DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 6/30/2021 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
The following is a FINAL Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 11/10/2025.
Claims 1, 17 are amended
Claim 5 is cancelled
Overall, Claims 1-4, 6-17 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 1-4, 6-17 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application) without significantly more.
Per Step 1 and Step 2A of the two-step eligibility analysis, independent Claim 1 and the therefrom dependent claims are directed respectively to a computer implemented method. Thus, on its face, each such independent claim and the therefrom dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
However, Claim 17 (which is representative of Claim 1) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim recites: comparing a first entity of the set of entities with a second entity of the set of entities; computing a similarity measure; aggregating a set of entity interaction history signatures for the set of entities; training one or more machine learning models; generating one or more content recommendations; suggesting the one or more content recommendations; presenting targeted advertising; scoring the one or more content recommendations for topical relevance.
The limitations, as drafted, constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations mentally or manually, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computerized method,” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed mentally or manually by a human. For example, “comparing a first entity of the set of entities with a second entity of the set of entities”, as drafted, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally making a comparison. Similarly, “computing a similarity measure”, as drafted, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally assessing how much similar the two entities are, based on preestablished criteria. Similarly, “aggregating a set of entity interaction history signatures for the set of entities”, as drafted, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally performing the aggregation. Similarly, “training one or more machine learning models”, as drafted, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally performing the training. Similarly, “generating one or more content recommendations”, as drafted, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally generating the content. Similarly, “suggesting the one or more content recommendations”, as drafted, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally performing the suggestion. Similarly, “presenting targeted advertising”, as drafted, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally performing the presentation. Finally, “scoring the one or more content recommendations for topical relevance”, as drafted, in the context of this claim, encompasses the user manually or mentally performing the scoring.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind (e.g. observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Alternatively, or additionally, he limitations, as drafted, constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the drafted process is comparable to an advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships process, i.e. a process aimed at providing content, i.e. targeted advertisements, based on interaction history. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations of agreements in form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Commercial or Legal Interactions (e.g. agreements in form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, business relationships)” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, stripped of those claim elements that are directed to an abstract idea, (A) remaining elements of the independent claims are directed to: providing an online social media network; providing a set of entities in the online social media network; providing one or more software-based processes; identifying interactions between one or more entities of the set of entities with one or more other entities of the set of entities through the online social media network; generating an interaction history signature for each entity, the server in communication with the online social media network.
When considered individually, these additional claim elements represent general receipt and transmission claim elements that serve merely to implement the abstract idea using computer components performing computer functions. The steps only serve to automate the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
(B) Additional remaining claim elements are: the online social media network; the one or more entities; each entity the first entity interaction history signature; the second entity interaction history signature; the similarity measure. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention, they do not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
(C) Finally, recited computing elements, i.e. computer are recited at a high-level of generality, i.e. as generic computing elements performing generic computer functions, like obtaining data, interpreting the obtained data and providing results, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, these additional claim elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because: (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo). Therefore, per Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim is directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application.
(A) Step 2B of the eligibility analysis for the independent claims concludes that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Stripped of those claim elements that are directed to an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, remaining elements of the independent claims are directed to: providing an online social media network; providing a set of entities in the online social media network; providing one or more software-based processes; identifying interactions between one or more entities of the set of entities with one or more other entities of the set of entities through the online social media network; generating an interaction history signature for each entity, the server in communication with the online social media network.
When considered individually, these additional claim elements are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional computing functions" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. (MPEP 2106.05(d) II) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
(B) Furthermore, additional remaining elements of the independent claims contain descriptive limitations explaining the nature, structure and/or content of: the online social media network; the one or more entities; each entity the first entity interaction history signature; the second entity interaction history signature; the similarity measure. However, these claim elements do not require any steps or functions to be performed and thus do not involve the use of any computing functions. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention, these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claimed invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
(C) Finally, the recited computing elements of the independent claims are: computer. When considered individually, these additional claim elements serve merely to implement the abstract idea using computer components performing computer functions. They do not constitute “Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field”. (MPEP 2106.05(a)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of any of these areas.
When the independent claims are considered as a whole, as a combination, the claim elements noted above do not amount to significantly more, to any more than they amount to individually. The operations appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a computer receives information from another computer, processes that information and then sends a response based on processing results. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. Therefore, it is concluded that the elements of the independent claims are directed to one or more abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05)
Further, Step 2B of the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well, both individually and as a whole, as a combination.
Dependent Claim 3 is not directed to any additional abstract ideas, but is directed to additional claim elements such as to: providing an entity interaction history signature of the user of the online network. When considered individually, these additional claim elements are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional elements" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
Dependent Claim 4 is not directed to any additional abstract ideas, but is directed to additional claim elements such as to: suggest a content online network; generating a set of content of a personalized news feed for the user; discovering a set of other users with similar interests. When considered individually, these additional claim elements are comparable to “sorting information” i.e. comparing data, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional elements" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
Dependent Claim 6 is not directed to any additional abstract ideas, but is directed to additional claim elements such as to: providing the signature of a piece of content of the online network. When considered individually, these additional claim elements are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional elements" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
Dependent Claim 7 is not directed to any additional abstract ideas, but is directed to additional claim elements such as to: suggesting a related content to the piece of content based on a similarity score between the related content and the content. When considered individually, these additional claim elements are comparable to “sorting information” i.e. comparing data “performing repetitive calculations”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional elements" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
Dependent Claim 8 is not directed to any additional abstract ideas, but is directed to additional claim elements such as to: presenting a targeted advertisement to a user based on a similarity score between the user and the content; scoring the content based on a specified topical relevance. When considered individually, these additional claim elements are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data” “sorting information” i.e. comparing data, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional elements" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
Dependent Claim 9 is not directed to any additional abstract ideas, but is directed to additional claim elements such as to: providing a real-time stream of content. When considered individually, these additional claim elements are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional elements" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
Dependent Claim 10 is not directed to any additional abstract ideas, but is directed to additional claim elements such as to: detecting one or more emerging topics of the real-time stream of content; detecting and filtering out off-topic content of the real-time stream of content; automatically ranking and routing the real-time stream of content to appropriate topics or zones of interest. When considered individually, these additional claim elements are comparable to “sorting information” i.e. comparing data, “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional elements" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
Dependent Claim 11 is not directed to any additional abstract ideas, but is directed to additional claim elements such as to: attaching a virtual sensors with associated entity interaction history signatures that trigger alerts when a specified content is detected in the real-time stream of content. When considered individually, these additional claim elements represent “Insignificant Extra-Solution (Pre-Solution and/or Post-Solution) Activity”, i.e. activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claims. Specifically, the limitation are considered post-solution activity because they are mere outputting or post-processing results from executing the abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
Dependent Claim 12 is not directed to any additional abstract ideas, but is directed to additional claim elements such as to: providing an audience for a content topic within a specified topic. When considered individually, these additional claim elements are comparable to “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional elements" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
Dependent Claim 13 is not directed to any additional abstract ideas, but is directed to additional claim elements such as to: calculating the entity interaction history signature of the content topic based on a collective attention of the audience; calculating each entity interaction history signature of the audience based on any content the audience interacts with; providing a virtual social badges to specified members of the audience. When considered individually, these additional claim elements are comparable to “performing repetitive calculations” “re-computing”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional elements" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
Dependent Claim 14 is not directed to any additional abstract ideas, but is directed to additional claim elements such as to: providing a content provider. When considered individually, these additional claim elements represent general processing claim elements that serve merely to implement the abstract idea using computer components performing computer functions. The steps only serve to automate the abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
Dependent Claim 15 is not directed to any additional abstract ideas, but is directed to additional claim elements such as to: identifying a set of key influencers with respect to a specified topic; detecting an audience attention trend; implementing a user and content specific targeted advertising campaign in the online network. When considered individually, these additional claim elements are comparable to “sorting information” i.e. comparing data, “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”, which has been recognized by a controlling court as "well-understood, routine and conventional elements" when claimed generically as they are in these dependent claims. (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II) It is readily apparent that the claim elements are not directed to any specific improvements of the claims.
Dependent Claims 2, 16 are not directed to any abstract ideas and are not directed to any additional non-abstract claim elements. Rather, these claims provide further descriptive limitations of elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of: the entity; the online network. However, these elements do not require any steps or functions to be performed and thus do not involve the use of any computing functions. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention, these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Moreover, the claims in the instant application do not constitute significantly more also because the claims or claim elements only serve to implement the abstract idea using computer components to perform computing functions (Enfish, see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Specifically, the computing system encompasses general purpose hardware and software modules, as disclosed in the application specification in fig7 and [0024], including among others: cpu; memory; i/o; display; flash memory; media drive; media program; disk storage.
When the dependent claims are considered as a whole, as a combination, the claim elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a computer receives information from another computer, processes that information and then sends a response based on processing results. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified in the independent claims as an abstract idea. The fact that the computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility. In sum, the additional elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application do not amount to significantly more either. (see MPEP 2106.05)
In sum, Claims 1-4, 6-17 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 difference 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 the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 12, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polonsky et al (US 2014/0257890), in view of Das et al (US 10,713,269), in further view of Nakamura (US 2014/0129333).
Regarding Claims 1, 17 – Polonsky first embodiment discloses: A computerized method for implementing entity interaction history signatures comprising:
comparing, using the one or more software-based processes, a first entity of the set of entities with a second entity of the set of entities using a first entity interaction history signature of the first entity and second entity interaction history signature of the second entity; {see at least [0014]-[0015] identifying users with similar profiles}
wherein the first entity interaction history signature is a first unique numerical indicator of the first entity's interaction history, {see at least fig1, rc22, rc32, passive profile, passive interaction profile (reads on numerical indicator for interaction history); fig3, rc64, [00060] peer ranked higher compared to other peers (reads on numeric indicators)}
wherein the second entity interaction history signature is a second unique numerical indicator of the second entity's interaction history, the server in communication with the online social media network {see at least fig1, rc22, rc32, passive profile, passive interaction profile (reads on numerical indicator for interaction history); fig3, rc64, [00060] peer ranked higher compared to other peers (reads on numeric indicators) (“peers” in plural form reads on additional entities, which includes a second entity)}
the server in communication with the online network; {see at least fig1, rc12, rc16, [0034] server connected to network}
based on the comparison of the first entity with the second entity
computing a similarity measure; {see at least [0014]-[0015] identifying other users with similar profile}
wherein the similarity measure is a real-valued function that quantifies the similarity between two objects {see at least fig3, rc64, [00060] peer ranked higher compared to other peers (comparing peers reads on using real-valued functions to quantify similarities)}
aggregating, using the one or more software-based processes, a set of entity interaction history signatures for the set of entities. {see at least [0014]-[0015] grouping into clusters.}
Polonsky first embodiment does not disclose, however, Polonsky second embodiment discloses:
providing an online social media network; {see at least fig2, rc26, rc28, [0042] activity profile from tracking user; [0044] user online activities}
providing a set of entities in the online social media network using a server comprising
a server data store, wherein the online network comprises an online educational platform, the server comprising a computing device and one or more software-based processes running on the computing device; {see at least fig1, rc18, [0034]-[0035] application server; fig2, rc26, rc28, [0042] activity profile from tracking user (reads on education); [0044] user online activities}
wherein the online social media network is an online educational platform, {see at least [0012]-[0013] software information, hardware information … (reads on educational platform). A wherein clause does not function to actively limit the claim language. Examiner suggests rewriting any claim language currently contained within a wherein clause to be actively claimed (see 2106 (11)(C)). That a social media network is “an online educational platform” is nonfunctional, descriptive language which imparts neither structure nor functionality (does not require any steps to be performed) to the claimed method and so is considered but given no patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.05). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.}
providing the one or more software-based processes, {see at least [0012] software updates, software programs, software information items (reads on software processes); fig1, rc24, [0038] software application; [0043]-[0044] software programs}
identifying, using the one or more software-based processes, interaction between one or more entities of the set of entities with one or more other entities of the set of entities through the online social media network, {see at least [0010]-[0015] peers interaction (reads on entities interaction with other entities). A wherein clause does not function to actively limit the claim language. Examiner suggests rewriting any claim language currently contained within a wherein clause to be actively claimed (see 2106 (11)(C)). That a social media network is “an online educational platform” is nonfunctional, descriptive language which imparts neither structure nor functionality (does not require any steps to be performed) to the claimed method and so is considered but given no patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.05). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.}
generating, using the one or more software-based processes, an interaction history signature for each entity, each interaction history signature is an indicator of each entity's interactions, the server in communication with the online social media network; {see at least [0003] profile … history of interactions (reads on interaction history signature). A wherein clause does not function to actively limit the claim language. Examiner suggests rewriting any claim language currently contained within a wherein clause to be actively claimed (see 2106 (11)(C)). That an entity has an “an interaction history signature” is nonfunctional, descriptive language which imparts neither structure nor functionality (does not require any steps to be performed) to the claimed method and so is considered but given no patentable weight. (MPEP 2111.05). The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Polonsky first embodiment to include the elements of Polonsky second embodiment. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide the method with the necessary data. In the instant case, Polonsky first embodiment evidently discloses aggregating entity interaction histories. Polonsky second embodiment is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of providing entities in the same or similar context. Since both aggregating entity interaction histories, as well as providing entities are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Polonsky first embodiment, as well as Polonsky second embodiment would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Polonsky. **Examiner notes that the reference is being used here as a one-reference combination in this 103 rejection because the reference teaches two clearly different embodiments within the same cited reference.**
Polonsky does not disclose, however, Das discloses:
training one or more machine learning models based on the aggregated set of entity interaction history signatures and one or more signatures of content associated therewith; and {see at least fig9, rc992, (263)/[47:42-58] interaction model; fig14A, fig14B, rc1410, (263)/[47:42-58] training; fig9, rc984, rc986, rc994, (202)/[37:26-37], (207)-(210)/[38:22-39:3], user profile, characteristics associated with the user (based on the BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on interaction history signature); presentation model (based on the BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on content signature)}
generating, using the one or more software-based processes, one or more content recommendations, one or more interaction history signatures, and one or more entity interaction history signatures. {see at least fig9, rc986, rc991, rc992, (202)/[27:26-28], (209)/[38:49-61}; (212)/[39:15-23] making recommendations based on interaction model; fig9, rc984, rc986, rc994, (202)/[37:26-37], (207)-(210)/[38:22-39:3], user profile, characteristics associated with the user (based on the BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on interaction history signature); presentation model (based on the BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on content signature)}
suggesting, using the one or more software-based processes, the one or more content recommendations; {see at least fig9, rc986, rc991, rc992, (202)/[27:26-28], (209)/[38:49-61}, (212)/[39:15-23] making recommendations (reads on suggestions) based on interaction model; fig14A, fig14B, rc1440, (255)-(260)/[46:20-47:25} interaction recommendation (based on BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on content recommendation); fig16, rc1640, (285)-(286)/[51:7-29] recommendation}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Polonsky to include the elements of Das. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to make the most appropriate recommendations. Das is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of making recommendations based interactions and learning in the same or similar context. Since both aggregating entity interaction histories, as well as making recommendations based interactions and learning are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Polonsky, as well as Das would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Polonsky / Das.
Polonsky, Das does not disclose, however, Nakamura discloses:
presenting, using the server, targeted educational advertising in the online social media network; and {see at least [0073], [0075] displaying the advertisement}
scoring, using the one or more software-based processes, the one or more content recommendations for topical relevance. {see at least [0006]-[0019] content (advertisement) ranked); fig2, rc21, [0085]-[0092] category “Television” (reads on topic)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Polonsky, Das to include the elements of Nakamura. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to present the most appropriate advertisement. In the instant case, Polonsky, Das evidently discloses aggregating entity interaction histories and making recommendations based interactions and learning. Nakamura is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of scoring recommendations and presenting advertisement in the same or similar context. Since both aggregating entity interaction histories and making recommendations based interactions and learning, as well as scoring recommendations and presenting advertisement are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Polonsky, Das, as well as Nakamura would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Polonsky, Das / Nakamura.
Regarding Claim 2 – Polonsky, Das, Nakamura discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Polonsky further discloses:
wherein an entity comprises a user of the online social media network, a business, a web site, a specified group of persons or a set of contents of an item. {see at least [0012] recommend websites}
Regarding Claim 3 – Polonsky, Das, Nakamura discloses the limitations of Claim 2. Polonsky further discloses:
providing an entity interaction history signature of the user of the online social media network. {see at least [0003] history of actions; [0010] activity profile (reads on interaction history)}
Regarding Claim 4 – Polonsky, Das, Nakamura discloses the limitations of Claim 3. Polonsky further discloses: based on the entity interaction history signature of the user:
suggest a content; {see at least [0012] recommendation … documents, articles, news items announcements (reads on content)}
generating a set of content of a personalized news feed for the user; and {see at least explicitly feeding information to underlying profile (reads on news feed}
discovering a set of other users with similar interests. {see at least [0015], [0017], [0019] collaborative filtering (reads on users with similar interests}
Regarding Claim 6 – Polonsky, Das, Nakamura discloses the limitations of Claim 2. Polonsky further discloses: based on the entity interaction history signature of the content,
providing the signature of a piece of content of the social media online network. {see at least [0040] recommendations may relate to new songs, new movies (implicitly reads on signature of a piece of content, e.g., song, music}
Regarding Claim 7 – Polonsky, Das, Nakamura discloses the limitations of Claim 6. Polonsky further discloses: based on the entity interaction history signature of the content,
suggesting a related content to the piece of content based on a similarity score between the related content and the content. {see at least fig2, rc30, [0040] recommendations may relate to new songs, new movies}
Regarding Claim 12 – Polonsky, Das, Nakamura discloses the limitations of Claim 2. Polonsky further discloses:
providing an audience for a content topic within a specified topic. {see at least [0038]-[0040] professional, business topics (reads on specific topics)}
wherein the audience are members of the set of entities. {see at least [0049] clusters of target users (reads on audience members part of entities (clusters reads on entities)}
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Polonsky et al (US 2014/0257890), in view of Das et al (US 10,713,269), in further view of Nakamura (US 2014/0129333), in further view of Frenkel et al (US 2017/0083628).
Regarding Claim 8 – Polonsky, Das, Nakamura discloses the limitations of Claim 7. Polonsky further discloses:
based on the entity interaction history signature of the content,
scoring the content based on a specified topical relevance. {see at least [0017] items are scored}
Polonsky, Das, Nakamura does not disclose, however, Frenkel discloses:
based on the entity interaction history signature of the content,
presenting a targeted advertisement to a user based on a similarity score between the user and the content; {see at least [0035] target advertisements to specific groups}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Polonsky, Das, Nakamura to include the elements of Frenkel. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to promote specific products/services. In the instant case, Polonsky, Das, Nakamura evidently discloses aggregating entity interaction histories and making recommendations based interactions and learning. Frenkel is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of presenting targeted advertisements in the same or similar context. Since both aggregating entity interaction histories and making recommendations based interactions and learning, as well as presenting targeted advertisements are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Polonsky, Das, Nakamura, as well as Frenkel would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Polonsky, Das, Nakamura / Frenkel.
Regarding Claim 9 – Polonsky, Das, Nakamura discloses the limitations of Claim 2. Polonsky, Das, Nakamura does not disclose, however, Frenkel discloses:
providing a real-time stream of content. {see at least [0003] generate newsfeed of aggregated stories}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Polonsky, Das, Nakamura to include the elements of Frenkel. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide users with relevant information. In the instant case, Polonsky, Das, Nakamura evidently discloses aggregating entity interaction histories and making recommendations based interactions and learning. Frenkel is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of presenting a stream of content in the same or similar context. Since both aggregating entity interaction histories and making recommendations based interactions and learning, as well as presenting a stream of content are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Polonsky, Das, Nakamura, as well as Frenkel would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Polonsky, Das, Nakamura / Frenkel.
Regarding Claim 10 – Polonsky, Das, Nakamura, Frenkel discloses the limitations of Claim 9. Frenkel further discloses: based on the entity interaction history signature of the real-time stream of content:
detecting one or more emerging topics of the real-time stream of content; {see at least fig3, rc330, [0040] identifying trending topics}
detecting and filtering out off-topic content of the real-time stream of content; {see at least fig3, rc320, rc330, [0040] filtering tending topic (implicitly reads on filtering out off-topic content}
automatically ranking and routing the real-time stream of content to appropriate topics or zones of interest. {see at least [0049] automatically rank key topics; [0052]; fig5A, [0053] rankings}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Polonsky, Das, Nakamura, Frenkel to include additional elements of Frenkel. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide users with news. In the instant case, Polonsky, Das, Nakamura, Frenkel evidently discloses aggregating entity interaction histories and making recommendations based interactions and learning. Frenkel is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of detecting and ranking emerging topics in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 11 – Polonsky, Das, Nakamura discloses the limitations of Claim 10. Frenkel further discloses: based on the entity interaction history signature of the real-time stream of content,
attaching a virtual sensors with associated entity interaction history signatures that trigger alerts when a specified content is detected in the real-time stream of content. {see at least [0005] key topics detected by co-accessing topics (reads on triggering alert)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Polonsky, Das, Nakamura, Frenkel to include additional elements of Frenkel. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide users with news. In the instant case, Polonsky, Das, Nakamura, Frenkel evidently discloses aggregating entity interaction histories and making recommendations based interactions and learning. Frenkel is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of detecting emerging topics in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Polonsky et al (US 2014/0257890), in view of Das et al (US 10,713,269), in further view of Nakamura (US 2014/0129333), in further view of Kim et al (US 2015/0120717).
Regarding Claim 13 – Polonsky, Das, Nakamura discloses the limitations of Claim 12. Polonsky discloses:
calculating the entity interaction history signature of the content topic based on a collective attention of the audience; {see at least [0011] periodically updating profiles (reads on refining); [0023]; fig1, rc72, [0071] update log of user profile}
calculating each entity interaction history signature of the audience based on any content the audience interacts with; and {see at least [0011] periodically updating profiles (reads on refining); [0023]; fig1, rc72, [0071] update log of user profile}
Polonsky, Das, Nakamura does not disclose, however, Kim discloses:
providing a virtual social badges to specified members of the audience in response to the one or more recommendations. {see at least fig3, rc305, [0095] rank users within the network (reads on badging the top ranking user}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Polonsky, Das, Nakamura to include the elements of Kim. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to making top users known. In the instant case, Polonsky, Das, Nakamura evidently discloses aggregating entity interaction histories and making recommendations based interactions and learning. Kim is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of tagging top users in the same or similar context. Since both aggregating entity interaction histories and making recommendations based interactions and learning, as well as tagging top users are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Polonsky, Das, Nakamura, as well as Kim would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Polonsky, Das, Nakamura / Kim.
Regarding Claim 14 – Polonsky, Das, Nakamura, Kim discloses the limitations of Claim 13. Polonsky further discloses:
providing a content provider. {see at least [0062] provate portal between providers and users}
Claims 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Polonsky et al (US 2014/0257890), in view of Das et al (US 10,713,269), in further view of Nakamura (US 2014/0129333), in further view of Kim et al (US 2015/0120717), in further view of Frenkel et al (US 2017/0083628).
Regarding Claim 15 – Polonsky, Das, Nakamura, Kim discloses the limitations of Claim 14. Kim further discloses: based on the entity interaction history signature of the content provider and the audience:
identifying a set of key influencers with respect to a specified topic; {see at least [0075] determining key influencers for a given topic}
Itwould have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Polonsky, Das, Nakamura, Kim to include additional elements of Kim. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide recommendations to those who can make the most out of them. In the instant case, Polonsky, Das, Nakamura, Kim evidently discloses aggregating entity interaction histories and making recommendations based interactions and learning. Kim is merely relied upon to illustrate the additional functionality of identifying key influencers in the same or similar context. Since the subject matter is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would have performed the same function it performed separately, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Polonsky, Das, Nakamura, Kim does not disclose, however, Frenkel discloses:
detecting an audience attention trend; and {see at least [0005] topics that look across all trending topics}
implementing a user and content specific targeted advertising campaign in the online social media network. {see at least fig1, rc160, [0026] advertisement targeting module}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Polonsky, Das, Nakamura, Kim to include the elements of Frenkel. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to provide the most relevant advertisements. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported that combining well known prior art elements, in a well-known manner, to obtain predictable results is sufficient to determine an invention obvious over such combination (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S.,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) & MPEP 2143). In the instant case, Polonsky, Das, Nakamura, Kim evidently discloses aggregating entity interaction histories and making recommendations based interactions and learning. Frenkel is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of advertising based on audience attention trend in the same or similar context. As best understood by Examiner, since both aggregating entity interaction histories and making recommendations based interactions and learning, as well as advertising based on audience attention trend are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Polonsky, Das, Nakamura, Kim, as well as Frenkel would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Polonsky, Das, Nakamura, Kim / Frenkel.
Claims 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Polonsky et al (US 2014/0257890), in view of Das et al (US 10,713,269), in further view of Nakamura (US 2014/0129333), in further view of Sirhall (US 2002/0150867).
Regarding Claim 16 – Polonsky, Das, Nakamura discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Polonsky, Das, Nakamura does not disclose, however, Sirhall discloses:
wherein the online social media network comprises an online educational platform. {see at least [0022] online education platform}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Polonsky, Das, Nakamura to include the elements of Sirhall. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to extend the method to online education platforms as well. In the instant case, Polonsky, Das, Nakamura evidently discloses aggregating entity interaction histories and making recommendations based interactions and learning. Sirhall is merely relied upon to illustrate the functionality of an online education platform in the same or similar context. Since both aggregating entity interaction histories and making recommendations based interactions and learning, as well as an online education platform are implemented through well-known computer technologies in the same or similar context, combining their features as outlined above using such well-known computer technologies (i.e., conventional software/hardware configurations), would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, since the elements disclosed by Polonsky, Das, Nakamura, as well as Sirhall would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter is obvious over Polonsky, Das, Nakamura / Sirhall.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
1 US 20080300453 A1 2008-12-04 81 AOKI; Isao et al. INTRA-SUBJECT OBSERVATION SYSTEM AND INTRA-SUBJECT OBSERVATION METHOD An intra-subject observation system includes a first liquid inserted into a desired organ of a subject; and a second liquid inserted into the organ without being mixed with the first liquid due to a specific gravity lighter than that of the first liquid. The system also includes a capsule medical apparatus inserted into the organ with an intermediate specific gravity between the specific gravity of the first liquid and that of the second liquid to acquire intra-subject information, which is output out of the subject by radio.
1 US 20100299518 A1 2010-11-25 17 Viswanathan; Rajesh et al. PORTABLE SECURE COMPUTING NETWORK As provided herein, when using an untrusted network connection, a secure online environment can be created for a remote machine by connecting to a trusted computer with a trusted network connection. A proxy server is installed on a first computing device and shared encryption keys are generated for the first device and a portable storage device. A connection is initiated between a second computing device (e.g., remote device), connected to an untrusted network, and the first computing device, comprising initiating a proxy server protocol from the portable storage device (e.g., attached to the second device), using the second computing device. A secure connection between the first and second devices is created using the encryption keys.
1 US 20170195356 A1 2017-07-06 29 Turgeman; Avi et al. IDENTIFICATION OF COMPUTERIZED BOTS AND AUTOMATED CYBER-ATTACK MODULES Devices, systems, and methods of detecting whether an electronic device or computerized device or computer, is being controlled by a legitimate human user, or by an automated cyber-attack unit or malware or automatic script. The system monitors interactions performed via one or more input units of the electronic device. The system searches for abnormal input-user interactions; or for an abnormal discrepancy between: the input-unit gestures that were actually registered by the input unit, and the content that the electronic device reports as allegedly entered via such input units. A discrepancy or abnormality indicates that more-possibly, or necessarily or certainly, a malware or automated script is controlling the electronic device, rather than a legitimate human user. Optionally, an input-output aberration or interference is injected, in order to check for manual corrective actions that only a human user, and not an automated script, is able to perform.
1 US 20200380074 A1 2020-12-03 25 LI; Jiachen et al. METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR TRENDING ISSUE IDENTIFICATION IN TEXT STREAMS This application relates to a systems and methods for trending issue identification in text streams. In one embodiment, a method for improving resolution of a trending issue identified in a set of text streams includes presenting a user interface of an application that is being executed by a computing device. The method also includes receiving a notification including the trending issue that has been identified in the set of text streams based at least in part on textual analysis performed on the set of text streams, and presenting the trending issue on the user interface of the application to enable an action to be performed to resolve the trending issue.
1 US 8364519 B1 2013-01-29 51 Basu; Atanu et al. Apparatus, system and method for processing, analyzing or displaying data related to performance metrics A method of determining a set of future actions includes providing an interface to a user, the interface including an adjustable element associated with a future value of an influencer. The influencer is associated with an action. The method further includes receiving via the interface an adjusted future value of the influencer, projecting a future value of a performance indicator based at least in part on the adjusted future value of the influencer, and providing a results interface to the user indicative of the future value of the performance indicator.
1 US 8209218 B1 2012-06-26 45 Basu; Atanu et al. Apparatus, system and method for processing, analyzing or displaying data related to performance metrics Embodiments of the present invention relates to a method, apparatus and computer program product for processing, analyzing and/or display data related to performance metrics, for example, predicted performance metrics. In some embodiments, the apparatus includes one or more computers, a user input device(s), and a display device(s). In some embodiments, the one or more computers are operative, to compute, from historical KPI-related data, predicted future KPI-related behavior. In some embodiments, the display device is operative to display indications of predicted KPI values and/or predicted influencer values and/or a predicted future influencer-ranking-hierarchy and/or calculated deviating influencer values and/or one or more of the deviating future KPI values. In some embodiments, one or more user input devices are configured to receive indications of user-proposed influencer values and/or any other relevant data.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s submitted remarks and arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant disagrees with the Office Action conclusions and asserts that the presented claims fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 regrading judicial exceptions. Further, Applicant is of the opinion that the prior art fails to teach Applicant’s invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees in both regards.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits:
a. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
b. The identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
c. The pending claims amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the Office has failed to meet its burden to identify the abstract idea and to establish that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and that the pending claims do not amount to significantly more.
Examiner responds – The arguments have been considered in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims. The arguments ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The pending claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application. This is because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo).
In addition, the pending claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, the pending claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application and not amounting to significantly more.
More specific:
Applicant submits “Applicants note that the claims are directed to computerized methods that allow the interactions of various entities in a social media environment with other entities to be evaluated and tracked by generating representations of such interactions and making actionable recommendations about such entities in light of their historic interactions.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Computerized methods are not an eligibility criterion (see MPEP 2106.04-07)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Machine learning models are leveraged to make a universe of complex digital interactions between a multitude of different entities and content actionable such that recommendations can be made.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Utilizing machine learning methods is not an eligibility criterion (see MPEP 2106.04-07)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Applicants submit that the claimed invention have a practical real world benefit in terms of extracting meaning signals and signatures form a set of interactions that are largely an impenetrable and unusable set of noise.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Practical real world benefits are not eligibility criteria (see MPEP 2106.04-07)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
It follows from the above that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Applicant submits “Das is silent with regard to "signatures" and makes no mention the use of such signature or the training of models using content and any such signatures as claimed.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Das discloses:
training one or more machine learning models based on the aggregated set of entity interaction history signatures and one or more signatures of content associated therewith; and {see at least fig9, rc992, (263)/[47:42-58] interaction model; fig14A, fig14B, rc1410, (263)/[47:42-58] training; fig9, rc984, rc986, rc994, (202)/[37:26-37], (207)-(210)/[38:22-39:3], user profile, characteristics associated with the user (based on the BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on interaction history signature); presentation model (based on the BRI (MPEP 2111), reads on content signature)}
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Frenkel also has nothing to do with machine learning and there is no reason to try and combine Frenkel with Das other than impermissible hindsight using Applicants' claims.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Applicants may also argue that the combination of two or more references is "hindsight" because "express" motivation to combine the references is lacking. However, there is no requirement that an "express, written motivation to combine must appear in prior art references before a finding of obviousness." See Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 1276, 69 USPQ2d 1686, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
The other arguments presented by Applicant continually point back to the above arguments as being the basis for the arguments against the other 103 rejections, as the other arguments are presented only because those claims depend from the independent claims, and the main argument above is presented against the independent claims. Therefore, it is believed that all arguments put forth have been addressed by the points above.
Examiner has reviewed and considered all of Applicant’s remarks. The changes of the grounds for rejection, if any, have been necessitated by Applicant’s extensive amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection is maintained, necessitated by the extensive amendments and by the fact that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has not been overcome.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571.272.7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3698
Prosecution Insights