3DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
This action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed on May 26, 2026. Claims 1, 13 and 20 are amended. Claims 19 is canceled. Claims 21 is added. Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are pending and have been examined in this application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/26/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claims 1, 13 and 20 the limitation “screening out the abnormally accessed content display platforms from the at least two content display platforms, marking the abnormally accessed content display platforms, and avoiding network congestion problem caused by the abnormal access users” is not described in the original disclosure. The specification states that the “target institution may refer to an institution that is marked as abnormal, or the target institution may refer to any institution in the institutions corresponding to the access users belonging to the target content display platforms” [0156]. This does not describe that the claimed method nor apparatus marks the abnormally accessed content display platforms, or how it marks the abnormally accessed content display platforms. Accordingly, this is impermissible new matter. Claims 2-12, 21 and 14-18 by being dependents of claims 1 and 13 respectively are also rejected.
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 1-18 and 20-21 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 significantly more.
Specifically, claims 1-18 and 20-21 are directed toward at least one abstract idea without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP 2106, the rationale for this determination is explained below:
Representative claim 1 is directed towards a method, claim 13 is directed towards an apparatus, claim 20 is directed towards a non-transitory medium, which are statutory categories of invention.
Although, claim 1 is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim however, is directed towards an abstract idea. The limitations that recite the abstract ideas are: presenting, by the first service, target contents of publishers to access users, acquiring the access users associated with the at least two content; generating access user overlapping degrees between pairs of content in the at least two content according to the access users; determining abnormally accessed content from the at least two content according to the access user overlapping degrees, and regarding the determined abnormally accessed content as target content; determining abnormal access users from target access users belonging to the target content the abnormal access users being users that accessed multiple of the at least two content and improperly increased access traffic of the publishers; and screening out the abnormally accessed content from the at least two content, marking the abnormally accessed content, and avoiding a network congestion problem caused by the abnormal access users. These limitations, describe commercial interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations; (“content display platform refers to a platform used for displaying a business content” Specification [0003]; “the business content may be referred to as an advertising content” Specification [0031]); as well as managing personal behavior including social activities, and following rules or instructions. And are thus, directed towards the abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed as a whole under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements provided by the claim are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to generally “apply” the abstract idea in a computer environment. In particular the claim recites the additional elements of, through at least two content display platforms provided, front-end display pages containing, wherein the at least two content display platforms include at least two of a webpage platform, a mini-program platform, a messaging platform, and an application platform; and the front-end display pages include at least two of a service page of an application, a messaging window interface of a social software, a web page of an official account; a web page interface, a service page of a mini- program; display platforms; display platforms; display platforms; display platforms; display platforms; display platforms; display platforms; display platforms; display platforms; display platforms; display platforms; display platforms, are computer components recited at a high level of generality, and merely used as a tool to apply/perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or to generally, link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Simply using generic computer components to apply the abstract idea is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations amount to merely applying the abstract idea on a computer. Displaying target content and user activity/access on different platform user interfaces do not amount to an improvement to a graphical user interface. A user interface that does not have any specially programmed functionality is considered a general-purpose computing component that is not sufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application. See Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims adding only generic computer components such as an interface, network, and database, such recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible).
Viewing the limitations individually, the limitations generically referring to front-end display pages, content display platforms, webpage platform, mini-program platform, messaging platform, application platform, service page of an application, a messaging window interface, social software, a web page of an official account; a web page interface, a service page of a mini- program, memory, processor (claim 13), do not constitute significantly more because they simply are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment1. Viewing the limitations as a combination, the claims merely instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with a high-level of generality executing automated computer functions. Merely applying an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the limitations of the claim, as a whole, when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
An analysis of dependent claims 2-12 and 21, likewise, does not recite any limitations that would remedy the deficiencies outlined above as they do not add any elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more. For instance, claims 2-4, 6, 8 are directed to Mathematical Concepts. Claim 5, 7, 9-12 further adds Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Claim 21 displays data in the form of a visualized chart showing where business content has been accessed. Thus, while they may slightly narrow the abstract idea by further describing it, they do not make it less abstract and are rejected accordingly. Further still, claims 13-18, 20 suffer from substantially the same deficiencies as outlined with respect to claims 1-12, 21 and are also rejected accordingly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's filed arguments have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive.
A. Applicant’s argument regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection is moot in light of Applicant’s amendments. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Applicant’s amendments of claims 1, 13 and 20.
B. Applicant argues regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that claim1 is similar to steps (e) and (f) in claim 3 of Example 47, because they recite specific remedial actions that are executed to remediate or prevent network intrusions by abnormal users that uses the detection result from previous steps. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant claimed invention and claim 3 of Example 47 have different claim sets and different eligibility fact patterns, therefore the two are not analogous. The screening out is recited at a high level of generality, not as technical as claim 3 of Example 47. In contrast to Example 47, Applicant’s specification does not provide any technical support/technical description how “screening out” provides security solutions or improves network intrusion detection. Indeed, the improvement proffered by the specification is that “abnormal access users in content display platforms can be quickly identified by the access user overlapping degree between the content display platforms, which can avoid the problem of network congestion caused by abnormal access users, and improve the promotion effect of commodities or services” [0060].
That the claimed invention is apparently “directed to abnormal user detection” is not directed to a technological improvement but rather to an abstract idea, in that this is directed to managing personal behavior in order to provide targeted content. This is attested to by Applicant’s specification which states that the invention “determine, according to the access behavior data of the access users, the abnormal access users from the access users belonging to the target content display platforms. Alternatively, the identical access users in the target content display platforms may be regarded as abnormal access users. By identifying abnormal access users from the access users belonging to the target content display platforms, the promotion expenses of the products or services of the merchants can be reduced, and the accuracy of evaluating the promotion effect can be improved” [0057].
Applicant argues the limitations of representative claim 1 are integrated into a practical application because they are directed to improvements in a technical field of reducing abnormal network access. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown above, the claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional elements that merely uses computing devices as tools to apply or limit the environment of the abstract idea, and as such do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Applicant states that the specification describes a technical improvement in that “abnormal access users in the content display platforms can be quickly identified by the access user overlapping degree between the content display platforms, which can avoid the problem of network congestion caused by abnormal access users.” However, the specification provides no technical support/technical evidence as to how to solve any technological problem. At most, Applicant’s specification discloses how to avoid a problem rather than a technical solution to the problem. Accordingly, “if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.” MPEP 2106.05(a).
Applicant argues that the Office has not established that the claim's ordered combination, is well-understood, routine, and conventional. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Acquiring user access of content on a front-end graphical user interface does not amount to an improvement to a technology or a graphical user interface. A user interface that does not have any specially programmed functionality is considered a general-purpose computing component that is not sufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application. See Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 1264. Notwithstanding, the addition of merely nonroutine or unconventional components does not necessarily amount to significantly more. As even newly discovered judicial exceptions are still exceptions, despite their novelty. For example, the mathematical formula in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 591-92, 198 USPQ 193, 198 (1978), the laws of nature in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 73-74, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968 (2012), and the isolated DNA in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116, 106 USPQ2d 1972, 1978 (2013) were all novel, but were considered by the Supreme Court to be judicial exceptions. See MPEP 2106.04.I.
Based on the foregoing, the claims as a whole, in view of Alice, do not connote an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Errol CARVALHO whose telephone number is (571)272-9987. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30-7:00 Alt Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar 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 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.
/E CARVALHO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
1 See, Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2360 (2014) (noting that none of the hardware recited “offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,’ that is, implementation via computers” (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010))).
Prosecution Insights