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 Amendment
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s amendment filed on 19 March 2026.
Claims 1-8 are presented for examination.
Claim 1 is amended.
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
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed in the amendment filed on 19 March 2026, have been fully considered but they are not deemed persuasive:
Applicant argued “Applicant has also amended claim 1 to recite all the steps are performed by processor based at least on paragraph 0060 of as-filed specification. For example, paragraph 0060 recites "In this embodiment, to model the items between sequences, the present disclosure applies the graph attention mechanism on the sequential data", which indicates a graph attention mechanism where it is a kind of algorithm that should be executed by a processor, and is known by people skilled in the art. Therefore, it implies a processor in the as-filed specification.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
1. Humans at least can perform simple graph attention mechanisms intuitively and naturally.
2. For completeness, even “graph attention mechanisms” is performed by a machine, it can be “Performing a mental process on a generic computer,” “Performing a mental process in a computer environment” or “Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process …
1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer…
2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment…
3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process…”).
Applicant argued that the newly added claim limitation, wherein A-domain of the single-domains is as follows: where represent item representations of the A-domain sequence and the cross-domain sequence at position t, respectively, and WA is a learnable parameter, wherein training of the cross-domain sequence is as follows: E where W₄ and WB represent learnable parameters, calculating weights between domains to increase correlation of feature information in a sequence, and for the mixed sequence Sc, if µ₈ = a( 0⁸ 5 O₄) < 0.5. , an interaction item Bᵢ is masked as[m], a corresponding mask sequence is capable of being expressed as SAC = [A₁, [m], Aᵢ, Bⱼ], and then a corresponding output HC is obtained by using an attention encoder in the step S2;” overcomes 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The newly added limitation “wherein A-domain of the single-domains is as follows: where represent item representations of the A-domain sequence and the cross-domain sequence at position t, respectively, and WA is a learnable parameter, wherein training of the cross-domain sequence is as follows: E where W₄ and WB represent learnable parameters, calculating weights between domains to increase correlation of feature information in a sequence, and for the mixed sequence Sc, if µ₈ = a( 0⁸ 5 O₄) < 0.5. , an interaction item Bᵢ is masked as[m], a corresponding mask sequence is capable of being expressed as SAC = [A₁, [m], Aᵢ, Bⱼ], and then a corresponding output HC is obtained by using an attention encoder in the step S2;” as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations which falls within the “Mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
Applicant argued that the newly added claim limitation “extracting, by the processor, intra-domain 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” overcomes 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
They 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. They are either insignificant extra-solution activity or Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception.
For the above reasons the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
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, by a processor 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, by a processor 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, by a processor 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
wherein A-domain of the single-domains is as follows: where represent item representations of the A-domain sequence and the cross-domain sequence at position t, respectively, and WA is a learnable parameter, wherein training of the cross-domain sequence is as follows: E where W₄ and WB represent learnable parameters, calculating weights between domains to increase correlation of feature information in a sequence, and for the mixed sequence Sc, if µ₈ = a( 0⁸ 5 O₄) < 0.5. , an interaction item Bᵢ is masked as[m], a corresponding mask sequence is capable of being expressed as SAC = [A₁, [m], Aᵢ, Bⱼ], and then a corresponding output HC is obtained by using an attention encoder in the step S2; [[and]]
S4, predicting , by a processor 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, and
extracting, by the processor, intra-domain 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 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 “processor” and “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 “processor” and “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.
For limitation “wherein A-domain of the single-domains is as follows: where represent item representations of the A-domain sequence and the cross-domain sequence at position t, respectively, and WA is a learnable parameter, wherein training of the cross-domain sequence is as follows: E where W₄ and WB represent learnable parameters, calculating weights between domains to increase correlation of feature information in a sequence, and for the mixed sequence Sc, if µ₈ = a( 0⁸ 5 O₄) < 0.5. , an interaction item Bᵢ is masked as[m], a corresponding mask sequence is capable of being expressed as SAC = [A₁, [m], Aᵢ, Bⱼ], and then a corresponding output HC is obtained by using an attention encoder in the step S2;” as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations which falls within the “Mathematical concepts” 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.
Further, the claim recites the additional elements – “extracting, by the processor, intra-domain 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,” which are Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulate and is in form of insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP: 2105.05 (g), “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A”).
Further, the claim recites additional elements – “…cyclical preference of a user is captured through time encoding to improve accuracy of the cross-domain recommendation,” where merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of (MPEP: 2106.05(f)(2), “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”) which is Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “iii. A process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); “”). The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing monitoring/capture process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the 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 “processor” and “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.
The other additional elements – “extract” is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “extract” 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), “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs…,” “v. Analyzing DNA to provide sequence information or detect allelic variants, Genetic Techs…,” “iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs."); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log).” 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.
The other additional elements, “captured” step is Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception in conjunction with the abstract idea. They merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of monitoring in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible (MPEP: 2106.05(f)(2), “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”).
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.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights