DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This Office Action is in response to the application 19/193828 filed on 29 April 2025.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claims 1, 11, and 20, these claims recite a plurality of item sources. The claims do not specify nor place any limits upon the “plurality of item sources,” other than using the plural form of the word (i.e. “sources”). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), this limitation encompasses a simple case of just two item sources. These claims recite “generating a plurality of tags for each of the plurality of item sources, wherein each tag comprises a text string describing a characteristic of a corresponding item source.” With the aid of pencil and paper, a human can mentally judge/evaluate a couple of item sources and generate for each one a couple of tags, as claimed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with a pencil and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
These claims also recite “accessing an item taxonomy for the item source, wherein the item taxonomy is a hierarchical data structure that describes categories of items at a plurality of levels of generality; selecting a set of categories representing the item source based on the item taxonomy and the interaction rate data; and generating the plurality of tags for the item source based on the selected set of categories.” Given that the BRI of the claims encompasses a trivial case, as set forth above, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally perform the claimed “accessing,” “selecting,” and “generating.” Hence, these limitations are also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
These claims also recite “generating a prompt for a model serving system, wherein the prompt comprises: the plurality of tags for each item source of the plurality of item sources; the accessed user data; the accessed source data; instructions to identify a subset of item sources of the plurality of item sources to present to the user based on the user data, the source data, and the plurality of tags for each item source of the plurality of item sources; and instructions to generate a description of the subset of item sources based on the user data, the source data, and the plurality of tags for each item source of the plurality of item sources.” Read in light of Applicant’s disclosure, the claimed “prompt” is just text to be input to the “model serving system.” With the aid of pencil and paper, a human can mentally generate a text prompt in the manner claimed. Hence, these limitations are also an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Other than the abstract idea, the claims recite the following:
a) “accessing user data describing a user of an online system;”
b) “accessing source data for a plurality of item sources, wherein the source data
comprises interaction rate data describing interactions of users of the online
system with items associated with each of the plurality of item sources during
a time period;”
c) “transmitting the prompt to the model serving system” and “receiving a response from the model serving system, wherein the response comprises
the subset of item sources and the description of the subset of item sources”;
d) “transmitting the subset of item sources and the description of the subset of item sources to a client device of the user for display;” and
e) a computer system comprising a processor and computer-readable medium.
Limitations (a) and (b) amount to no more than mere data gathering, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Limitation (c) is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract on a computer, which cannot provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Limitation (d) amounts to no more than merely outputting a result, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP 2106.05(g). Limitation (e) is recited at a high level of generality, i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computing 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. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Limitations (a) and (b) amount to no more than mere data gathering, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the courts have deemed receiving data to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, as in the following cases: Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); 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); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Limitation (c) is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract on a computer, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Limitation (d) amounts to no more than merely outputting a result, which has been deemed by the courts to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, Applicant’s specification provides few details about limitations (c) and (d) or their functions (see para. 0082-0083 of Applicant’s published specification). This indicates that these features are well known in the art. Cf Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (explaining that "a patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art"). As a result, the written description adequately supports that additional elements (c) and (d) are conventional and perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A)1. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, additional element (e) amounts to no more than mere field of use limitations and instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using conventional computer components and functions cannot provide an inventive concept. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These claims are not patent eligible.
As to dependent claims 2-4 and 12-14, these claims features for selecting categories, ranking categories, and identifying categories with interaction rates exceeding a threshold. The claimed “selecting” and “identifying” in these amount to no more than mere judgements/evaluations. For the simple case encompassed by the BRI of the claims, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally perform the judgements/evaluations necessary to achieve the claimed “selecting” and “identifying.” As to the claimed “ranking,” this is also mentally performable by a human with pencil and paper for the simple case encompassed by the BRI of the claims. Hence, these limitations are an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
As to dependent claims 5 and 15, these claims recite normalizing interaction rate data. For the simple case encompassed by the BRI of the claims, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally perform the claimed normalization of interaction rate data. Hence, this limitation is an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. Alternatively, this limitation may be deemed an abstract idea under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping, since normalization is a known mathematical concept. One normalizes a series of data by multiplying by a factor (e.g. a weight) that makes the norm or some associated quantity such as an integral equal to a desired value. This mathematical definition of normalization is consistent with Applicant’s specification (see, for example, para. 0050 of the published specification). As provided in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) a mathematical relationship or calculation can be expressed in words.
As to dependent claims 6 and 16, these claims recite generating the plurality of tags based on text descriptions accessed from the online system. For the simple case encompassed by the BRI of the claims, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally generate tags in the manner claimed. Hence, the claimed “generating” is an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. As to the claimed “accessing” of text descriptions from the online system, this limitation amounts to no more than mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra solution activity as set forth above in the parent claims. Also as set forth above in the parent claims, the courts have ruled in numerous cases that mere data gathering is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the computing arts. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, do not amount to a practical application nor an inventive concept. These claims are not patent eligible.
As to dependent claims 7 and 17, these claims recite “wherein generating the plurality of tags comprises: prompting a model serving system to generate the plurality of tags based on item data for items in the set of categories.” This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer, which provide a practical application nor an inventive concept. Looking at the additional elements as a whole adds nothing beyond the additional elements considered individually—they still represent insignificant extra-solution activity; well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter; and/or generic computer implementation. Hence, the claims as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, do not amount to a practical application nor an inventive concept. These claims are not patent eligible.
As to dependent claims 8 and 18, these claims recite reciting generating a score for each of the plurality of item sources. For the simple case encompassed by the BRI of the claims, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally perform the claimed generating of scores as claimed. Hence, this limitation is an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping. Alternatively, this limitation may be deemed an abstract idea under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping, since the claimed generating of scores amounts to no more than mathematical calculation(s).
As to dependent claims 9 and 19, these claims recite identifying item sources that do not have overlapping tags. The claimed “identifying” amounts to no more than a series of judgements/evaluations. For the simple case encompassed by the BRI of the claims, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally perform the judgements/evaluations necessary to achieve the claimed identifying of item sources. Hence, this limitation is an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
As to dependent claim 10, this claim recites generating a title for the subset of item sources. For the simple case encompassed by the BRI of the claims, a human could, with the aid of pencil and paper, mentally perform the claimed generating of a title. Hence, this limitation is an abstract idea under the “Mental Processes” grouping.
Additional Art Considered
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicants’ disclosure.
The following patents and papers are cited to further show the state of the art at the time of Applicants’ invention with respect to dynamically generating descriptions using large-language models.
a. Li et al.; “DATA TAGGING AND PROMPT GENERATION SYSTEM”; U.S. PGPub. No. 20250139128 A1.
Teaches a tag engine 102 that adds additional tag context 132 to input data 104 and builds 112 a prompt 114 for a language model 134. A query is executed against the tagged input data. See abstract and Fig. 1.
b. Xu, H., Chen, Y., Liu, Z., Wen, Y. and Yuan, X., 2022. TaxoPrompt: A Prompt-based Generation Method with Taxonomic Context for Self-Supervised Taxonomy Expansion. In IJCAI (Vol. 22, pp. 4432-4438).
Teaches a prompt-based taxonomy expansion framework for exploiting taxonomic context to infuse global structure into language models (see Abstract, Introduction).
c. Cao, X., Cong, G., Cui, B., Jensen, C.S. and Zhang, C., 2009, November. The use of categorization information in language models for question retrieval. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Information and knowledge management (pp. 265-274).
Teaches using language models to exploit categories of questions for improving question-answer search (see Abstract).
d. Wang et al.; “CATEGORY PREDICTION FROM SEMANTIC IMAGE CLUSTERING”; U.S. PGPub. No. 20180107682 A1.
Teaches use of a language model for category prediction (see para. 0066, 0071, and Fig. 5).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UMAR MIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10 am to 6:30 pm.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on (571) 272-4078. 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.
/Umar Mian/
Examiner, Art Unit 2163
1 MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A) explains that a specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional ( or an equivalent term) or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).