Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on May 27, 2025.
The preliminary amendment filed May 27, 2025, has been received and entered.
The amendments to the specification have been accepted and entered.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed May 27, 2025, has been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on May 27, 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
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 1, 6, 13, and 15 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.
Claims 1 and 13: Claim 1 recites “a user” in two different locations. It is unclear if these are intended to be the same user. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting them as referring to the same user.
Claim 13 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 6 and 15: Claim 6 recites “in a scrollable manner.” This limitation is unclear. It is unclear what limitations or steps are intended to be encompassed by a “manner.” For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this portion of claim 6 as reciting “on a scrollable display of a screen”.
Claim 15 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 15: Claim 15 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable information recording medium storing a program causing a computer to:” and then recites a series of actions such as acquire, display, accept, and identify. However, the last action is “an updater to decrease a priority of the low interest item in the list.” The element “an updater” appears to be an entity/structure rather than an action, which is not appropriate for the recited non-transitory computer-readable information recording medium. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting this portion of claim 15 as reciting “decrease a priority of the low interest item in the list.”
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 non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claims 1-2, 6, and 13-15 are directed to a system, a server, a terminal, a method, and a non-transitory computer readable medium for recommending items. With respect to claim 2, claim elements generating a list, identifying a low-interest item, and decreasing a priority of the low-interest item, as drafted, illustrate steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a mental process. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind.
Claims 1, 6, and 13-15 recite similar limitations.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 2, 6, and 14-15 recite receiving (accepting) information, claims 1, 6, 13, and 15 recite presenting (displaying) information, and claims 2 and 14 recite providing (transmitting) information. These limitations are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Further, claims 1, 2, and 6 recite a processor and a memory and claim 13 recites a server and a terminal and a processor. These elements are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claims 2, 6, and 14-15 recite receiving (accepting) information, claims 1, 6, 13, and 15 recite presenting (displaying) information, and claims 2 and 14 recite providing (transmitting) information. Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), elements such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, using the Internet to gather data, and storing and retrieving information in memory are considered to be computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPG2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)).
Further, as discussed above, claims 1, 2, and 6 recite a processor and a memory and claim 13 recites a server and a terminal and a processor. These elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, claims 1-2, 6, and 13-15 are directed to the abstract idea.
Claims 3-5 and 7-12 depend from claims 2 and 6. Claim 3 is directed to the type of information and causing different information to be displayed and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 4 is directed to designating items as non-displayed items and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 5 and 12 are directed to recommending an item and to adding the new item to the list and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 7 is directed to decreasing a priority of an item and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 8 is directed to identifying a similar item and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 9 is directed to acquiring degrees of similarity between items and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 10 is directed to acquiring feature vectors and calculating degrees of similarity between the feature vectors and is further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 11 is directed to comparing similarities with a threshold value to identity items and is further directed to the abstract idea.
Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2024/0147009 A1 to N’guessan (hereinafter “N’guessan”).
Claims 1 and 13: N’guessan discloses a system and method “for presenting recommended media content items based on complementary media content item pairs.” (See N’guessan, at least Abstract). N’guessan further discloses:
a server; and a terminal (See N’guessan, at least FIG. 4 and associated text; para. [0064],hardware for presenting recommended media content items includes a server, a communication network, and/or one or more user devices), the item list providing system causing the server and the terminal to perform, in collaboration with each other, item list providing processing, the server and the terminal comprising:
at least one memory configured to store program code (See N’guessan, at least FIG. 5 and associated text; para. [0070], “Server 402 and user devices 406 can be implemented using any suitable hardware in some embodiments. For example, in some embodiments, devices 402 and 406 can be implemented using any suitable general-purpose computer or special-purpose computer and can include any suitable hardware. For example, as illustrated in example hardware 500 of FIG. 5, such hardware can include hardware processor 502, memory and/or storage 504, an input device controller 506, an input device 508, display/audio drivers 510, display and audio output circuitry 512, communication interface(s) 504, an antenna 516, and a bus 518”);
at least one processor (See N’guessan, at least para. [0070], “Server 402 and user devices 406 can be implemented using any suitable hardware in some embodiments. For example, in some embodiments, devices 402 and 406 can be implemented using any suitable general-purpose computer or special-purpose computer and can include any suitable hardware. For example, as illustrated in example hardware 500 of FIG. 5, such hardware can include hardware processor 502, memory and/or storage 504, an input device controller 506, an input device 508, display/audio drivers 510, display and audio output circuitry 512, communication interface(s) 504, an antenna 516, and a bus 518”) configured to access the program code and operate as instructed by the program code, the program code including:
generating code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to generate a list in which a plurality of items is arranged in an order in which the items are recommended to a user (See N’guessan, at least para. [0033], particular number of media content items can be selected for presentation within a window of media content items being presented in the user interface);
presenting code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to present one or more items included in the generated list in accordance with an order in which the items are arranged in the list to a user (See N’guessan, at least para. [0033], particular number of media content items can be selected for presentation within a window of media content items being presented in the user interface);
identifying code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to identify, when unnecessary-item selection operation of specifying an unnecessary item from the presented one or more items is performed by the user, a low interest item, the low interest item being an item that is similar to the unnecessary item and that has not been presented to the user, among items arranged in the list (See N’guessan, at least para. [0034], system receives a user engagement signal when a user has interacted with at least one of the displayed media content items; user engagement signal can be a negative indication of a particular media content item; a user can select an icon/button displayed in connection with the media content item to indicate a negative reaction (i.e., dislike, remove recommendation, etc.) to the particular media content item; FIG. 3B and associated text; para. [0058], only items indicated by dotted line 350 are currently being displayed to the user; para. [0060], system receives dislike for video card 301 that is being displayed; system determines that there are video cards in the in the display queue that are similar to video card 301; system determines that video card 307 (which is in display queue but not currently being displayed) is similar to video card 301 and that a user is likely to dislike video card 307 too); and
decreasing code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to decrease a priority of the low interest item in the list (See N’guessan, at least para. [0061], as shown in FIG. 3D and 3E, system can select video card 307 in the display queue and can move it to the complementary queue which is not queued for display; instead, video card 317 is placed into display queue in place of video card 307; thus, the priority for video card 307 is decreased in priority).
Claim 13 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 2 and 14: N’guessan discloses:
at least one memory configured to store program code (See N’guessan, at least FIG. 5 and associated text; para. [0070], server includes processor and memory);
at least one processor (See N’guessan, at least FIG. 5 and associated text; para. [0070], server includes processor and memory) configured to access the program code and operate as instructed by the program code, the program code including:
generator code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to generate a list in which a plurality of items is arranged in an order in which the items are recommended to a user (See N’guessan, at least para. [0033], particular number of media content items can be selected for presentation within a window of media content items being presented in the user interface);
provider code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to provide a terminal with one or more items included in the generated list in accordance with an order in which the items are arranged in the list and cause the terminal to display the provided one or more items on a screen of the terminal (See N’guessan, at least para. [0033], particular number of media content items can be selected for presentation within a window of media content items being presented in the user interface; para. [0064], hardware for presenting recommended media content items includes a server, a communication network, and/or one or more user devices);
receiver code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to receive a report indicating that unnecessary-item selection operation of specifying an unnecessary item from items displayed on the screen is performed in the terminal, from the terminal (See N’guessan, at least para. [0034], system receives a user engagement signal when a user has interacted with at least one of the displayed media content items; user engagement signal can be a negative indication of a particular media content item; a user can select an icon/button displayed in connection with the media content item to indicate a negative reaction (i.e., dislike, remove recommendation, etc.) to the particular media content item; para. [0064], hardware for presenting recommended media content items includes a server, a communication network, and/or one or more user devices);
identifier code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to identify a low interest item, the low interest item being a similar item similar to the unnecessary item and being a non-displayed item not having been displayed on the screen, among items arranged in the list (See N’guessan, at least para. [0034], system receives a user engagement signal when a user has interacted with at least one of the displayed media content items; user engagement signal can be a negative indication of a particular media content item; a user can select an icon/button displayed in connection with the media content item to indicate a negative reaction (i.e., dislike, remove recommendation, etc.) to the particular media content item; FIG. 3B and associated text; para. [0058], only items indicated by dotted line 350 are currently being displayed to the user; para. [0060], system receives dislike for video card 301 that is being displayed; system determines that there are video cards in the in the display queue that are similar to video card 301; system determines that video card 307 (which is in display queue but not currently being displayed) is similar to video card 301 and that a user is likely to dislike video card 307 too); and
updater code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to decrease a priority of the low interest item in the list (See N’guessan, at least para. [0061], as shown in FIG. 3D and 3E, system can select video card 307 in the display queue and can move it to the complementary queue which is not queued for display; instead, video card 317 is placed into display queue in place of video card 307; thus, the priority for video card 307 is decreased in priority).
Claim 14 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 3: N’guessan further discloses wherein
the report further includes display information indicating which one of items included in the list an item displayed on a screen of the terminal is (See N’guessan, at least para. [0060], system receives dislike for video card 301 that is being displayed), and
the program code includes code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to set an item not indicated in the display information as the non-displayed item (See N’guessan, at least para. [0060], system receives dislike for video card 301 that is being displayed; system determines that there are video cards in the in the display queue that are similar to video card 301; system determines that video card 307 (which is in display queue but not currently being displayed) is similar to video card 301 and that a user is likely to dislike video card 307 too; para. [0061], as shown in FIG. 3D and 3E, system can select video card 307 in the display queue and can move it to the complementary queue which is not queued for display).
Claim 4: N’guessan further discloses wherein
the program code includes code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to set an item not having been provided to the terminal as the non-displayed item (See N’guessan, at least para. [0060], system receives dislike for video card 301 that is being displayed; system determines that there are video cards in the in the display queue that are similar to video card 301; system determines that video card 307 (which is in display queue but not currently being displayed) is similar to video card 301 and that a user is likely to dislike video card 307 too; para. [0061], as shown in FIG. 3D and 3E, system can select video card 307 in the display queue and can move it to the complementary queue which is not queued for display).
Claim 5: N’guessan further discloses wherein the program code includes:
code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to newly recommend a new item that is not similar to the unnecessary item and that is not included in the list (See N’guessan, at least para. [0061], as shown in FIG. 3D and 3E, system can select video card 307 in the display queue and can move it to the complementary queue which is not queued for display; instead, video card 317 is placed into display queue in place of video card 307; video cards 317 and 307 are complementary; para. [0006], complementary pairs of items are items that have a similarity score that is below a threshold), and
code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to add the new item between a priority of an item having been provided to the terminal and a priority of the low interest item in the list (See N’guessan, at least para. [0061], as shown in FIG. 3D and 3E, system can select video card 307 in the display queue and can move it to the complementary queue which is not queued for display; instead, video card 317 is placed into display queue in place of video card 307; video cards 317 and 307 are complementary; as shown in FIG. 3E, video card 317 is now queued for display while 307 is not, i.e., its priority is between item 303 (which has been displayed to the user) and item 307 (which is now in the complementary queue and not queued for display).
Claims 6 and 15: N’guessan discloses:
at least one memory configured to store program code (See N’guessan, at least para. [0070], “Server 402 and user devices 406 can be implemented using any suitable hardware in some embodiments. For example, in some embodiments, devices 402 and 406 can be implemented using any suitable general-purpose computer or special-purpose computer and can include any suitable hardware. For example, as illustrated in example hardware 500 of FIG. 5, such hardware can include hardware processor 502, memory and/or storage 504, an input device controller 506, an input device 508, display/audio drivers 510, display and audio output circuitry 512, communication interface(s) 504, an antenna 516, and a bus 518”);
at least one processor (See N’guessan, at least para. [0070], “Server 402 and user devices 406 can be implemented using any suitable hardware in some embodiments. For example, in some embodiments, devices 402 and 406 can be implemented using any suitable general-purpose computer or special-purpose computer and can include any suitable hardware. For example, as illustrated in example hardware 500 of FIG. 5, such hardware can include hardware processor 502, memory and/or storage 504, an input device controller 506, an input device 508, display/audio drivers 510, display and audio output circuitry 512, communication interface(s) 504, an antenna 516, and a bus 518”) configured to access the program code and operate as instructed by the program code, the program code including:
acquirer code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to acquire a list in which a plurality of items is arranged in an order in which the items are recommended, from a server (See N’guessan, at least para. [0033], particular number of media content items can be selected for presentation within a window of media content items being presented in the user interface; para. [0064], hardware for presenting recommended media content items includes a server, a communication network, and/or one or more user devices; para. [0064], hardware for presenting recommended media content items includes a server, a communication network, and/or one or more user devices);
display code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to display the acquired list on a screen in a scrollable manner (See N’guessan, at least para. [0033], particular number of media content items can be selected for presentation within a window of media content items being presented in the user interface; para. [0037], user can scroll through the entirety of the media content items in the display queue);
acceptor code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to accept unnecessary-item selection operation of specifying an unnecessary item from items arranged in the list and displayed on the screen (See N’guessan, at least para. [0034], system receives a user engagement signal when a user has interacted with at least one of the displayed media content items; user engagement signal can be a negative indication of a particular media content item; a user can select an icon/button displayed in connection with the media content item to indicate a negative reaction (i.e., dislike, remove recommendation, etc.) to the particular media content item);
identifier code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to identify a low interest item, the low interest item being a similar item similar to the unnecessary item and being a non-displayed item not having been displayed on the screen, among items arranged in the list (See N’guessan, at least para. [0034], system receives a user engagement signal when a user has interacted with at least one of the displayed media content items; user engagement signal can be a negative indication of a particular media content item; a user can select an icon/button displayed in connection with the media content item to indicate a negative reaction (i.e., dislike, remove recommendation, etc.) to the particular media content item; FIG. 3B and associated text; para. [0058], only items indicated by dotted line 350 are currently being displayed to the user; para. [0060], system receives dislike for video card 301 that is being displayed; system determines that there are video cards in the in the display queue that are similar to video card 301; system determines that video card 307 (which is in display queue but not currently being displayed) is similar to video card 301 and that a user is likely to dislike video card 307 too); and
updater code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to decrease a priority of the low interest item in the list (See N’guessan, at least para. [0061], as shown in FIG. 3D and 3E, system can select video card 307 in the display queue and can move it to the complementary queue which is not queued for display; instead, video card 317 is placed into display queue in place of video card 307; thus, the priority for video card 307 is decreased in priority).
Claim 15 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 7: N’guessan further discloses wherein
the program code includes code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor, by reporting the unnecessary item to the server, the server to decrease a priority in which the reported item is recommended (See N’guessan, at least para. [0061], as shown in FIG. 3D and 3E, system can select video card 307 in the display queue and can move it to the complementary queue which is not queued for display).
Claim 8: N’guessan further discloses wherein
the program code includes code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor, by reporting the unnecessary item to the server, to cause the server to identify a similar item similar to the unnecessary item among items arranged in the list (See N’guessan, at least para. [0060], system receives dislike for video card 301 that is being displayed; system determines that there are video cards in the in the display queue that are similar to video card 301; system determines that video card 307 (which is in display queue but not currently being displayed) is similar to video card 301).
Claim 9: N’guessan further discloses wherein
the program code includes:
code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to acquire a table of degrees of similarity between items arranged in the list in conjunction with the list, from the server (See N’guessan, at least para. [0029], system determines a similarity score for a pair of media content items) and
code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to calculate the degree of similarity between each of the non-displayed items and the unnecessary item from the table (See N’guessan, at least para. [0029], system determines a similarity score for a pair of media content items).
Claim 10: N’guessan further discloses wherein
the program code includes:
code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to acquire a feature vector of each of items arranged in the list in conjunction with the list, from the server (See N’guessan, at least para. [0030], system generates a vector that represents topics and other content properties associated with each media content item) and
code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to calculate a degree of similarity between each of the non-displayed items and the unnecessary item, based on the feature vectors (See N’guessan, at least para. [0030], system determines similarity between media content items using the media content items’ associated vectors such as by cosine similarity or Euclidean distance).
Claim 11: N’guessan further discloses wherein
the program code includes
code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor, by comparing the calculated degree of similarity with a predetermined threshold value, to identify the similar item or to identify a predetermined number of or a predetermined ratio of items having the calculated degrees of similarity ranked higher as the similar items and the low interest items (See N’guessan, at least para. [0030], system determines similarity between media content items using the media content items’ associated vectors such as by cosine similarity or Euclidean distance; para. [0056], when similarity score is above a threshold level, the two video cards are considered to be similar; when similarity score is below a threshold level, the two video cards are considered to be complementary).
Claim 12: N’guessan further discloses wherein
the program code includes:
code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to cause the server to newly recommend a new item that is not similar to the unnecessary item (See N’guessan, at least para. [0061], as shown in FIG. 3D and 3E, system can select video card 307 in the display queue and can move it to the complementary queue which is not queued for display; instead, video card 317 is placed into display queue in place of video card 307; video cards 317 and 307 are complementary; para. [0006], complementary pairs of items are items that have a similarity score that is below a threshold), and
code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to add the new item to the list with a higher priority than the low interest item (See N’guessan, at least para. [0061], as shown in FIG. 3D and 3E, system can select video card 307 in the display queue and can move it to the complementary queue which is not queued for display; instead, video card 317 is placed into display queue in place of video card 307; video cards 317 and 307 are complementary; as shown in FIG. 3E, video card 317 is now queued for display while 307 is not, i.e., its priority is between item 303 (which has been displayed to the user) and item 307 (which is now in the complementary queue and not queued for display).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE MARIE GEORGALAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1258 E.S.T.. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marissa Thein can be reached on 571-272-6764. 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.
/Anne M Georgalas/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights