only valid user data can be stored in the local storage”, where storing user data with valid target time range is interpreted as “user data consistent with the generation time” as claimed).
not storing the user feature corresponding to the first user data into the target database when the generation time of the first user data is inconsistent with the generation time of the last piece of user data (pg.6 lines 10 – 12; “acquiring the acquisition time of the user data; recognizing that the acquisition time is in the target time range, and determining that the user data is valid; or, recognizing that the acquisition time is not in the target time range, and determining that the user data is invalid” and pg.9 lines 29 – 32; “user data is determined to be invalid. …. after identifying whether the user data is invalid, the invalid user data can be deleted from the local storage”, where deleting user data with invalid target time range from storage is interpreted as not storing the user data that is inconsistent with generation time as claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate storing of user data based on observed time validity criteria of the system of Wei into user characteristics determination of the system of Chang to identify various condition require for validating the user data before retaining the data, thereby enabling the integrity of the store data.
Neither Chang nor Wei specifically disclose in response to a user feature query request inputted by a user on a display of the electronic device, displaying the user profile on the display for viewing of the user and receiving an operation performed by the user on controls of the display according to the user profile.
However, Park et al (US 2017/0024442 A1) in analogous art discloses,
in response to a user feature query request inputted by a user on a display of the electronic device (para.[0076]; “a query type may include a query for performing
an operation of acquiring user information or a query for acquiring user information”).
displaying the user profile on the display for viewing of the user (para.[0077]; “response output controller 215 may identify a response to the made user input or an expected response to the output query, and output data corresponding to the identified response” and para.[0137]; “electronic device may select a query for acquiring the user profile information”).
and receiving an operation performed by the user on controls of the display according to the user profile (para.[0146]; “a selection item may be displayed, allowing for selection of at least one piece of information related to the stored application” and para.[0210]; “When it is determined that the response can be
output through the dynamic display in operation 1232, the electronic device may output the response using the dynamic display in operation”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate the process of acquiring user profile information of the system of Park into storing of user data based on observed time validity criteria of the system of Wei to output a query based on a task or pre-stored user information when the task of an application or a service is unknown, thereby enabling resources retrieve to be tailored towards the user interest.
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Chang et al (CN 110543509 A) discloses,
wherein said generating, each time a piece of the first user data is read from the plurality of pieces of user data, the user feature corresponding to the first user data comprises: selecting, each time a piece of the first user data is read from the plurality of pieces of user data (pg.5 lines 31 – 32; “reading the time stamp in each piece of user data and aggregating each piece of user data into each time period of the time sequence according to the time stamp of each piece of user data to obtain an aggregation result”).
a generation approach for the user feature corresponding to the first user data based on a calculation caliber and an application scenario (pg.7 lines 2 – 4; “analyzing the user access records of the single data source respectively according to the identification information of the data source in the user access records, and obtaining user characteristic information, access objects, access time”).
the generation approach being a stream generation approach or a batch generation approach and generating the user feature corresponding to the first user data based on the generation approach for the user feature corresponding to the first user data (pg.7 lines 16 – 22; “the influence duration is calibrated according to the statistical characteristic number of the activity event to be executed; the statistical characteristic number is obtained by calculating the heat distribution of the access object corresponding to the activity event to be executed; the access objects which are related and influenced with the activity event to be executed are obtained according to the correlation among the access objects”).
Claim 11 is an electronic device claim corresponding to method claim 1, and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 19 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to method claim 1, and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 20 is a computer program product claim corresponding to method claim 1, and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claim 1 above.
7. Claims 2 – 3, 6, 12 – 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al (CN 110543509 A), in view of Wei et al (CN 114238716 A), in view of Park et al (US 2017/0024442 A1), and further in view of Yang et al (WO 2021/057253 A1).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Chang et al (CN 110543509 A) and Wei et al (CN 114238716 A) does not disclose acquiring a first user feature query request, determining, in response to the first user feature query request, whether a target user feature is stored by searching in the target database, decomposing the target user feature into the plurality of sub-user features when the target user feature is not stored in the target database and the target user feature is composed of a plurality of sub-user features in the target database, and performing a user feature query based on the plurality of sub-user features.
However, Yang et al (WO 2021/057253 A1) in an analogous art discloses,
further comprising: acquiring a first user feature query request (pg.10 lines 41 – 42; “when a user data query request from a target user is received”).
determining, in response to the first user feature query request, whether a target user feature is stored by searching in the target database (pg.10 lines 42 – 42; “the query type is determined according to the query conditions carried in the query request; when the query type is a periodic query, if the query is based on the query If the query period determined by the condition is the current period”).
decomposing the target user feature into the plurality of sub-user features when the target user feature is not stored in the target database and the target user feature is composed of a plurality of sub-user features in the target database (pg.11 lines 10 – 13; “cross-database query is performed when a single database cannot match the start time and end time …… cross-database queries, the query period can be split into two sub-query periods that match the historical database and the current database”).
and performing a user feature query based on the plurality of sub-user features (pg.11 lines 13 – 14; “Based on these two sub-query periods, data queries are performed on the corresponding historical database and the current database”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate separation and storage of user data by generation time of the system of Yang into the process of acquiring user profile information of the system of Park and storing of user data based on observed time granularity validity criteria of the system of Wei to properly maintain current and stale data, thereby enabling the user to easily identify and determine data to be used.
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated and further Yang et al (WO 2021/057253 A1) discloses,
wherein said determining, in response to the first user feature query request, whether the target user feature is stored by searching in the target database (pg.10 lines 42 – 42; “the query type is determined according to the query conditions carried in the query request; when the query type is a periodic query, if the query is based on the query If the query period determined by the condition is the current period” and pg.11 lines 8 – 9; “check whether the start time and end time both fall in the first database of the target user, if yes, Then the first database is determined as the target database”)
comprises: converting, in response to the first user feature query request, the first user feature query request into a second user feature query request with a same meaning as the first user feature query request (pg.10 lines 42 – 42; “the query type is determined according to the query conditions carried in the query request; when the query type is a periodic query, if the query is based on the query If the query period determined by the condition is the current period”).
and determining, in response to the second user feature query request, whether the target user feature is stored by searching in the target database (pg.11 lines 10 – 13; “cross-database query is performed when a single database cannot match the start time and end time …… cross-database queries, the query period can be split into two sub-query periods that match the historical database and the current database”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate separation and storage of user data by generation time of the system of Yang into the process of acquiring user profile information of the system of Park and storing of user data based on observed time granularity validity criteria of the system of Wei to properly maintain current and stale data, thereby enabling the user to easily identify and determine data to be used.
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated and further Yang et al (WO 2021/057253 A1) discloses,
further comprising, prior to said determining, in response to the first user feature query request, whether the target user feature is stored by searching in the target database ((pg.6 lines 18 – 19; “When a user data query request from a target user is received, the query type is determined according to the query conditions carried in the query request, when the query type is a periodical query”).
determining a query interface corresponding to the first user feature query request, wherein said determining, in response to the first user feature query request, whether the target user feature is stored by searching in the target database (pg.6 lines 19 – 20; “if the query period determined according to the query conditions is the current period, the user data query request Route to the current period database corresponding to the target user for data query”).
comprises: determining, in response to the first user feature query request and based on the query interface corresponding to the first user feature query request, whether the target user feature is stored by searching in the target database (pg.6 lines 22 – 25; “when the query type is query by time period At the time, the start time and end time corresponding to the query period determined according to the query conditions; according to the start time and end time, determine the
target database of the target user that matches the start time and end time, and route the user data query request to the target”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate separation and storage of user data by generation time of the system of Yang into the process of acquiring user profile information of the system of Park and storing of user data based on observed time granularity validity criteria of the system of Wei to properly maintain current and stale data, thereby enabling the user to easily identify and determine data to be used.
Claims 12 – 13 and 16 are electronic device claim corresponding to method claims 2 – 3 and 6 respectively above, and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claims 2 – 3 and 6 respectively above.
