01/21/2DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to Amendment filed 01/21/2026.
Claims 1-3, 5-13 and 15-20 have been examined.
Response to Amendment
In the instant amendment, claims 1-2, 5, 12 and 15 have been amended.
The 35 USC §101 rejection over claims 1-20 is maintained in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The 35 USC §112 rejection over claims 1-11 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claim 1, this claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directing to a system claim under Step 1.
However, the limitations “determine, at message delivery component …”, “determining, based on the batch filtering criterion, …” and “comparing the relevance rankings of the messages …” as drafted, recite functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitation “determine, at message delivery component …”, “determining, based on the batch filtering criterion, …” and “comparing the relevance rankings of the messages …” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Under step 2A prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements “a message consumption component”, “a message filtering component .., wherein the batch filtering criteria is based on setting associated with user account”, “a message delivery component”, “cloud base control circuitry”, “queue of content … published to an application programming interface”, “simultaneously applying to queued content …”, , “wherein the channel delivery criteria define …”, “receive, at the message consumption component …”, “generate, at the message consumption component …”, “… to generate a second subset of content …”, “access, for a first message …”, “access for a second message …” and “cloud-based input/output circuitry configured to transmit …” “a message consumption component”, “a message filtering component”, “a message delivery component”, “cloud base control circuitry” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or merely a generic computer or generic computer components to perform the judicial exception. The addition element “receiving, at the message consumption component …”, “generating, at the message consumption component …”, “access, for a first message …”, “access for a second message …” and “cloud-based input/output circuitry configured to transmit …” amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g). . The addition element “simultaneously applying to queued content …”, , “wherein the channel delivery criteria define …” fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the recited “applying”, and “defining” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under Step 2B, the claims do 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 as discussed above, which does not amount to significantly more, thus, not an inventive concept, and the courts have identified gathering data, storing data, and outputting the result is well-understood, routine and conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), thus, cannot amount to an inventive concept.. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claims 2 and 12, the claims are within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directing to a method and media claims under Step 1.
However, the limitations “determine, at message delivery component …”, “determining, based on the batch filtering criterion, …” and “comparing the relevance rankings of the messages …” as drafted, recite functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitation “determine, at message delivery component …”, “determining, based on the batch filtering criterion, …” and “comparing the relevance rankings of the messages …” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Under Prong 2 Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements “one or more processor”, “a message consumption component”, “a message filtering component”, “a message delivery component”, “a user interface of a user device”, “simultaneously applying to queued content …”, “receiving, at the message consumption component …”, “generating, at the message consumption component …”, “access, for a first message ..”, “access, for a second message …”, and “generating for display”. “one or more processor”, “a message consumption component”, “a message filtering component”, “a message delivery component”, and “a user interface of a user device” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or merely a generic computer or generic computer components to perform the judicial exception. The addition element “receiving, at the message consumption component …”, “generating, at the message consumption component …”, “access, for a first message ..”, “access, for a second message …”, and “generating for display” amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g). . The addition element “simultaneously applying to queued content …”, , “wherein the channel delivery criteria define …” fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the recited “applying”, and “defining” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under Step 2B, the claims do 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 as discussed above, which does not amount to significantly more, thus, not an inventive concept, and the courts have identified gathering data, storing data, and outputting the result is well-understood, routine and conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), thus, cannot amount to an inventive concept.. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the limitation “filtering” is an additional metal process under prong 1. Under prong 2, the “receiving” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the limitation “determining” and “comparing” are an additional metal process under prong 1.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the limitation “determining” are an additional metal process under prong 1.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the limitation “determining”, “comparing”, and “adding” are an additional metal process under prong 1.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the limitation “determining” are an additional metal process under prong 1.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, the limitation “determining” are an additional metal process under prong 1.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the limitation “… applying …” are an additional metal process under prong 1. Under prong 2, the “generating …” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “processing each message” are an additional metal process under prong 1. Under prong 2, the “retrieving …” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “determining” and “selecting” are an additional metal process under prong 1.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation “determining”, “selecting” and “processing” are an additional metal process under prong 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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 should be directed to examiner Tuan Dao, whose telephone/fax numbers are (571) 270 3387 and (571) 270 4387, respectively. The examiner can normally be reached on every Monday-Thursday and the second Friday of the bi-week from 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Pierre Vital, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272 4215.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature of relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the TC 2100 Group receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272 2100.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TUAN C DAO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198