DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication filed on July 09, 2026. Claims 1-23 are currently pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on July 09, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant in Pages 8-10 of the Remarks argues that the amended claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter because any abstract idea in the claims is integrated into a practical application and because the claims recite an inventive concept that is significantly more than the abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is important to note that the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
If the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement (MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
Independent claim 1 and similarly independent claims 8 and 17 covers several steps, such as the perform three gross filtering cascading processes step, perform three fine filtering cascading processes step, and analyze each piece of content step, that recite an abstract idea within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper perform the limitations recited in said steps, which is discussed in detail in the 101 rejection below.
The remaining steps in the claims that are identified as reciting additional elements, such as the submit and receive steps in claim 1, the receiving step in claim 8, the receiving step in claim 17, and the use of computer and machine learning in the claims, are only adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, are recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions, and are applying the exception using generic computer components, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and are not directed to any specific improvement in computer technology, as discussed in detail in the 101 rejection below.
Additionally, dependent claims 2-6, 9-13, and 18-22 cover additional steps that
also recite an abstract idea within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, as
discussed in detail in the 101 rejection below.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
For the above reasons, Examiner states that rejection of the current Office action is proper.
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At step 1:
Independent claims 1, 8, and 17 respectively recite a system, a method, and a
computer, which are directed to a statutory category such as a process, machine, or an
article of manufacture.
At step 2A, prong one:
Independent claim 1 and similarly independent claims 8 and 17 recites the limitations:
“perform…three gross filtering cascading processes on each piece of content to detect noise and domain relevance of each piece of content to generate a gross filtering result for each piece of content and discard a particular piece of content that does not pass the gross filtering to produce a reduced number of pieces of content, the three gross filtering cascading processes including apply artificial intelligence (AI) safety guardrails on each piece of content, identify and discard ill-formed text for each piece of content, and establish business to business (B2B) relevant content for each piece of content”;
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper perform three gross filtering cascading processes, which includes mentally or using a pen and paper applying artificial intelligence (AI) safety guardrails on each piece of content, mentally or using a pen and paper identifying and discarding ill-formed text for each piece of content, and mentally or using a pen and paper establishing business to business (B2B) relevant content for each piece of content, to mentally or using a pen and paper detect noise and domain relevance of each piece of content.
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper perform the three gross filtering cascading processes on each piece of content to mentally or using a pen and paper generate a gross filtering result for each piece of content by mentally or using a pen and paper discarding a particular piece of content that does not pass the gross filtering to mentally or using a pen and paper produce a reduced number of pieces of content.
“perform…three fine filtering cascading processes to detect noise and relevance to a topic or a persona for each piece of content of the reduced number of pieces of content to generate a fine filtering result for each piece of content of the reduced number of pieces of content and discard a particular piece of content that fails to pass the fine filtering to produce a second reduced number of pieces of content, the three fine filtering cascading processes including apply a content noise filter to each piece of content of the reduced number of pieces of content, apply content relevance filter to each piece of content of the reduced number of pieces of content, and apply audience relevance filter to each piece of content of the reduced number of pieces of content”;
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper perform three fine filtering cascading processes, which includes mentally or using a pen and paper applying a content noise filter to each piece of content of the reduced number of pieces of content, mentally or using a pen and paper applying content relevance filter to each piece of content of the reduced number of pieces of content, and applying audience relevance filter to each piece of content of the reduced number of pieces of content, to mentally or using a pen and paper detect noise and relevance to a topic or a persona for each piece of content of a reduced number of pieces of content.
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper perform the three fine filtering cascading processes to mentally or using a pen and paper generate a fine filtering result for each piece of content of the reduced number of pieces of content by mentally or using a pen and paper discarding a particular piece of content that fails to pass the fine filtering to mentally or using a pen and paper produce a second reduced number of pieces of content.
“analyze…each piece of content of the second reduced number of pieces of content including the gross filtering result and the fine filtering result to generate one or more noise related flags for each piece of content of the second reduced number of pieces of content”.
A person can mentally or using a pen and paper analyze each piece of content of a second reduced number of pieces of content including a gross filtering result and a fine filtering result to mentally or using a pen and paper generate one or more noise related flags for each piece of content of the second reduced number of pieces of content.
The limitations, as recited above, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover steps that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, but for recitation of generic computer components.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitations:
“a computing device that interacts with the computer system to submit a query and receive search results from the computer system in response to the query, the search results being curated content having noise filtered out of the search results”, which is a step of submitting or transmitting data and receiving data. The step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“receive a plurality of pieces of content based on the query”, which is a step of receiving data. The step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional elements “a system, comprising: a computer system having a processor and a plurality of lines of instructions executed by the processor”, “a computing device that interacts with the computer system to”, “from the computer system”, “the computer system being configured to:” and “using machine learning” in the steps in claim 1 are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole,
because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Independent claim 8 recites the limitation:
“receiving, by a computer, a plurality of pieces of content”, which is a step of receiving data. The step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional elements “by a computer”, “using machine learning executed by the computer”, and “by the computer” in the steps in claim 8 are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole,
because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Independent claim 17 recites the limitation:
“receiving a plurality of pieces of content”, which is a step of receiving data. The step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional elements “a computer, comprising: a processor and a plurality of lines of instructions executed by the processor; the computer being configured to:” and “using machine learning” in the steps in claim 17 are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole,
because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
At step 2B:
Independent claims 1, 8, and 17 recites the same additional elements as
identified in step 2A prong two above. These additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitations:
“a computing device that interacts with the computer system to submit a query and receive search results from the computer system in response to the query, the search results being curated content having noise filtered out of the search results”, which is a step of submitting or transmitting data and receiving data, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
“receive a plurality of pieces of content based on the query”, which is a step of receiving data, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
Accordingly, the additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 8 recites the limitation:
“receiving, by a computer, a plurality of pieces of content”, which is a step of receiving data, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
Accordingly, the additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 17 recites the limitation:
“receiving a plurality of pieces of content”, which is a step of receiving data, and is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
Accordingly, the additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2 recites additional limitations, such as:
“…filter out a piece of content that contains one of misleading information and harmful content, remove a piece of content that is one of grammatically incorrect and poorly structured and discard a piece of content that is not relevant to a domain”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper filter out a piece of content that contains one of misleading information and harmful content, remove a piece of content that is one of grammatically incorrect and poorly structured and discard a piece of content that is not relevant to a domain, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
The additional elements “wherein the computer system configured to perform gross filtering is further configured to” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3 recites additional limitations, such as:
“…generate a noise score for each piece of content in the reduced number of pieces of content, to generate a content relevance score in which the noise in each piece of content in the reduced number of pieces of content is determined based on a context of the piece of content in the reduced number of pieces of content and generate an audience relevance score that identifies a target audience in the domain for each piece of content in the reduced number of pieces of content”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper generate a noise score for each piece of content in the reduced number of pieces of content, generate a content relevance score in which the noise in each piece of content in the reduced number of pieces of content is determined based on a context of the piece of content in the reduced number of pieces of content and generate an audience relevance score that identifies a target audience in the domain for each piece of content in the reduced number of pieces of content, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
The additional elements “wherein the computer system configured to perform fine filtering is further configured to” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein the one or more noise related flags further comprises a content safe for consumption flag, a well formed content flag, a relevant to domain flag, a noise level flag, a content relevant to query flag and a content relevant to target persona flag”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper generate one or more noise related flags comprising a content safe for consumption flag, a well formed content flag, a relevant to domain flag, a noise level flag, a content relevant to query flag and a content relevant to target persona flag, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein the relevant to domain flag is a relevant to business to business (B2B) domain flag”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper generate one or more noise related flags wherein a relevant to domain flag is a relevant to business to business (B2B) domain flag, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6 recites additional limitations, such as:
“…segment each piece of content into at least one sentence, segment each sentence into a plurality of tokens, wherein the gross filtering and fine filtering are performed based on the plurality of tokens for each piece of content”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper segment each piece of content into at least one sentence, segment each sentence into a plurality of tokens, wherein the gross filtering and fine filtering are performed based on the plurality of tokens for each piece of content, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
The additional elements “wherein the computer system is further configured to” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein the machine learning further comprises one or more of a natural language processing process, a statistical analysis process, a sematic analysis process and a machine learning model process”, which are additional elements recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein performing the gross filtering further comprises filtering out a piece of content that contains one of misleading information and harmful content, removing a piece of content that is one of grammatically incorrect and poorly structured and discarding a piece of content that is not relevant to a domain”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 8, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper perform gross filtering by filtering out a piece of content that contains one of misleading information and harmful content, removing a piece of content that is one of grammatically incorrect and poorly structured and discarding a piece of content that is not relevant to a domain, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein performing the fine filtering further comprises generating a noise score for each piece of content in the reduced number of pieces of content, generating a content relevance score in which the noise in each piece of content in the reduced number of pieces of content is determined based on a context of the piece of content in the reduced number of pieces of content and generating an audience relevance score that identifies a target audience in the domain for each piece of content in the reduced number of pieces of content”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper perform fine filtering by generating a noise score for each piece of content in the reduced number of pieces of content, generating a content relevance score in which the noise in each piece of content in the reduced number of pieces of content is determined based on a context of the piece of content in the reduced number of pieces of content and generating an audience relevance score that identifies a target audience in the domain for each piece of content in the reduced number of pieces of content, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 11 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein the one or more noise related flags further comprises a content safe for consumption flag, a well formed content flag, a relevant to domain flag, a noise level flag, a content relevant to query flag and a content relevant to target persona flag”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper generate one or more noise related flags comprising a content safe for consumption flag, a well formed content flag, a relevant to domain flag, a noise level flag, a content relevant to query flag and a content relevant to target persona flag, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 12 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein the relevant to domain flag is a relevant to business to business (B2B) domain flag”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper generate one or more noise related flags wherein a relevant to domain flag is a relevant to business to business (B2B) domain flag, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 13 recites additional limitations, such as:
“segmenting each piece of content into at least one sentence, segmenting each sentence into a plurality of tokens, wherein the gross filtering and fine filtering are performed based on the plurality of tokens for each piece of content”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper segment each piece of content into at least one sentence, segment each sentence into a plurality of tokens, wherein the gross filtering and fine filtering are performed based on the plurality of tokens for each piece of content, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
The additional elements “wherein the computer system is further configured to” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 14 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein the machine learning further comprises one or more of a natural language processing process, a statistical analysis process, a sematic analysis process and a machine learning model process”, which are additional elements recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 15 recites additional limitations, such as:
“submitting, by a computing device, a query so that the received plurality of pieces of content are in response to the query”, which is a step of submitting or transmitting data and receiving data.
