Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/17/2025 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
The following Non-Final office action is in response to application 17/314,336 filed on 12/17/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Response to Amendments
Rejections under 35 USC 101 are maintained and updated below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 35 USC 101 arguments and amendments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to overcome the rejection.
Applicant argues on p. 7-8 that the amended claims are analogous to Example 40 by limiting the communication of source or content items and restricting communication of source or content items, which constitute a technical reduction in load which improves the function of a communication network. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Example 40, the claim addressed the technical problem of a congested network due to continual collection and analysis of NetFlow protocol data for optimizing network performance. The claim in Example 40 improved network performance by limiting the collection of NetFlow protocol data to the presence of an abnormal network condition, which avoided excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance from continual generation and collection of NetFlow records. In the present invention, the claimed “limiting” and “restricting” communication of source or content items over the communications network are purely functional. They are not tied a concrete technical mechanism like the network appliance in Example 40. The “decreasing” presentation of source or content items placed in each level of the hierarchical data structure is not a technical reduction in load, it is merely a recommendation of content items to be provided for display to a user. Applicant’s specification at [0124] states “At step 860, the system may recommend one or more content items to be provided to the user for consumption based on the relevancy score of each content item … thereby respecting personal views and preferences while providing an informative mechanism to limit or restrict the spread of false or unreliable information.” The specification further suggests that the “decreasing” presentation is merely a user interface layer decision in [0066] “Content and/or media guidance data delivered to user equipment devices 202, 204, and 206 may be over-the-top (OTT) content. OTT content delivery allows Internet-enabled user devices, including any user equipment device described above, to receive content that is transferred over the Internet, including any content described above … the content can be displayed by media guidance applications stored on the user equipment device.” This illustrates there is not necessarily a reduction in network traffic at all, but rather just a reduction in presentation to the interface after the content is received already.
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 clearly drawn to at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (method). Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (‘2019 PEG”), Claims 1-20 are directed toward the statutory category of a process (reciting a “method”).
Regarding Step 2A, prong 1 of the 2019 PEG, Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea by reciting measuring a number of views of content items relating to a news event; determining the news event to be a trending news event when the number of views exceeds a threshold; when a news event is determined to be a trending news event, generating a hierarchical data structure for the trending news event, wherein a root node of the hierarchical data structure represents the news event and each level of the hierarchical data structure corresponds to a lower level of content reliability than the level immediately above; receiving one or more source items for the hierarchical data structure relating to the news event; accessing source reliability data representing the reliability of a source of a plurality of source items; determining a source item reliability classification of each of the plurality of source items, wherein the source item reliability classification is based on the source reliability data; placing each of the plurality source items in one of a plurality of source nodes of the hierarchical data structure at a level of the hierarchical data structure which accords with the source item reliability classification; receiving a first content item relating to the news event; comparing the first content item with the one or more source items placed in the hierarchical data structure; determining a confidence score of the first content item based on the comparison, wherein the confidence score of the first content item is indicative of the first content item's relevance to at least the one or more source items; determining, for the first content item, a similar source item whose content is similar to the first content item; placing the first content item in one of a plurality of intermediary nodes of the hierarchical data structure based on the confidence score of the first content item; wherein the first content item is placed in the hierarchical data structure as a child node of the node representing the similar source item, wherein the child node is in a level of the hierarchical data structure immediately below the level in which the similar source item is placed; and using the hierarchical data structure to provide recommendations […], wherein the providing recommendations comprises: (a) limiting the communication of source or content items […] by decreasing presentation of source or content items placed in each level of the hierarchical data structure relative to source or content items placed in a level above; and (b) restricting communication of source or content items […] from at least one level of the hierarchical data structure.
The claims are considered abstract because these steps recite mental processes like concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and certain methods of organizing human activity like managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The claims collect information, analyze the information to determine its reliability, and organize the information based on the analysis which are mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Regarding Step 2A, prong 2 of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims (the judicial exception and the additional elements such as a communications network) are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing nor do the claims apply 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 claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a-c, e)).
Dependent claims 2-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ‐ see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the additional elements have been considered above in Step 2A Prong 2. The claim limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05I.A. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea because the limitations recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ‐ see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant's claims mimic conventional, routine, and generic computing by their similarity to other concepts already deemed routine, generic, and conventional [Berkheimer Memorandum, Page 4, item 2] by the following [MPEP § 2106.05(d) Part (II)]. The claims recite steps like: “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data,” Symantec, “Performing repetitive calculations,” Flook, and “storing and retrieving information in memory,” Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. (citations omitted), by performing steps of “measuring” a number of views, “determining” a trending news event, “generating” a hierarchical data structure, “ receiving” a source item, “accessing” source reliability data, “determining” a source reliability, “placing” source items in the data structure, “receiving” a first content item, “comparing” the first content item, “determining” a confidence score, “determining” a similar source item, “placing” the first content item, “using” the hierarchical data structure, “limiting” the communication of source or content items, and “restricting” communication of source or content items.
By the above, the claimed computing “call[s] for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions ‘on a set of generic computer components' and display devices” [Elec. Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1355] operating in a “normal, expected manner” [DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d at 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014)].
Conclusively, Applicant's invention is patent-ineligible. When viewed both individually and as a whole, Claims 1-20 are directed toward an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and lacking an inventive concept.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20190179861 A1; WO2019183191A1; Campan et al., Fighting fake news spread in online social networks: Actual trends and future research directions, 2017.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5847. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-4:30PM.
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, PATRICIA MUNSON can be reached on (571) 270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMED N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624