DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action has been issued in response to Applicant’s Communication of application S/N 19/205,144 filed on May 12, 2025. Claims 46 to 65 are currently pending with the application.
Priority
The instant application is a continuation of application S/N 18/562,943, filed on November 21, 2023, which is a National Stage entry of PCT/US2022/052253, with international filing date of December 8, 2022. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of the prior-filed applications under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, or 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/01/2025, 12/22/2025, and 05/29/2026 were filed before the mailing date of the first action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 49, 52, 57, 60, 65 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 49 recites the limitation “the content category embedding vectors includes values”, which contains a typographical error, and should read “the content category embedding vectors include values”. Same rationale applies to claims 57 and 65, since they recite similar limitations.
Claim 52 recites the limitation “N is a predetermine integer” in line 6, which contains a typographical error, and should read “N is a predetermined integer”. Same rationale applies to claim 60, since it recites similar limitations.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 50 and 58 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 50 recites the limitation “the same” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Same rationale applies to claim 58, since it recites similar limitations.
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 46, to 48, 50, 53, 54 to 56, 58, and 61 to 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by MYHRE et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0004388) hereinafter Myhre.
As to claim 1:
Myhre discloses:
A method comprising:
updating, using content category embedding vectors received from a first user device, a respective model for one or more content categories associated with the first user device [Paragraph 0059 teaches analyzing user interactions indicating a level of relevance between topics and activities, and improving the AI model; Paragraph 0064 teaches user interaction with the UI can be utilized to continually update the AI model to improve its ability to accurately identify relevant topics relating to user-specified activities based upon user content, and where the AI model can utilize support vector machines, hence, utilizing vectors (Note: vectors are fundamental to AI models, used to represent data and complex information)];
generating, based on an updated model and in response to data for a particular content category received from a second user device, a list of additional content categories [Paragraph 0057 teaches the user can provide an input identifying an activity, and based on the user-identified activity, the AI model can automatically analyze the user’s content to identify topics related to the activity; Paragraph 0064 teaches identifying topics associated with activities based upon the user content]; and
transmitting, to the second user device, the list of additional content categories [Paragraph 0058 teaches providing a UI that displays the identified topics to the user].
As to claim 47:
Myhre discloses:
obtaining the list of additional content categories [Paragraph 0058 teaches providing a UI that displays the identified topics]; and
providing data representing a digital component associated with at least one content category of the list of additional content categories [Paragraph 0059 teaches the improved AI model can be used to select and display relevant content].
As to claim 48:
Myhre discloses:
providing, to the first user device, a signal embedding vector generated based on contextual data, wherein the contextual data includes a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) [Paragraph 0051 teaches providing activity specific views that show a specific selection of the low-level content in a format that is easy to use and contextually relevant; Paragraph 0104 teaches Topics can be selected based on the context of any user content analyzed by the AI engine; Paragraph 0118 teaches activity-specific views might also be modified based on a context of the user, for example, when a user-specified activity is related to a number of calendar events, people, and files, a customized view of the activity may change and show different types of user content based on the day or time that the activity is viewed].
As to claim 50:
Myhre discloses:
a content category embedding vector of the content category embedding vectors is the same as a signal embedding vector provided to the first user device [Paragraph 0059 teaches analyzing user interactions indicating a level of relevance between topics and activities; Paragraph 0064 teaches user interaction with the UI can be utilized to continually update the AI model to improve its ability to accurately identify relevant topics relating to user-specified activities based upon user content (Note: vectors are fundamental to AI models, used to represent data and complex information)].
As to claim 53:
Myhre discloses:
the first user device is the second user device [Paragraph 0057 teaches the user can provide an input identifying an activity, and based on the user-identified activity, the AI model can automatically analyze the user’s content to identify topics related to the activity; Paragraph 0064 teaches identifying topics associated with activities based upon the user content, to further recommend content to the user, hence, the first user device is the second user device].
Same rationale applies to claims 54 to 56, 58, and 61 to 64, since they recite similar limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 49, 51, 52, 57, 59, and 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MYHRE et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0004388) hereinafter Myhre, and further in view of Paluri et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0132510) hereinafter Paluri.
As to claim 49:
Myhre discloses all the limitations as set forth in the rejections of claim 46 above, but does not appear to expressly disclose the content category embedding vectors includes values adjusted using a privacy preserving algorithm from a signal embedding vector provided to the first user device.
Paluri discloses:
the content category embedding vectors includes values adjusted using a privacy preserving algorithm from a signal embedding vector provided to the first user device [Paragraph 0027 teaches authorization servers may be used to enforce one or more privacy settings, which determine how particular information associated with a user can be shared].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Myhre, by incorporating content category embedding vectors including values adjusted using a privacy preserving algorithm from a signal embedding vector provided to the first user device, as taught by Paluri [Paragraph 0027], because both applications are directed to identification of content for recommendations based on user interactions; by providing the ability to preserve user privacy, the system’s flexibility is enhanced, while improving the user’s experience.
As to claim 51:
Myhre discloses all the limitations as set forth in the rejections of claim 46 above, but does not appear to expressly disclose determining a threshold in a multi-dimensional space including one or more models for the one or more content categories; determining a first point in the multi-dimensional space representing a model of the particular content category received from the second user device; determining a second point in the multi-dimensional space representing a model for a second content category of the one or more content categories; determining a distance between the first point and the second point; determining the distance satisfies the threshold in the multi-dimensional space; and generating the list of additional content categories to include the second content category of the one or more content categories.
Paluri discloses:
determining a threshold in a multi-dimensional space including one or more models for the one or more content categories [Paragraph 0055 teaches identifying points that are within a threshold distance];
determining a first point in the multi-dimensional space representing a model of the particular content category received from the second user device [Paragraph 0055 teaches the first point corresponding to the embedding of the first content item may be located in a particular cluster];
determining a second point in the multi-dimensional space representing a model for a second content category of the one or more content categories; determining a distance between the first point and the second point; determining the distance satisfies the threshold in the multi-dimensional space [Paragraph 0055 teaches identify one or more second points that are within a threshold distance of the first point in the particular cluster, or to identify one or more points in each of the proximate clusters that are within a threshold distance of a centroid of the respective proximate cluster]; and
generating the list of additional content categories to include the second content category of the one or more content categories [Paragraph 0056 teaches identify one or more second content items in the embedding space that are similar to the first content item based on the type of content of the first content item].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of the cited references and modify the invention as taught by Myhre, by determining a threshold in a multi-dimensional space including one or more models for the one or more content categories; determining a first point in the multi-dimensional space representing a model of the particular content category received from the second user device; determining a second point in the multi-dimensional space representing a model for a second content category of the one or more content categories; determining a distance between the first point and the second point; determining the distance satisfies the threshold in the multi-dimensional space; and generating the list of additional content categories to include the second content category of the one or more content categories, as taught by Paluri [Paragraph 0055, 0056], because both applications are directed to identification of content for recommendations based on user interactions; locating content categories based on a threshold distance increases the accuracy and relevancy of identified contents provided to the user, which improves the user’s experience.
As to claim 52:
Myhre discloses all the limitations as set forth in the rejections of claim 51 above, but does not appear to expressly disclose the second point in the multi- dimensional space representing the model for the second content category of the one or more content categories is one of N closest points to the first point in the multi-dimensional space and the method comprises: determining the N closest points to the first point in the multi-dimensional space, where N is a predetermine integer.
Paluri discloses:
the second point in the multi- dimensional space representing the model for the second content category of the one or more content categories is one of N closest points to the first point in the multi-dimensional space and the method comprises: determining the N closest points to the first point in the multi-dimensional space, where N is a predetermine integer [Paragraph 0055 teaches identify one or more second points that are within a threshold distance of the first point in the particular cluster, or to identify one or more points in each of the proximate clusters that are within a threshold distance of a centroid of the respective proximate cluster; Paragraph 0056 teaches identify one or more second content items in the embedding space that are similar to the first content item based on the type of content of the first content item].
Same rationale applies to claims 57, 59, and 65, since they recite similar limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL PEREZ-ARROYO whose telephone number is (571)272-8969. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:30pm, Alt Friday, EST.
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.
/RAQUEL PEREZ-ARROYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights