DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/10/2025, 02/04/2026 and 05/01/2026 were filed after the effective filing date of the instant application on 03/17/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a first determination module” and “a second determination module” in claim 13.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
Step 1 (Statutory category)
The claims 1-6 and 11-14 recite method (process) and apparatus/device. Thus, they fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Judicial exception)
The claims are directed to abstract ideas, including:
Collecting, analyzing, and using information to make a decision (e.g., determining and displaying “object feature information” of an object to be recommended based on multimedia information and satisfying “a preset condition”, and taking/selecting the object feature information as recommendation based on that evaluation).
Certain methods of organizing human activity, such as recommended object feature information presentation/advertising based on satisfying a preset condition.
Mental processes (determining object feature information of the object to be recommended and recommending the object information).
Representative mapping:
Claim 1: “determining… comprises a plurality of pieces of object feature information of the object to be recommended” (gathering/observing information); “…determined according to multimedia information corresponding to the object to be recommended and satisfying a preset condition” (evaluation against a threshold); “taking… object feature information as recommendation information of the object to be recommended” (tailored presentation/scheduling decision).
Claim 13: “An apparatus… comprising a first determination module configured to determine…; a second determination module configured to take… as recommendation information of the object to be recommended” (collect/analyze data and tailor/recommend content).
These activities fall within abstract idea groupings recognized by the courts and the USPTO: collecting/analyzing/displaying or using information (Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); targeted content/advertising and organizing human activity (Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)); and rules-based decisions/alerts (FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Integration into a practical application)
The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims recite generic computing components and conventional data-gathering:
A “apparatus” displaying content.
No particular improvement to the functioning of the apparatus or any network is recited. The claims do not specify any particular modality, sampling regimen, signal-processing pipeline, thresholding algorithm, synchronization technique, or rendering mechanism that improves technology. Rather, the claims use a generic computer as tools to perform the abstract decision-making.
The claims do not effect a transformation of an article, are not tied to a particular machine in a meaningful way beyond a generic computing device, and do not apply the abstract idea in some other meaningful way that imposes a limit on the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d); see also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto., 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Step 2B (Inventive concept)
When viewed individually and in combination, the additional elements amount to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities:
Displaying and adjusting more information of the object feature information in different regions of a display to be interacted by user (claims 2-6 and 11-14) are conventional information-processing and presentation operations. See Electric Power Group (collect/analyze/display); Customedia (reserving memory/displaying targeted advertising not inventive); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (data capture and recognition).
The recited “an apparatus” are claimed at a high level without unconventional hardware or a specific technical arrangement. No specific algorithm, signal-processing technique, or architecture is recited that yields an improvement to computer (cf. BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (inventive ordered combination); DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (solution rooted in computer technology)).
Accordingly, the claims do not include an “inventive concept” that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Dependent claims
Claims 2–6 and 11-14 further limit the display of the object feature information. These are field-of-use or data-source limitations and do not add a specific technological solution or unconventional implementation; they remain additional data inputs for the same abstract selection/timing decision, a routine data-handling activity and does not provide an inventive concept.
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to an abstract idea (collecting/analyzing information and organizing human activity via targeted content selection/timing) without reciting additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exception.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because:
Claim 15 sets forth a “computer-readable medium.” However, the specification as originally filed does not explicitly define the computer readable- medium. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer-readable media (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is absent an explicit definition or is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2 or Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media 1351 OG 212, February 23, 2010.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “and/or” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the following features are part of the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets “and/or” as “or”.
Claim limitations “a first determination module” and “a second determination module” in claim 13 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhuang (CN 116521937 B – an English translation version provided herein in which the cited paragraphs being corresponding to the original document).
Regarding claim 1, Zhuang discloses a method for determining recommendation information, comprising:
determining, in response to an object selection operation, an object to be recommended (¶ [0069]-[0070] for receiving a selected object/a sample video and description information to be recommended and from a first user via a first terminal device, which reflect the first user’s need of a recommended video for recommending the selected object to be recommended), and displaying an information recommendation page corresponding to the object to be recommended; wherein the information recommendation page comprises a plurality of pieces of object feature information of the object to be recommended (¶ [0155]-[0158] and ¶ [0222] for sending at least part of sorted results of obtained plurality of video fields corresponding to the selected object to be recommended to the first terminal device for displaying as video fields information recommendation), and the object feature information of the object to be recommended is determined according to multimedia information corresponding to the object to be recommended and satisfying a preset condition (¶ [0138]-[0149] and ¶ [0212]-[0218] for determining video fields information of the selected object to be recommended according to type of sample video and satisfying a screening index corresponding to video fields);
taking, in response to a determination operation for at least one piece of object feature information of the object to be recommended, the at least one piece of object feature information as recommendation information of the object to be recommended (¶ [0157]-[0158] and ¶ [0239]-[0240] for based on the determination of video fields information, taking the selected video field as the target field of the recommended video of the selected object to be recommended).
Regarding claim 2, Zhuang discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Zhuang further discloses wherein the object feature information comprises an object feature tag and feature text information corresponding to the object feature tag (¶ [0129]-[0133]); the information recommendation page comprises a first region and a second region, wherein the first region is used to display the object feature tag, and the second region is used to display a plurality of pieces of feature text information (Figures 6C-6E); the feature text information is obtained according to the multimedia information satisfying the preset condition (¶ [0099]-[0128] and ¶ [0208]-[0211]).
Regarding claim 3, Zhuang discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 2. Zhuang further discloses wherein the object feature information comprises a plurality of object feature tags, the plurality of object feature tags are displayed in the first region (Figures 6C-6D); after the displaying an information recommendation page corresponding to the object to be recommended, the method for determining recommendation information further comprises:
adjusting, in response to a selection operation for a first tag among the plurality of object feature tags, a display content in the second region of the information recommendation page to feature text information corresponding to the first tag; wherein the first tag is an object feature tag among the plurality of object feature tags (Figures 6D-6E; and ¶ [0222]-[0235]).
Regarding claim 4, Zhuang discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 2. Zhuang further discloses wherein the information recommendation page further comprises a third region, and the third region is used to display identification information of the object to be recommended (Figures 6C-6E).
Regarding claim 5, Zhuang discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 2. Zhuang further discloses wherein the determination operation for at least one piece of object feature information of the object to be recommended comprises at least one of the following:
performing a preset trigger gesture on at least one piece of feature text information in the second region; performing a preset trigger operation on a selection control of at least one piece of feature text information in the second region; wherein in the second region of the information recommendation page, each piece of feature text information is provided with a corresponding selection control (Figures 6D-6E; and ¶ [0222]-[0235]).
Regarding claim 6, Zhuang discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Zhuang further discloses wherein after the taking, in response to a determination operation for at least one piece of object feature information of the object to be recommended, the at least one piece of object feature information as recommendation information of the object to be recommended (¶ [0157]-[0158] and ¶ [0239]-[0240]), the method for determining recommendation information further comprises:
displaying an information editing page corresponding to the object to be recommended, wherein the information editing page comprises an editing region, and the editing region is used to display the recommendation information, and to receive edited text information for the recommendation information (Figures 6D-6E; ¶ [0161], ¶ [0222]-[0235] and ¶ [0239]).
Regarding claim 7, Zhuang discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 6. Zhuang further discloses wherein after the displaying an information editing page corresponding to the object to be recommended, the method for determining recommendation information further comprises:
obtaining image data for the object to be recommended; generating a recommendation video corresponding to the object to be recommended according to the image data, the edited text information, and the recommendation information (¶ [0157]-[0166], ¶ [0174]-[0175], ¶ [0212]-[0225] and ¶ [0239]).
Regarding claim 9, Zhuang discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 6. Zhuang further discloses wherein in a case where the determination operation for at least one piece of object feature information of the object to be recommended is a first-time operation, before the displaying an information editing page corresponding to the object to be recommended, the method for determining recommendation information further comprises: displaying a guidance page, wherein the guidance page is used to indicate recording the recommendation information on the information editing page and an application mode of the information editing page (Figure 6C; ¶ [0221]-[0222]).
Regarding claim 10, Zhuang discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Zhuang further discloses wherein the multimedia information comprises a first video, and before the displaying an information recommendation page corresponding to the object to be recommended, the method for determining recommendation information further comprises: recognizing text and/or speech in the first video to obtain a recognition result; performing a semantic parsing process on the recognition result to determine the object feature information of the object to be recommended (¶ [0092]-[0126] and ¶ [0196]-[0211]).
Regarding claim 12, Zhuang discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Zhuang further discloses wherein the preset condition comprises that a predetermined parameter is greater than a preset threshold (¶ [0079], ¶ [0101], ¶ [0132]-[0134], and ¶ [0245]), and the predetermined parameter comprises at least one of a completion rate, number of comments, number of likes, and number of shares of the multimedia information (¶ [0086]-[0087], ¶ [0114]-[0115], ¶ [0130]-[0132], ¶ [0145]-[0146] and ¶ [0171]).
Regarding claims 13-15, all limitations of claims 13-15 are analyzed and rejected corresponding to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhuang (CN 116521937 B) in view of Tang et al (US 2015/0294011).
Regarding claim 11, Zhuang discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Zhuang further discloses receiving a selection operation of selecting at least one object to be recommended and determining the at least one object corresponding to the selection operation as the object to be recommended (¶ [0069]-[0070]), but is silent about displaying a selection page of the object to be recommended, a plurality of objects are displayed on the selection page of the object to be recommended; receiving a selection operation of selecting at least one object from the plurality of objects on the selection page of the object to be recommended.
Tang discloses displaying a selection page of the object to be recommended, wherein a plurality of objects are displayed on the selection page of the object to be recommended; receiving a selection operation of selecting at least one object from the plurality of objects on the selection page of the object to be recommended; determining the at least one object corresponding to the selection operation as the object to be recommended (¶ [0063]-[0067] and ¶ [0146]-[0147]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhuang system with the teaching of Tang, so to enhance user interaction with the displaying content to be recommended in the benefits of improving user viewing experience.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIGI L DUBASKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5686. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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.
/GIGI L DUBASKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights