DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This Action is in response to the Amendment filed July 8, 2025. Claims 1, 6, 11, 16, 21, 25-26, 31 and 36 have been amended. Claims 1-40 are pending and have been examined in this application.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application Nos. 62/213,144, 63/194,682, 63/178,330, 63/178,311 and 63/178,324, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Application No. 62/213,144 at least does not disclose generate a queue of users willing to respond to queries; receive a query and a required number of responses from an application;
and assign from the queue a plurality of users to respond to the query, wherein the number of the plurality of users is based on the required number of responses.
Therefore, as the present application is a nonprovisional of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/213,144; and the claims are not supported by the disclosure of the application, the current claims, 31-40 of present application do not receive priority to the filing date of Application No. 63/213,144.
Application Nos. 63/194,682 63/178,330 63/178,311 63/178,324 at least do not disclose
wherein the users are assigned based on a score that is indicative of a quality determination of prior responses for each of the plurality of users, wherein the score is determined based on at least some of the following: the relative value, compared to all other users, of a user's activity in an activity period; the relative value, compared to all other users, of how much overall positive feedback during a period; the relative value, compared to all other users, of what percent of positive feedback the user has overall for an accuracy period; the relative value, compared to all other users, of the percent of that user's total responses that have been tagged as "negative content" ; the "don't know" factor, which is the relative value, compared to all other users of how many times a user clicked the "don't know:" button in a certain time period; and the number of warnings: number of warnings a given user has.
Therefore, as the present application is a nonprovisional of the prior-filed application, Application Nos. 63/194,682 63/178,330 63/178,311 63/178,324; and the claims are not supported by the disclosure of the application, the current claims, 31-40 of present application also do not receive priority to the filing date of Application Nos. 63/194,682 63/178,330 63/178,311 63/178,324.
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 1-40 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 1-40 are directed toward at least one judicial exception 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 11 is directed towards a system, claim 21 is directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable medium, claim 31 is directed towards a method, which are statutory categories of invention.
Although, claim 1 is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim however, is directed towards abstract ideas. The limitations that recite the abstract ideas are: generate a queue of users to respond to queries; receive a query and a required number of responses from an application; and assign from the queue a plurality of users to respond to the query, simultaneously assigns different users to multiple queries in parallel threads, wherein when a catcher is done responding they re-enter the queue and get assigned another throw, with the thread scanning back and forth until all throws have the requisite number of catchers to maintain seamless and timely responses as query volume increases, wherein the number of the plurality of users is based on the required number of responses and wherein the users are assigned based on a score that is indicative of a quality determination of prior responses for each of the plurality of users. These limitations describe commercial interactions including, marketing or sales behaviors; business relations; as well as managing personal behavior or interaction between people including social activities and following rules or instructions (“[w]ithin the platform, users can post queries, referred to as throws and request responses. Other users can catch the throws and provide responses” Applicant’s specification [0004]); 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).
While the limitations: wherein the score is determined using the following equation: SCORE=[{(ACTIVITY*0.25)+(TPF*0.25)+(ACCURACY*0.25)+((1−“NEGATIVE CONTENT” factor)*0.25)}*5]−[(# of warnings)/2]−(“don't know” factor*3), Where: ACTIVITY: the relative value, compared to all other users, of a user's activity in an activity period; TPF: the relative value, compared to all other users, of how much overall positive feedback during a TPF period; ACCURACY: the relative value, compared to all other users, of what percent of positive feedback the user has overall for an accuracy period; NEGATIVE CONTENT factor: the relative value, compared to all other users, of the percent of that user's total responses that have been tagged as “negative content” (the number of “negative content” tags since that user joined/the number of total responses since that user joined); the “don't know” factor: the relative value (compared to all other users) of how many times he/she clicked the “don't know” button in in a certain time period; and the number of warnings: number of warnings a given user has. These limitations use mathematical formulas or equations to assign and/or gather data and are thus, directed towards the abstract grouping of Mathematical Concepts in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I).
Similarly, claim 31, is directed towards abstract ideas, reciting the limitations: generate a queue of users willing to respond to queries; receive a query and a required number of responses from an application; and assign from the queue a plurality of users to respond to the query, wherein the number of the plurality of users is based on the required number of responses and wherein the users are assigned based on a score that is indicative of a quality determination of prior responses for each of the plurality of users. These limitations describe commercial interactions including, marketing or sales behaviors; business relations; as well as managing personal behavior or interaction between people including social activities and following rules or instructions (“[w]ithin the platform, users can post queries, referred to as throws and request responses. Other users can catch the throws and provide responses” Applicant’s specification [0004]); 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). While the limitations wherein the score is determined based on at least some of the following: the relative value, compared to all other users, of a user's activity in an activity period; the relative value, compared to all other users, of how much overall positive feedback during a period; the relative value, compared to all other users, of what percent of positive feedback the user has overall for an accuracy period; the relative value, compared to all other users, of the percent of that user's total responses that have been tagged as "negative content" ; the "don't know" factor, which is the relative value, compared to all other users of how many times a user clicked the "don't know:" button in a certain time period; and the number of warnings: number of warnings a given user has, is directed to the abstract grouping of Mental Processes as they encompass steps that can be performed in the human mind including using pen and paper (see 2106.04(a)(2) III).
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 by a computer. In particular the claim recites the additional element referring to one hardware processor; using a multi-threaded queue management system that, which is merely the use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Simply applying the abstract idea by a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The additional element does 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 element does 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 limitation amounts to merely applying the abstract idea on a computer. Viewing the limitation individually, the processor, queue management system, do not constitute significantly more because they are simply 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 basic computer functions. Merely applying an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the limitations of the claim as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
A review of dependent claims 2-10, likewise, do 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 2-10 provide for nonfunctional description of the variables used in the mathematical calculation. 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 11-41 suffer from substantially the same deficiencies as outlined with respect to claims 1-10 and are also rejected accordingly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's other filed arguments have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive
A. Applicant’s argument regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that the amended claims are directed to solving an Internet-centric technical problem through a specific technical solution. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims fall under the abstract groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because they set forth business relations, managing personal behavior or interaction between people; Mathematical Concepts because they gather, manipulate and assign data by means of specific mathematical formulas or equations and/or Mental Processes using a computer because they entail observing and evaluating information, which can be practically performed in the human mind. The courts “have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.” Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The claims, undoubtedly aim to solve an entrepreneurial problem rather than a technological one; as attested to by Applicant’s Specification states that a goal of the platform is “to reward those users with the highest scores by giving them more opportunities to monetize their interaction with the application” [0080]. An abstract idea on “an Internet computer network” or on a generic computer is still an abstract idea. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 792 F.3d 1363, 1368 n.2 (collecting cases). See 101 analysis.
Applicant argues that the amended claims provide a specific technical solution through a multi-threaded queue where catchers are assigned to throws as they come in. When a catcher is done responding they re-enter the queue and get assigned another throw. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. These steps are directed to an abstract idea, which furthermore, solves a business problem rather than a technical one. This is made evident by Applicant’s specification explaining that if a user requests 12 responses, after 12 catchers are done responding, they go back to the queue and the next throw is made available, which may slow things down “as everything has to wait until those 12 catchers are done responding.” And if a thrower asks for 100 responses, the system can bog down quickly. But “[s]uch an embodiment would certainly need a time limit for responses, although this can be implemented regardless” [0080]. Thus, the problem being resolved is of a business nature.
Applicant argues that the claims are like the eligible claims in BASCOM the instant claims are directed to a technical improvement in managing high-volume, real-time response queuing through a specific multi-threaded implementation. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s claims have different claims sets, fact patterns and no additional elements that are analogous to BASCOM. The amended claims are not internet centric in that using a multi-threaded queue to assign catchers to respond to throws and being assigned a score based on a formula, even though this may be implemented via the internet, it does not solve any internet centric problem. Unlike BASCOM the claims are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. As stated by Applicant “more accurately, the claim is directed to generating a queue of users based on a qualitative score that is determined as indicated in the claim” (REMARKS 7/3/2024, p12) which is in and of itself an abstract idea directed towards managing user behaviors for commercial purposes. Furthermore, even with the inclusion of an unconventional mathematical formula, the claim would only amount to an improvement to the abstract ideas and not to any technology. Thus, the claims analyzed as a whole do not provide any elements which integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Applicant argues that like Example 42, claim 2 as amended is integrated into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s claims have different claims sets and fact patterns and are not analogous to Example 42 (pp 12-13). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant claim 1 does not recite any additional elements that provide a specific improvement over prior art systems, as did example 42. As shown above, the additional element provide by the claim is merely used to apply the abstract idea by computer component. Providing “effective means for promoting quality content by allowing users to monetize their interactions based on the quality of the content they post or provide” via a queue generated as claimed, is not an additional element but rather additional portions of the abstract idea.
Applicant argues that amended claims are also like claim 2 of Example 46, because they go beyond merely applying the abstract idea on a computer, but rather employ the information provided by the scoring system in a meaningful way to implement a specific technical solution for managing high-volume queues. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s claims have different claims sets, fact patterns, additional elements and are not analogous to claim 2 of Example 46. Calculating a score to use for thread assignment and queue management in a way that maintains seamless and timely responses as query volume increases is not a meaningful limitation that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application but rather an abstract idea in and of itself. This amounts to merely using an abstract idea to invoke another abstract idea. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC y. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea . . . does not render the claim non-abstract.”).
As such, the claims 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.
B. Applicant's arguments relating to claims 11, 21 and 31 are also rejected accordingly to independent claim 1. Applicant's arguments regarding the dependent claims are rejected accordingly to independent claims 1, 11, 21 and 31.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 date of this final action.
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))).