At step 2A prong two, the step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
At step 2B, the step is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of receiving or transmitting data over a network (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 16 recites additional limitations, such as:
“presenting, to the computing device, the one or more noise related flags”, which is a step of presenting or outputting data.
At step 2A prong two, the step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
At step 2B, the step is recognized as a well understood, routine, and conventional activity within the field of computer functions as an element of presenting offers and gathering statistics (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 18 recites additional limitations, such as:
“…filter out a piece of content that contains one of misleading information and harmful content, remove a piece of content that is one of grammatically incorrect and poorly structured and discard a piece of content that is not relevant to a domain”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper filter out a piece of content that contains one of misleading information and harmful content, remove a piece of content that is one of grammatically incorrect and poorly structured and discard a piece of content that is not relevant to a domain, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
The additional elements “wherein the computer configured to perform gross filtering is further configured to” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 19 recites additional limitations, such as:
“…generate a noise score for each piece of content in the reduced number of pieces of content, to generate a content relevance score in which the noise in each piece of content in the reduced number of pieces of content is determined based on a context of the piece of content in the reduced number of pieces of content and generate an audience relevance score that identifies a target audience in the domain for each piece of content in the reduced number of pieces of content”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper generate a noise score for each piece of content in the reduced number of pieces of content, generate a content relevance score in which the noise in each piece of content in the reduced number of pieces of content is determined based on a context of the piece of content in the reduced number of pieces of content and generate an audience relevance score that identifies a target audience in the domain for each piece of content in the reduced number of pieces of content, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
The additional elements “wherein the computer configured to perform fine filtering is further configured to” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 20 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein the one or more noise related flags further comprises a content safe for consumption flag, a well formed content flag, a relevant to domain flag, a noise level flag, a content relevant to query flag and a content relevant to target persona flag”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper generate one or more noise related flags comprising a content safe for consumption flag, a well formed content flag, a relevant to domain flag, a noise level flag, a content relevant to query flag and a content relevant to target persona flag, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 21 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein the relevant to domain flag is a relevant to business to business (B2B) domain flag”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper generate one or more noise related flags wherein a relevant to domain flag is a relevant to business to business (B2B) domain flag, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 22 recites additional limitations, such as:
“…segment each piece of content into at least one sentence, segment each sentence into a plurality of tokens, wherein the gross filtering and fine filtering are performed based on the plurality of tokens for each piece of content”.
These limitations are directed to the same abstract idea under the mental processes grouping as independent claim 1, because a person can mentally or using a pen and paper segment each piece of content into at least one sentence, segment each sentence into a plurality of tokens, wherein the gross filtering and fine filtering are performed based on the plurality of tokens for each piece of content, and because the limitations do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more.
The additional elements “wherein the computer is further configured to” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 23 recites additional limitations, such as:
“wherein the machine learning further comprises one or more of a natural language processing process, a statistical analysis process, a sematic analysis process and a machine learning model process”, which are additional elements recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claims a whole, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, dependent claims 2-7, 9-16, and 18-23 are also directed to abstract idea without significantly more and are not patent eligible.
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.
Remarks
The relevant prior art of record that are not used in claim rejections but are pertinent to the claims or disclosure are:
Carmody (US Pub 2021/0406685), which discloses pre-processing by removing offensive words from keywords, filtering keywords not relevant to business-to-business process, and training an artificial intelligence with the filtered keywords to provide recommendations.
Pizza (US Pub 2020/0098020), which discloses determining user interests in business-to business information using artificial intelligence and filtering the interests to generate recommendations.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REZWANUL MAHMOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-5625. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ann J. Lo can be reached at 571-272-9767. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.M/Examiner, Art Unit 2159 /AMRESH SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights