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 .
Claims 1-8 are presented for examination (filed on 20 April 2025).
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN202410894871.6, filed on 04 July 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 20 April 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 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.
Claim 1-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For claim 1, it recites,
“A cross-domain sequential recommendation method based on time series and projection enhancement, comprising the following steps:
S1, encoding item nodes and timestamps separately, and capturing dependency between mixed-domain items and single-domain items through three directed matrices, wherein the item nodes are encoded through a graph attention mechanism, and interdependency of nodes in a global task is captured, the timestamps are mapped into a high-dimensional space, a time span is represented by using a vector dot product, and the time span is evaluated by comparing similarity in time embeddings, thereby capturing dependency and time characteristic between nodes in three interaction sequences;
S2, aggregating the item nodes and time nodes by using a multi-head attention mechanism, then extracting shared information of a mixed sequence and unique information of a specific domain through a mapping mechanism-based gated transmission module, and through an auxiliary task, mixing information of a cross-domain sequence to obtain prototype representation of each of single-domains sequences and thereby enhance information features of each of domains;
S3, processing a cross-domain interaction sequence by using a masking mechanism to obtain sequence representation of each of single-domains, using contrastive learning to enhance representation of the cross-domain sequence, and training on single-domain information extracted from the cross-domain sequence and the single-domain sequences; and
S4, predicting using the representations of the cross-domain sequence and the single-domain sequences, processing sequences using a softmax function, and then selecting a top-ranked item from the domains' predictions as a next recommended item.
(Step 1) The claim recites “A cross-domain sequential recommendation method based on time series and projection enhancement, comprising the following steps…” as drafted, the claimed method is a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
(Step 2A-Prong One) The limitation of “S1, encoding item nodes and timestamps separately, and capturing dependency between mixed-domain items and single-domain items through three directed matrices, wherein the item nodes are encoded through a graph attention mechanism, and interdependency of nodes in a global task is captured, the timestamps are mapped into a high-dimensional space, a time span is represented by using a vector dot product, and the time span is evaluated by comparing similarity in time embeddings, thereby capturing dependency and time characteristic between nodes in three interaction sequences;
S2, aggregating the item nodes and time nodes by using a multi-head attention mechanism, then extracting shared information of a mixed sequence and unique information of a specific domain through a mapping mechanism-based gated transmission module, and through an auxiliary task, mixing information of a cross-domain sequence to obtain prototype representation of each of single-domains sequences and thereby enhance information features of each of domains;
S3, processing a cross-domain interaction sequence by using a masking mechanism to obtain sequence representation of each of single-domains, using contrastive learning to enhance representation of the cross-domain sequence, and training on single-domain information extracted from the cross-domain sequence and the single-domain sequences; and
S4, predicting using the representations of the cross-domain sequence and the single-domain sequences, processing sequences using a softmax function, and then selecting a top-ranked item from the domains' predictions as a next recommended item,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “mapping mechanism-based gated transmission module,” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “mapping mechanism-based gated transmission module” language, “encoding,” “capturing,” “aggregating,” “extracting,” “mapping,” “processing,” “learning,” “training,” “predicting,” and “selecting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performs “S1, encoding item nodes and timestamps separately, and capturing dependency between mixed-domain items and single-domain items through three directed matrices, wherein the item nodes are encoded through a graph attention mechanism, and interdependency of nodes in a global task is captured, the timestamps are mapped into a high-dimensional space, a time span is represented by using a vector dot product, and the time span is evaluated by comparing similarity in time embeddings, thereby capturing dependency and time characteristic between nodes in three interaction sequences;
S2, aggregating the item nodes and time nodes by using a multi-head attention mechanism, then extracting shared information of a mixed sequence and unique information of a specific domain through a mapping mechanism-based gated transmission module, and through an auxiliary task, mixing information of a cross-domain sequence to obtain prototype representation of each of single-domains sequences and thereby enhance information features of each of domains;
S3, processing a cross-domain interaction sequence by using a masking mechanism to obtain sequence representation of each of single-domains, using contrastive learning to enhance representation of the cross-domain sequence, and training on single-domain information extracted from the cross-domain sequence and the single-domain sequences; and
S4, predicting using the representations of the cross-domain sequence and the single-domain sequences, processing sequences using a softmax function, and then selecting a top-ranked item from the domains' predictions as a next recommended item” in his mind.
If claim limitations, 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.
(Step 2A-Prong Two) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites additional elements – using “mapping mechanism-based gated transmission module” to perform the “encoding,” “capturing,” “aggregating,” “extracting,” “mapping,” “processing,” “learning,” “training,” “predicting,” and “selecting” steps. The “mapping mechanism-based gated transmission module” in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
(Step 2B) The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “mapping mechanism-based gated transmission module” to perform “encoding,” “capturing,” “aggregating,” “extracting,” “mapping,” “processing,” “learning,” “training,” “predicting,” and “selecting” steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Thus, the limitation does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
For claim 2, it recites “The cross-domain sequential recommendation method based on the time series and the projection enhancement according to claim 1, wherein the method comprises
extracting intradomain unique information and inter-domain shared information through a mapping mechanism, such that negative transfer in cross-domain recommendation is alleviated by filtering useless information;
in addition, cyclical preference of a user is captured through time encoding to improve accuracy of the cross-domain recommendation.”
(Step 2A-Prong One) The limitation of “extracting intradomain unique information and inter-domain shared information through a mapping mechanism, such that negative transfer in cross-domain recommendation is alleviated by filtering useless information;
in addition, cyclical preference of a user is captured through time encoding to improve accuracy of the cross-domain recommendation,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “extracting,” and “captured” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performs “extracting intradomain unique information and inter-domain shared information through a mapping mechanism, such that negative transfer in cross-domain recommendation is alleviated by filtering useless information;
in addition, cyclical preference of a user is captured through time encoding to improve accuracy of the cross-domain recommendation” in his mind.
If claim limitations, 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.
(Step 2A-Prong Two) and (Step 2B)
No additional elements are provided in the claim, therefore there is still no practical application and the claim does not provide significantly more as per claim 1 analysis.
For claim 3, it recites Mathematical concepts (e.g. mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, it also fells in the grouping of “Mental Processes.” Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(Step 2A-Prong Two) and (Step 2B)
No additional elements are provided in the claim, therefore there is still no practical application and the claim does not provide significantly more as per claim 1 analysis.
For claim 4, it recites Mathematical concepts (e.g. mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, it also fells in the grouping of “Mental Processes.” Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(Step 2A-Prong Two) and (Step 2B)
No additional elements are provided in the claim, therefore there is still no practical application and the claim does not provide significantly more as per claim 1 analysis.
For claim 5, it recites, “The cross-domain sequential recommendation method based on the time series and the projection enhancement according to claim 1, wherein the step S2 comprises embedding time encoding into sequence items by using a time-based encoder, and the process comprises:
performing sequence padding, and then establishing the sequences by using the multi-head attention mechanism, wherein input sequence data are divided into a plurality of heads, each head is independently calculated, and finally concatenating is performed, thus ensuring consistency in sequence length; and
extracting the shared information and unique information representation of each neighborhood domain relative to the mixed sequence through a projection mechanism-based module, and adding supplementary information extracted from the mixed sequence to features of each of original domains, thus achieving modeling of inter-domain dependency.”
(Step 2A-Prong One) The limitation of “performing sequence padding, and then establishing the sequences by using the multi-head attention mechanism, wherein input sequence data are divided into a plurality of heads, each head is independently calculated, and finally concatenating is performed, thus ensuring consistency in sequence length; and
extracting the shared information and unique information representation of each neighborhood domain relative to the mixed sequence through a projection mechanism-based module” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “performing…divided…calculated…concatenating…,” and “extracting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performs “performing sequence padding, and then establishing the sequences by using the multi-head attention mechanism, wherein input sequence data are divided into a plurality of heads, each head is independently calculated, and finally concatenating is performed, thus ensuring consistency in sequence length; and
extracting the shared information and unique information representation of each neighborhood domain relative to the mixed sequence through a projection mechanism-based module” in his mind.
If claim limitations, 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.
(Step 2A-Prong Two) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element – “…adding supplementary information extracted from the mixed sequence to features of each of original domains, thus achieving modeling of inter-domain dependency” which is mere data gathering and is in form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP: 2106.05(g), “Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial”).
(Step 2B) The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The limitation is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “adding” only add well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log).”
Thus, limitation(s) does not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, this additional element represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
For claim 6, it recites Mathematical concepts (e.g. mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, it also fells in the grouping of “Mental Processes.” Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(Step 2A-Prong Two) and (Step 2B)
No additional elements are provided in the claim, therefore there is still no practical application and the claim does not provide significantly more as per claim 1 analysis.
For claim 7, it recites Mathematical concepts (e.g. mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, it also fells in the grouping of “Mental Processes.” Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(Step 2A-Prong Two) and (Step 2B)
No additional elements are provided in the claim, therefore there is still no practical application and the claim does not provide significantly more as per claim 1 analysis.
For claim 8, it recites Mathematical concepts (e.g. mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, it also fells in the grouping of “Mental Processes.” Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(Step 2A-Prong Two) and (Step 2B)
No additional elements are provided in the claim, therefore there is still no practical application and the claim does not provide significantly more as per claim 1 analysis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shear et al. (U.S. Pub. No.: US 20140282586), paragraph [0241], “In some embodiments, additional Dimensions, either Domain-specific or cross-Domain, may be declared by Domain set specific acknowledged experts, standards setting one or more bodies, and/or by Participants for their own use. However, unstandardized personal Dimensions may not be interoperable and those declared by a group may only interoperate within that group”
Meisels et al., (U.S. Pat. No.: US 9552334), column 45, lines 62-67, “Unlike other platforms that may be specific to analyzing either GPS encoded information or analyzing a user's social graph, myPlanit™ intelligently combines both activities together. This combination offers the potential of great insight into how a user's online behavior relates to their real world behavior in time and place…,” column 56, line 62-column 57, line 10, “In an embodiment, the method below describes a universal, cross-domain analysis, decisioning, recommendation and Offer system. The mpService 104 performs large-scale analysis on all of the transactions in the system, using a blend of collaborative filtering techniques that discover useful patterns in the data and identifies pairs of correlating factors that can assist in predicting future behavior. This system is able to efficiently analyze patterns across a broad set of domains and produce an analytic result of solicited and unsolicited decisions, recommendations and plans based on input across multiple domains, the data from which are integrated and interconnected through individual life experiences. The “decisioning” process is capable of generating potentially new, unknown relationships between different sets of recorded data, across subsets of or all users. Effectively creating a single, robust decision domain.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YU ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)270-3427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at (571) 272-9782. 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.
/YU ZHAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169