DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on July 7, 2025 cancelled claims 57-58, 60, and 63. Claims 41, 45, 49-50, 52-56, and 62 were amended and new claims 64-67 were added. Thus, the currently pending claims addressed below are claims 41-42, 44-50, 52-56, 61-62 and 64-67.
Claim Interpretation
Interpretation of claim terms:
Server (e.g., second network platform server and/or first network platform server): a general-purpose computer with a processor. (The applicant’s disclosure makes no mention of a server or a processor. Paragraph 62 of the applicant’s specification discloses that the program of the invention can be stored and implemented on a computer. Original claim 12 discloses a second network platform comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium coupled to the processor and configured to store instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform steps. As such, it is clear that the claimed server is only inherently disclosed as just a general-purpose computer with a processor.)
Open/opening, by the second network platform server, an application programming interface of the first network platform server: the second network platform server transmitting a request to an open application programming interface of the first network platform server (Paragraphs 23-26 of the applicant’s specification make it clear that the second network server merely obtains data from an open API of the first network platform server; any other interpretation of the limitation would result in a 35 USC 112, first paragraph issue as the applicant’s specification does not support any other type of opening of an API of the first network platform server by the second network platform server).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendment filed on July 7, 2025 has overcome the 35 USC 112, first paragraph rejections of claims 57-58, 60 and 63 by cancelling the claims. Thus, the rejection is hereby withdrawn.
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 41-42, 44-50, 52-56, 61-62 and 64-65 are directed to a method which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
However, claims 41-42, 44-50, 52-56, 61-62 and 64-65 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim(s) 41 and 49 recite(s) the following abstract idea:
receiving, by a second Internet-based network platform (second website), first registration information of a first user for a first Internet-based social network platform (first website) and second registration information of the first user for the second Internet-based network platform (second website), wherein the first Internet-based social network platform (first website) and the second Internet-based network platform (second website) are associated with different Internet-based platforms (websites),
identifying, in response to receiving the first registration information and the second registration information, that the first user is associated with both the first registration information and the second registration information;
storing, by the first Internet-based social network platform (first website), user exchange information comprising interactions between the first user and a plurality of second users on the first Internet-based social network platform (first website), wherein the user exchange information comprises messaging information and commenting information between the first user and the plurality of second users;
sending, by the first Internet-based social network platform (first website) and to the second Internet-based network platform (second website), the user exchange information comprising interactions between the first user and the plurality of second users;
obtaining, by the second Internet-based network platform (second website) and from the first Internet-based social network platform (first website), the user exchange information comprising the interactions between the first user and the plurality of second users on the first Internet-based social network platform (first website);
generating, by the second network platform (second website) and based on the user exchange information received, first content for a first group of the plurality of second users on the first Internet-based social network platform (first website) and second content for a second group of the plurality of second users on the first Internet-based social network platform (first website);
sending, to the first Internet-based social network platform (first website), the first content for first group of the plurality of second users on the first Internet-based social network platform (first website) and the second content for the second group of the plurality of second users on the first Internet-based social network platform (first website);
providing, by the first Internet-based social network platform (first website) and to the first group of the plurality of second users on the first Internet-based social network platform (first website), the first content from the second Internet-based network platform (second website) to display the first content; and
providing, by the first Internet-based social network platform (first website) and to the second group of the plurality of second users on the first Internet-based social network platform (first website), the second content from the second Internet-based network platform (second website) to display the second content.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely advertising, marketing and sales related activities or behaviors because they merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based on the analysis, generate tailored content(recommendations) based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of:
a first network platform server comprising an application programming interface (API), a first memory configured to store first instructions, and one or more first processors coupled to the first memory and configured to execute the first instructions (a first general-purpose computer as per paragraph 62 of the applicant’s specification which includes the only mention of a computer and/or memory in the applicant’s specification upon which computer programs of the first network platform and/or the second network platform can operate. The examiner notes that the specification makes no mention of a “server”, “a first network platform server”, “a second network platform server”, “a processor”, and/or “communicatively coupling”. Instead, paragraph 62 merely discloses the functions disclosed in the specification can be carried out using a program executing on a computer with a memory; additionally, paragraph 23 of the applicant’s specification discloses application programming interfaces (APIs) were well-understood, routine, and conventional before the effective filing date of the application, thus the application programming interface (API) is a generic computer component); and
a second network platform server comprising a second memory configured to store second instructions, and one or more second processors coupled to the second memory and configured to execute the second instructions (a second general-purpose computer as per paragraph 62 of the applicant’s specification which includes the only mention of a computer and/or memory in the applicant’s specification upon which computer programs of the first network platform and/or the second network platform can operate. The examiner notes that the specification makes no mention of a “server”, “a first network platform server”, “a second network platform server”, “a processor”, and/or “communicatively coupling”. Instead, paragraph 62 merely discloses the functions disclosed in the specification can be carried out using a program executing on a computer with a memory).
While the claim recites a specific arrangement of general-purpose computers, only the second general-purpose computer performs significant steps (i.e., identifying, in response to receiving the first registration information and the second registration information, that the first user is associated with both the first registration information and the second registration information; and generating, based on the user exchange information received, first content for a first group of the plurality of second users on the first Internet-based social network platform (first website) and second content for a second group of the plurality of second users on the first Internet-based social network platform (first website)). Every step performed by the first computer is considered generic computer functions and/or insignificant extra solution activity. As such, the arrangement of devices is incapable of transforming the abstract idea into a practical application.
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing (e.g., storing), communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying:
receiving, by a second network platform server, first registration information of a first user for a first network platform server and second registration information of the first user for the second network platform server, wherein the first network platform server and the second network platform server are associated with different Internet-based platforms, and wherein the first network platform server is associated with an Internet-based social network (receiving data by a second general-purpose computer);
storing, by the first network platform server, user exchange information comprising interactions between the first user and a plurality of second users on the first network platform server, wherein the user exchange information comprises messaging information and commenting information between the first user and the plurality of second users (storing data by a first general-purpose computer); and
sending, by the first network platform server and to the second network platform server, the user exchange information comprising the interactions between the first user and the plurality of second users on the first network platform server (transmitting data by the first general-purpose computer);
obtaining, from the first network platform server, the user exchange information comprising the interactions between the first user and the plurality of second users on the first network platform server (receiving data by the second general-purpose computer);
sending, by the second network platform server and to the first network platform server, the first content for the first group of the plurality of second users on the first network platform server and the second content for the second group of the plurality of second users on the first network platform server (transmitting data by the second general-purpose computer);
providing, by the first network platform server and to the first group of the plurality of second users on the first network platform server, the first content from the second network platform server to display the first content (displaying data by the first general-purpose computer); and
providing, by the first network platform server and to the second group of the plurality of second users on the first network platform server, the second content from the second network platform server to display the second content (displaying data by the first general-purpose computer).
The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer functions of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using general-purpose computers and generic computer components. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on general-purpose computers, or merely uses the computers as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a first network platform server comprising an application programming interface (API), a first memory configured to store first instructions and one or more first processors coupled to the first memory and configured to execute the first instructions; and a second network platform server comprising a second memory configured to store second instructions, and one or more second processors coupled to the second memory and configured to execute the second instructions to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using general-purpose computers and generic computer components.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on one or more computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires general-purpose computers (as evidenced from paragraphs 26 and 62 of the applicant’s specification which includes the only mention of a computer and/or memory in the applicant’s specification upon which computer programs of the second network platform can operate. The examiner notes that the specification makes no mention of a “server”, “a first network platform server”, “a second network platform server”, “a processor”, and/or “communicatively coupling”. Instead, the specification mentions a second network platform capable of communicating in paragraph 26 and indicates in paragraph 62 that the functions disclosed in the specification can be carried out using a program executing on a computer with a memory, as well as paragraph 23 of the applicant’s specification which discloses the application programming interfaces (APIs) were well-known at the time of the invention), therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, storing and/or transmitting data:
receiving, by a second network platform server, first registration information of a first user for a first network platform server and second registration information of the first user for the second network platform server, wherein the first network platform server and the second network platform server are associated with different Internet-based platforms, and wherein the first network platform server is associated with an Internet-based social network (receiving data by a second general-purpose computer);
storing, by the first network platform server, user exchange information comprising interactions between the first user and a plurality of second users on the first network platform server, wherein the user exchange information comprises messaging information and commenting information between the first user and the plurality of second users (storing data by a first general-purpose computer); and
sending, by the first network platform server and to the second network platform server, the user exchange information comprising the interactions between the first user and the plurality of second users on the first network platform server (transmitting data by the first general-purpose computer);
obtaining, from the first network platform server, the user exchange information comprising the interactions between the first user and the plurality of second users on the first network platform server (receiving data by the second general-purpose computer);
sending, by the second network platform server and to the first network platform server, the first content for the first group of the plurality of second users on the first network platform server and the second content for the second group of the plurality of second users on the first network platform server (transmitting data by the second general-purpose computer);
providing, by the first network platform server and to the first group of the plurality of second users on the first network platform server, the first content from the second network platform server to display the first content (displaying data by the first general-purpose computer); and
providing, by the first network platform server and to the second group of the plurality of second users on the first network platform server, the second content from the second network platform server to display the second content (displaying data by the first general-purpose computer).
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The dependent claims 42, 44-48, 50, 52-56, 61-62 and 64-65 appear to merely further limit the abstract idea by adding an additional step of transmitting a request for the user exchange information to an application programming interface (API) of the first network platform server (see Claim Interpretation section for term open/opening), and further limiting the obtaining of the user exchange information to said API which are both considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 42, 50, and 58); further limiting the user exchange information which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 44, 52, and 60-62); further limiting the generating of the content which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 45 and 53); further limiting identifying that the first user is associated with both the first registration information and the second registration information which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 46 and 54); further limiting the first registration information and second registration information which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 47-48 and 55-56); adding an additional step of identifying, based on the user exchange information, the first group of the plurality of second users and the second group of the plurality of second users which is considered part of the identified abstract idea (Claim 64); and further limiting the first content which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 65) , and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 41-42, 44-50, 52-56, 61-62 and 64-65 are not patent eligible.
Claims 66-67 od directed to a method and an apparatus which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
However, claims 66-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim(s) 66 and 67 recite(s) the following abstract idea: (Examiner note: the second network platform server has been included as part of the abstract idea itself because it is outside the scope of the claimed invention and, as such, cannot be considered an “additional element” of the claimed invention.
storing user exchange information associated with an Internet-based social network comprising interactions between a first user and a plurality of second users, wherein the user exchange information comprises messaging information and commenting information between the first user and the plurality of second users;
sending, to a second network platform server, the user exchange information comprising the interactions between the first user and the plurality of second users;
providing, to a first group of the plurality of second users, and in response to sending the user exchange information, first content from the second network platform server to display the first content; and
providing, to a second group of the plurality of second users and in response to sending the user exchange information, second content from the second network platform server to display the second content.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely advertising, marketing and sales related activities or behaviors because they merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based on the analysis, generate tailored content(recommendations) based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of:
a first network platform server comprising a first memory configured to store first instructions; and one or more first processors coupled to the first memory and configured to execute the first instructions (general-purpose computer as per paragraph 62 of the applicant’s specification which includes the only mention of a computer and/or memory in the applicant’s specification upon which computer programs of the first network platform and/or the second network platform can operate. The examiner notes that the specification makes no mention of a “server”, “a first network platform server”, “a second network platform server”, “a processor”, and/or “communicatively coupling”. Instead, paragraph 62 merely discloses the functions disclosed in the specification can be carried out using a program executing on a computer with a memory; additionally, paragraph 23 of the applicant’s specification discloses application programming interfaces (APIs) were well-understood, routine, and conventional before the effective filing date of the application, thus the application programming interface (API) is a generic computer component).
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing (e.g., storing), communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying:
storing user exchange information associated with an Internet-based social network comprising interactions between a first user and a plurality of second users, wherein the user exchange information comprises messaging information and commenting information between the first user and the plurality of second users (storing data);
sending, to a second network platform server, the user exchange information comprising the interactions between the first user and the plurality of second users (transmitting data);
providing, to a first group of the plurality of second users, and in response to sending the user exchange information, first content from the second network platform server to display the first content (displaying data); and
providing, to a second group of the plurality of second users and in response to sending the user exchange information, second content from the second network platform server to display the second content (displaying data).
The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer functions of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using general-purpose computers and generic computer components. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on general-purpose computers, or merely uses the computers as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a first network platform server comprising a first memory configured to store first instructions; and one or more first processors coupled to the first memory and configured to execute the first instructions to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using general-purpose computers and generic computer components.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on one or more computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires general-purpose computers (as evidenced from paragraphs 26 and 62 of the applicant’s specification which includes the only mention of a computer and/or memory in the applicant’s specification upon which computer programs of the second network platform can operate. The examiner notes that the specification makes no mention of a “server”, “a first network platform server”, “a processor”, and/or “communicatively coupling”. Instead, the specification mentions a second network platform capable of communicating in paragraph 26 and indicates in paragraph 62 that the functions disclosed in the specification can be carried out using a program executing on a computer with a memory), therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, storing and/or transmitting data:
storing user exchange information associated with an Internet-based social network comprising interactions between a first user and a plurality of second users, wherein the user exchange information comprises messaging information and commenting information between the first user and the plurality of second users (storing data);
sending, to a second network platform server, the user exchange information comprising the interactions between the first user and the plurality of second users (transmitting data);
providing, to a first group of the plurality of second users, and in response to sending the user exchange information, first content from the second network platform server to display the first content (displaying data); and
providing, to a second group of the plurality of second users and in response to sending the user exchange information, second content from the second network platform server to display the second content (displaying data).
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 66-67 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 41-42, 44-50, 52-56, 61-62 and 64-67 are is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kirakosyan et al. (PGPUB: 2012/0278127) in view of Muriello et al. (US Patent: 8,402,548) in further view of Partovi et al (PGPUB: 2008/0270038).
Claims 41, 49, 64, and 66-67: Kirakosyan discloses a method and a system comprising:
a first network platform server associated with an Internet-based social network and comprising a first memory configured to store first instructions; and one or more first processors coupled to the first memory and configured to execute the first instructions to cause the first network platform server (Paragraphs 49-50; 66; 137-138; Figure 25 and Claims 8 and 18: third party social networking server with a data store) to:
store user exchange information comprising interactions between the first user and a plurality of second users on the first network platform server, wherein the user exchange information comprises messaging information and commenting information between the first user and the plurality of second users; and
Kirakosyan discloses storing user exchange information comprising interactions between the first user and a plurality of second users on the first network platform server, wherein the user exchange information comprises interaction information between the first user and the plurality of second users (Paragraphs 66-69; and 79: sourcing social map data (i.e. obtaining stored social map data) from a third-party social network or other online space that permits user interactions and social mapping information including product discussion forums, fan sites, product news sites, online product databases, online recommendation and references sites, dictionaries, wikis, user blogs', search engines, decision guides, search engines, social network services, etc.; online social networks take advantage of social graphs by examining the relationships between individuals to offer a richer online experience; Paragraph 97: the friends list can be associated with an external social network and maintained at the external social network)
Kirakosyan does not specifically state that the interaction information stored on the third-party social networking service includes messaging information, commenting information, reposting information and mutual browsing information.
However, the analogous art of Muriello discloses that it is known for a social networking service to collect and store user interaction information such as messaging information, commenting information, reposting information, and mutual browsing information and to display the information received from external networks to its users in at least column 3, line 39 through column 4, line 41; column 8, lines 43-67; column 16, lines 35-56; and column 16, line 63 through column 17, line 20.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was made, to modify the interaction information of Kirakosyan to include messaging, commenting, and reposting information as taught by Muriello.
The rationale for doing so is that it would be obvious to try. There are a limited number of predictable types of user interactions that traditionally occur and are tracked on social networks and messaging information, commenting information, and reposting information are each predictable types of user interactions that traditionally occur on social network, thus there would be a reasonable expectation of success in the tracking and storing of such interactions.
send, to a second network platform server, the user exchange information comprising interactions between the first user and the plurality of second users on the first network platform server (Kirakosyan - Paragraphs 66-69; and 79: the shopping portal (i.e., second network platform server) sources social map data (i.e., obtaining stored social map data) from a third-party social network (i.e., first network platform server) or other online space that permits user interactions and social mapping information including product discussion forums, fan sites, product news sites, online product databases, online recommendation and references sites, dictionaries, wikis, user blogs', search engines, decision guides, search engines, social network services, etc.; online social networks take advantage of social graphs by examining the relationships between individuals to offer a richer online experience; Paragraph 97: the friends list can be associated with an external social network and maintained at the external social network);
a second network platform server associated with an Internet-based network comprising: a second memory configured to store second instructions; and one or more second processors coupled to the second memory and configured to execute the second instructions to cause the second network platform server (Kirakosyan - Paragraph 157-158) to:
receive first registration information of a first user for a first network platform server and second registration information of the first user for the second network platform server, wherein the first network platform server and the second network platform server are associated with different Internet-based platforms, and wherein the first network platform server is associated with an Internet-based social network; (Kirakosyan - Paragraphs 76 and 79: registering a user with a shopping portal (second registration information for the second network platform server); Paragraph 90-91: receiving login information for an affiliated social network account (e.g., first registration information for a first network platform server that is a social network) and using this affiliated social network login information (e.g., second registration information) to log into the shopping portal (e.g., second network platform server); Figure 19 and Paragraphs 123-125: logging into the shopping portal (second network platform server) using a login information of the shopping portal; displaying a widget for obtaining login information for an affiliated social network (first network platform server), wherein the user enters the social network login name and password; and linking the shopping network with the social network; Paragraphs 76 and 79: registering a user with a shopping portal);
identify, in response to receiving the first registration information and the second registration information, that the first user is associated with both the first registration information and the second registration information (Kirakosyan - Paragraph 79: user logs into the site using the second registration information and information regarding third-party sights is obtained through open authorization protocol); Paragraphs 66 and 69: user preference data is generated based on a social graph of the user which includes social map data sourced from third parties such as social network services; Paragraph 123: linking a registered user’s affiliate social network account profile data to that of his/her shopping portal account);
obtain, from the first network platform server, the user exchange information comprising the interactions between the first user and the plurality of second users on the first network platform server (Kirakosyan - Paragraphs 66-69: obtaining social graph of a user and developing a social map; Paragraph 101: obtaining social data including data related to a friend’s interactions with an item; Paragraph 102-103: monitoring and collecting social activity data);
identify, based on the user exchange information, a first group of the plurality of second users and a second group of the plurality of second users; generate, based on the user exchange information received from the first network platform server, first content for a first group of the plurality of second users on the first network platform server and second content for a second group of the plurality of second user on the first network platform server; and
Kirakosyan and Muriello disclose providing a user with a recommendation list of items based on user exchange information; allowing the user view each item recommended; allowing the user to identify, for each item and from a complete friends list, a group of a plurality of friends to which the user would like to recommend each item, and generating respective recommendation content for each group in at least paragraphs 88, 101-105, and 118-119 of Kirakosyan. As such, Kirakosyan and Muriello disclose identifying, based on the user exchange information and user input, a first group of the plurality of second users for a first recommended item and a second group of the plurality of second users for a second recommended item and generating, based on the user exchange information received from the first network platform server, first content for the first group of the plurality of second users on the first network platform server and second content for a second group of the plurality of second user on the first network platform server.
Kirakosyan and Muriello do not disclose that invention automatically identifies the first group of the plurality of second users and the second group of the plurality of second users is based on the user exchange information and then generate the first recommendation content for the first group and the second recommendation content for the second group based on the user exchange information received from the first network platform server.
However, the analogous art of Partovi discloses that it is known to automatically identify different groups of a user’s friends based on user interaction information, and then generate recommendation content for each group based on the user interaction information in at least paragraphs 24, 28-29, 37-41, 49, and 52-54.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Kirakosyan and Muriello to automatically identify different groups of a user’s friends based on user interaction information, and then generate recommendation content for each group based on the user interaction information as disclosed by Partovi.
The motivation for doing so is to encourage activity within the social network (Partovi: Paragraph 49).
send, to the first network platform server, the first content for the first group of the plurality of second users on the first network platform server and the second content for the second group of the plurality of second users on the first network server (Kirakosyan - Paragraph 105 and 118: providing the directed recommendation to the social network associated with the friend; Partovi – Paragraphs 49, and 52-54: recommendations are posted to encourage activity within the social network);
wherein the one or more first processors are further configured to execute the first instructions to cause the first network platform server to:
provide, to the first group of the plurality of second users on the first network platform server, the first content from the second network platform server to display the first content (Kirakosyan - Paragraph 105 and 118: the recommendation message is posted to a public viewing area of a friend’s related social network; Partovi – Paragraphs 49, and 52-54: recommendations for a first item to a first group of compatible friends are posted to encourage activity within the social network);
provide, to the second group of the plurality of second users on the first network platform server, the second content from the second network platform server to display the second content. (Kirakosyan - Paragraph 105 and 118: the recommendation message is posted to a public viewing area of a friend’s related social network; Partovi – Paragraphs 49, and 52-54: recommendations for a second item to a second group of compatible friends are posted to encourage activity within the social network)
Claims 42 and 50: Kirakosyan, Muriello and Partovi disclose the method of claim 41 and the system of claim 49, further comprising: opening, by the second network platform server, an application programming interface (API) of the first network platform server, and wherein obtaining the user exchange information comprises obtaining, by the second network platform server and through the API of the first network platform server, the user exchange information. (Kirakosyan - Paragraphs 69 and 79: exchanging information through open authorization protocol through a standard and secure API; Paragraph 138: each computing object, communication network, and/or device can make use of an API for communication with or implementation of the shared shopping system; Paragraph 152: the system may employ any appropriate API which enables application and services to take advantage of the techniques provided herein)
Claims 44 and 52: Kirakosyan, Muriello and Partovi disclose the method of claim 42 and the system of claim 50, wherein the user exchange information further comprises reposting information. (Muriello - column 3, line 39 through column 4, line 41; column 16, lines 35-56; column 16, line 63 through column 17, line 20: interaction information stored in the action log include reposting information)
Claims 45 and 53: Kirakosyan, Muriello and Partovi disclose the method of claim 41 and the system of claim 49, wherein generating the first content and the second content comprises generating, based on a preset recommendation policy, the first content and the second content. (Kirakosyan - Paragraphs 75, 96, and 104: a recommendation list can be filtered based on one or more user selected criterion including preset filters; filters can be based on context data as well as social activity; Paragraph 102: only recommendation with high social weight values are included in a recommendation list; Paragraph 105 and 118: providing the directed recommendation to the social network associated with the friend, wherein the selection of the friend is performed based on a preset friends list)
Claims 47 and 55: Kirakosyan, Muriello and Partovi disclose the method of claim 41 and the system of claim 49, wherein the first registration information and the second registration information are associated with a same account. (Kirakosyan - Paragraph 90-91: logging into the shopping portal can be performed using an affiliated social network account)
Claims 48 and 56: Kirakosyan, Muriello and Partovi disclose the method of claim 41 and the system of claim 49, wherein the first registration information and the second registration information are associated with different accounts. (Kirakosyan - Figure 19 and Paragraphs 123-125: linking the shopping network with the social network entails the user logging in with their shopping platform account, widget display a login form provided by affiliated social network and the user enters the social network and submits login name and password)
Claims 61-62: Kirakosyan, Muriello and Partovi disclose the method of claim 41 and the system of claim 49, wherein the user exchange information further comprises mutual browsing information on the Internet-based social network (Muriello - column 3, line 39 through column 4, line 41; column 16, lines 35-56; column 16, line 63 through column 17, line 20: interaction information includes the frequency of user postings, likes, and/or comments on others' posts, how often the users' posts or comments are liked or commented on, frequency at which the user's posts are shared or reposted, whether comments are positive or negative in nature and/or associated with an affinity group, percentages of user content that is liked or commented on, percentage of other users associated with the user who comment on the user's posts or comments)
Claim 65: Kirakosyan, Muriello and Partovi disclose the system of claim 49, wherein the first content and the second content comprise articles. (Kirakosyan – Paragraph 105 and 72: the first content is a recommendation for a purchasable product/item (article based on applicant’s specification in paragraphs 6 and 23), and the second content is another recommendation for a different purchasable product/item (article based on applicant’s specification in paragraphs 6 and 23))
Claims 46 and 54 are is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kirakosyan et al. (PGPUB: 2012/0278127) in view of Muriello et al. (US Patent: 8,402,548) in view of Partovi et al (PGPUB: 2008/0270038) in further view of Tonnison et al. (PGPUB: 2011/0016014).
Claims 46 and 54: The method of claim 41 and the system of claim 49, wherein identifying that the first user is associated with both the first registration information and the second registration information comprises identifying, based on an email address, that the first user is associated with both the first registration information and the second registration information.
Kirakosyan, Muriello and Partovi discloses the method of claim 41 and the second network platform server of claim 49, wherein identifying that the first user is associated with both the first registration information and the second registration information comprises identifying, based on a login names, that the first user is associated with both the first registration information and the second registration information in at least paragraph 93 (shopping portal login name such as a user name) and paragraphs 123-125 (social network login name) of Kirakosyan.
Kirakosyan, Muriello and Partovi do not disclose identifying, based on an email address, that the first user is associated with both the first registration information and the second registration information.
However, the analogous art of Tonnison discloses that it is well known to identifying, based on an email address, that the first user is associated with both the first registration information and the second registration information in at least paragraphs 77 and 103
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the invention of Kirakosyan, Muriello and Partovi such that an email address could be used to associated the first registration information and second registration information as disclosed by Tonnison.
The motivation for doing so is build a bridge can be to seamlessly link social networking sites to purchase portal e-commerce sites and enabling users to effectively manage their multiple external website accounts by consolidating the user’s multiple external account information (Tonnison - Paragraphs 8, 16, and 107)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 7, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues in regards to the 35 USC 101 rejection, that the claims do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2a, Prong 1 because the claims are similar to the claims of the Core Wireless decision which was determined not to recite an abstract idea. The examiner disagrees. The claims of the instant invention bear no similarities to the claims of the Core Wireless decision. The Core Wireless decision made no mention of whether the claims recited an abstract idea under Step 2a, Prong 1. Instead, the Core Wireless decision was analyzed under Step 1 of Alice which determines whether the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea. In Step 1 of Alice one determines the “character of the claim” by: examining the claim as a whole, examining the specification, and identifying the focus of the claimed advancement over the prior art. Once identified the character of the claim is analyzed to see if the claimed advance is directed to the ineligible concept (the abstract idea or natural phenomenon) or is instead directed toward a technical improvement or a solution to a technical problem. This step of determining whether a claim is “directed to” an abstract idea is analogous to Step 2a, Prong 2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance which determines whether the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea. In the Core Wireless decision it was determined that the graphical user interface and it’s specific functionality were “additional elements” that resulted in an improvement to traditional graphical user interfaces and the improvement to graphical user interfaces was supported by the applicant’s specification. The improvement over traditional graphical user interfaces was determined to be that the graphical user interface included a Menu element that listed applications executable on the computing device, summarized data from said applications, and enable the execution of any of said applications by interacting with the Menu element. The specific graphical user interface, in the Core Wireless decision, requires: "an application summary that can be reached directly from the menu" specifying a particular manner by which the summary window must be accessed; the application summary window list a limited set of data; "each of the data in the list being selectable to launch the respective application and enable the selected data to be seen within the respective application”; and that the summary window "is displayed while the one or more applications are in an un-launched state”. These limitations restrain the type of data that can be displayed in the summary window, the function of the listed applications and that the listed launchable applications exist in a particular state which was considered to be an improvement over merely using a conventional user interface to display a generic index on a computer. In contrast, the instant claims recite no graphical user interface, much less a graphical user interface that is an improvement over conventional user interfaces, and instead merely provide information for display which is an insignificant extra solution activity. The claims of the instant invention merely apply an abstract idea using two general-purpose computers with generic computer components, wherein one of the general-purpose computers merely performs the insignificant extra-solution activities of storing data, transmitting data, receiving data, and displaying data, which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2. In order to overcome a 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 2, the purported improvement must be rooted in the “additional elements”. Additional elements are defined as those elements outside of the identified abstract idea. Each of the argued receiving, identifying, sending, generating, and providing steps are part of the abstract idea itself and, as such, are incapable of overcoming an abstract idea under Step 2a, Prong 2 because it is an improvement rooted solely in the abstract idea which is merely applied using the two or more general-purpose computers. The purported improvement of providing content that may be more relevant to different groups of users in a convenient fashion would occur even if all of the steps were performed by a single computer that merely applied the abstract idea. Additionally, the purported improvement is not guaranteed to occur by practicing the claimed abstract idea because said improvement “may” occur but is not required to occur. As such, the purported improvement, is rooted solely in the abstract idea itself. Improvements of this nature, even if they are not well-understood, routine and conventional, are an improvement to an abstract idea which are improvements in ineligible subject matter (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.). Finally, the applicant assets that the claims improve the performance of the computing device in providing content to users to display and are analogous to the claims in the McRo decision which improved how a physical display operated. The examiner disagrees. In the instant claims, the content displayed to the user is determined by practicing the abstract idea itself. The computing device that displays the data remains unchanged. It still receives data to be displayed and displays the data in the same manner that it always has. As such, the computing device has not been improved. Contrary to the applicant’s assertions, the claims in the McRo decision did not improve how a physical display operated. The claims in the McRo decision recited a technological improvement in computer animation, wherein the incorporation of the specific claimed rules, not the use of the computer, resulted in an "improved [the] existing technological process" by allowing the automation of further tasks. In contrast, the instant claims recite no animation process, much less an improved animation process. Instead, the instant claims merely apply an abstract idea to determine the content to display, and then use a general-purpose computer to display the determined content. Thus, the rejection has been maintained.
In regards to the 35 USC 103 rejection the applicant argues that Kirakosyan and Muriello do not disclose “generate, by a second network platform server and based on user exchange information received from a first network platform server, first content for a first group of a plurality of second users on the first network platform server and second content for a second group of the plurality of the first network platform; provide, to the first group of the plurality of second users on the first network platform server, the first content from the second network platform server to display the first content; and provide, to the second group of the plurality of second users on the first network platform server, the second content from the second network platform server to display the second content. The examiner disagrees. Kirakosyan and Muriello disclose providing a user with a recommendation list of items based on user exchange information; allowing the user view each item recommended; allowing the user to identify, for each item and from a complete friends list, a group of a plurality of friends to which the user would like to recommend each item, generating respective recommendation content for each group, transmitting the respective recommendations to the first network platform server, and then displaying the respective recommendations in at least paragraphs 88, 101-105, and 118-119 of Kirakosyan. As such, Kirakosyan and Muriello clearly disclose identifying, based on the user exchange information and user input, a first group of the plurality of second users for a first recommended item and a second group of the plurality of second users for a second recommended item and generating, based on the user exchange information received from the first network platform server, first content for the first group of the plurality of second users on the first network platform server and second content for a second group of the plurality of second user on the first network platform server; provide, to the first group of the plurality of second users on the first network platform server, the first content from the second network platform server to display the first content; and provide, to the second group of the plurality of second users on the first network platform server, the second content from the second network platform server to display the second content.. As indicated in the cited sections, the user bag includes the recommendation list for the user. The items in the recommendation list have been determined based on the user exchange information. Thus, when the user views an item on the recommendation list in the user bag and selects friends with which to recommend the item, the system determines identifies the users based on the exchange information and the user input and generates the recommendation item based on the exchange information and the user input. Each such, recommendation is then sent to their respective recipients for display on the social network. However, Kirakosyan and Muriello do not specifically recite automatically identifying, based on the user exchange information, a first group of the plurality of second users for a first recommended item and a second group of the plurality of second users for a second recommended item. While, not required by the claims as amended, the examiner has added the prior art of Partovi to disclose automatically identifying, based on the user exchange information, a first group of the plurality of second users for a first recommended item and a second group of the plurality of second users for a second recommended item in an effort to further the prosecution of the case.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure include the following:
Kadam et al., US 2012/0136959: exchange interaction information on social networks include reposting information.
Sabur, US 2013/0054407: System and method for recommending items to users based on social graph information.
Deng, US 2013/0031173: Information recommendation method, recommendation engine, network system.
Sathish, US 2011/0238608: Method and apparatus for providing personalized information resource recommendation based on group behaviors.
Suomela, US 2011/0202406: Method and apparatus for distributing items using a social graph.
Amer-Yahia et al., US 2009/0164400: Social behavior analysis and inferring social networks for a recommendation system.
Calabria, US 2006/0143067: Vendor-driven, social-network enabled review system with flexible syndication.
Varshavsky et al., US 2011/0270774: discloses providing recommendations to a group of users by clustering friends based on trust relationships and actions of each user in the cluster such previous purchase histories, web browsing activities, and preferences.
Y. Gao et al, "A Directed Recommendation Algorithm for User Requests Based on Social Networks," 2011, IFIP 9th International Conference on Embedded and Ubiquitous Computing, pp. 457-462.: discloses a recommender system that uses user profile matching, friend relationships, and context matching to filter possible recommendation in order to provide more effective recommendations.
Su et al. (US 2009/0249451) which discloses receiving registration information for registering with an extended social network server and receiving from said user registration information for each of a plurality of social networks for which said user has an account.
Kassaei et al. (US 2011/0173095) which discloses acquiring second user registration information of a current network; acquiring second user registration information made open on a social network; identifying and matching a user’s information based on the first and second registration information; acquiring relational data information from an API of the first network, wherein the relational data information includes user exchange information and user behavior information indicating behavior of the first users, and wherein the user exchange information includes interaction information associated with one or more interactions of the first users; and obtaining friendship circles.
Kendall et al. (US 2009/0182589) which discloses using user exchange information and behavior information to determine relationship types between a user and his friends.
Levy (US 2012/0316986) which discloses dividing the portion of the first users within the friendship circle into a plurality of different user groups using the user exchange information and the user behavior information, wherein each of the different user groups corresponds to a respective relationship type of a plurality of social relationship types between the portion of the first users, and wherein the different user groups include a first user group including a plurality of third users; acquiring a behavior record of each of the third users, wherein the behavior record comprises at least one of an article purchasing record or an information browsing record; and recommending a product to the third users according to a popularity level of the product, wherein the popularity level is based on the behavior record, wherein a property of the product matches a common personal preference property of each user in the first user group, and wherein a personal preference property of each of the third users in the first user group is based on the behavior record.
Abhyankar (US 2012/0166935) which discloses interaction information that includes performing a reposting of the actual content (blog or microblog) instead of a link to the content (blog or microblog).
Wang, Yuan. ("SocConnect: a social networking aggregator and recommender." , 2010, PhD diss., Univ. of Saskatchewan, https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/ 1644893.1644900, pgs 1-113) which discloses a recommender system that aggregates information from multiple social network sites by accessing open API’s provided by said social network sites, gathers interaction data such a friend interactions that include reposting/retweeting, analyses the interaction data and makes recommendation to a user and/or a friend of the user based on the interaction data .
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOHN W VAN BRAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-8198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30 am - 4 pm 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, Spar Ilana can be reached on 571-270-7537. 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.
/John Van Bramer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622