Claims 4 – 5 and 14 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al (CN 110543509 A), in view of Wei et al (CN 114238716 A), in view of Park et al (US 2017/0024442 A1), and further in view of Yu et al (CN 111723401 A)
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, Chang et al (CN 110543509 A), Wei et al (CN 114238716 A), and Yang et al (WO 2021/057253 A1) does not specifically disclose prior to said determining, in response to the first user feature query request, whether the target user feature is stored by searching in the target database: performing permission verification on a sender of the first user feature query request, wherein said determining, in response to the first user feature query request, whether the target user feature is stored by searching in the target database comprises: when the permission verification on the sender passes, determining, in response to the first user feature query request, whether the target user feature is stored by searching in the target database.
However, Yu et al (CN 111723401 A) in an analogous art discloses,
further comprising, prior to said determining, in response to the first user feature query request, whether the target user feature is stored by searching in the target database: performing permission verification on a sender of the first user feature query request (pg.2 lines 12 – 13; “receiving a data query request to the data management system; determining request authority information and user identity information corresponding to the data query request”).
wherein said determining, in response to the first user feature query request, whether the target user feature is stored by searching in the target database comprises: when the permission verification on the sender passes (pg.2 lines 34 – 36; “sending an identity query request containing the user identity information and the request permission information to the permission module; and receiving a verification result returned by the permission module after the permission of the user
identity information and the request permission information is verified”).
determining, in response to the first user feature query request, whether the target user feature is stored by searching in the target database (pg.2 lines 39 – 40; “the verification result returned after the permission verification is carried out by the permission module is received, so that the access permission of the user can be verified efficiently”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate data access control of the system of Yu into the process of acquiring user profile information of the system of Park and separation and storage of user data by generation time of the system of Yang and storing of user data based on observed time granularity validity criteria of the system of Wei to protect the integrity of user data, thereby controlling who can access the data.
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated and further Yu et al (CN 111723401 A) discloses,
wherein said performing the permission verification on the sender of the first user feature query request comprises: acquiring an identifier of the sender (pg.2 lines 12 – 13; “receiving a data query request to the data management system; determining request authority information and user identity information corresponding to the data query request”).
determining a permission range of the sender based on the identifier of the sender (pg.2 line 16; “the user identity information corresponding to the data query request are determined”).
determining that the permission verification on the sender passes, when the permission range of the sender comprises permission to query the target user feature (pg.2 lines 16 – 18; “the user identity information corresponding to the data query request are determined, and whether the user corresponding to the user identity information has the access permission matched with the request permission information or not is verified”).
and determining that the permission verification on the sender fails, when the permission range of the sender does not comprise the permission to query the target user feature (pg.2 lines 17 – 19; “user identity information has the access permission matched with the request permission information or not is verified, so that the access permission of the user can be verified before the data management system is accessed, and the safety of data can be effectively protected”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate data access control of the system of Yu into the process of acquiring user profile information of the system of Park and separation and storage of user data by generation time of the system of Yang and storing of user data based on observed time granularity validity criteria of the system of Wei to protect the integrity of user data, thereby controlling who can access the data.
Claims 14 - 15 are electronic device claim corresponding to method claims 4 - 5 respectively, and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claims 4 - 5 respectively above.
8. Claim 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al (CN 110543509 A), in view of Wei et al (CN 114238716 A), in view of Park et al (US 2017/0024442 A1), and further in view of Hegde et al (US 2013/0254224 A1).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated, Chang et al (CN 110543509 A), Wei et al (CN 114238716 A), and Yang et al (WO 2021/057253 A1) does not disclose wherein said determining the query interface corresponding to the first user feature query request comprises: determining that the query interface corresponding to the first user feature query request is an On-Line Transaction Processing (OLTP) interface, when the first user feature query request comprises a user identifier; and determining that the query interface corresponding to the first user feature query request is an On-Line Analytical Processing (OLAP) interface, when the first user feature query request does not comprise the user identifier.
However, Hegde et al (US 2013/0254224 A1) in an analogous art discloses,
wherein said determining the query interface corresponding to the first user feature query request comprises: determining that the query interface corresponding to the first user feature query request is an On-Line Transaction Processing (OLTP) interface (para.[0010]; “an interface of the transaction processing”, para.[0019]; “queries may contain characteristics and key figures used for analysis and may be built in the data construct, known as an InfoProvider, of the OLAP subsystem”, para.[0026]; “a new query of the OLAP subsystem may be run by using the data object attribute as a filter”).
when the first user feature query request comprises a user identifier and determining that the query interface corresponding to the first user feature query request is an On-Line Analytical Processing (OLAP) interface, when the first user feature query request does not comprise the user identifier (para.[0010]; “an interface of the transaction processing”, para.[0019]; “queries may contain characteristics and key figures used for analysis and may be built in the data construct, known as an InfoProvider, of the OLAP subsystem”, para.[0026]; “a new query of the OLAP subsystem may be run by using the data object attribute as a filter”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate online transaction processing of the system of Hegde into the process of acquiring user profile information of the system of Park and separation and storage of user data by generation time of the system of Yang
and storing of user data based on observed time granularity validity criteria of the system of Wei to provide multi-access to user data, thereby enabling multiple access from difference sources.
Claim 17 is an electronic device claim corresponding to method claim 7, and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claim 7 above.
9. Claims 8 – 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al (CN 110543509 A), in view of Wei et al (CN 114238716 A), in view of Park et al (US 20170024442 A1), and further in view of Rezaeian et al (US 2023/0298371 A1)
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Chang et al (CN 110543509 A) and Wei et al (CN 114238716 A) does not disclose determining whether an abnormal user feature exists in the target database; generating prompt information when the abnormal user feature exists in the target database and pushing the prompt information to prompt the user that the abnormal user feature exists in the target database.
However, Rezaeian et al (US 2023/0298371 A1) in an analogous art discloses,
further comprising: determining whether an abnormal user feature exists in the target database; generating prompt information when the abnormal user feature exists in the target database and pushing the prompt information to prompt the user that the abnormal user feature exists in the target database (para.[0030]; “anomalous-event prediction system can access the contextual data from one or more data stores, including a user-profile data store that stores user-profile data of the entity that was involved in the particular event”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate data anomalous detection of the system of Rezaian into the process of acquiring user profile information of the system of Park and storing of user data based on observed time validity criteria of the system of Wei to determine anomalous events in the user data, thereby enabling the user to identify invalid data in the system of Yang.
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated and further Rezaeian et al (US 2023/0298371 A1) discloses,
wherein said determining whether the abnormal user feature exists in the target database comprises: acquiring a first user feature stored in the target database at any moment and at least one second user feature within a predetermined duration before the any moment (para.[0030]; “anomalous-event prediction system can access the contextual data from one or more data stores, including a user-profile data store that stores user-profile data of the entity that was involved in the particular event”).
performing a statistical analysis on the at least one second user feature to obtain a distribution range of the first user feature; determining that the abnormal user feature exists in the target database when the first user feature is not within the distribution range (para.[0115]; “generating a distribution of the training first feature vectors of the first feature space; (2) determining that the first feature vector 708 corresponds to an outlier of the generated distribution”).
and determining that no abnormal user feature exists in the target database when the first user feature is within the distribution range (para.[0115]; “the outlier is determined by determining an inter-quartile range value of the generated distribution and determining that the first feature vector falls below or exceeds the inter-quartile range value”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to incorporate anomalous detection of the system of Rezaian into the process of acquiring user profile information of the system of Park and storing of user data based on observed time validity criteria of the system of Wei to determine anomalous event in the user data, thereby enabling the user to identify invalid data in the system of Yang.
Claim 18 is an electronic device claim corresponding to method claim 8, and rejected under the same reason set forth in connection to the rejection of claim 8 above.
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 AUGUSTINE KUNLE OBISESAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2020. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at (571) 272-3906. 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.
/AUGUSTINE K. OBISESAN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2156
6/11/2026
Prosecution Insights