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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/04/25 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/04/25 has been entered. Claims amended:
1) Independent claims: 1 and 11.
2) Dependent claims: 2-7 and 12-15.
Claim Status
Claims 1-15 are pending. They comprise of 2 independent groups:
(1) System1: 1-10, and
(2) Article1: 11-15.
As of 04/14/2025, claim 1 is as followed:
1. (Currently Amended) A network computer system comprising:
[I] one or more processors;
[II] a memory to store a set of instructions;
wherein the one or more processors execute the set of instructions to perform operations that comprise:
[1] storing a collection of content items, each content item of the collection being associated with a metadata set that includes
(i) a set of categories that are indicative of a set of characteristics of the content item, and
(ii) a performance metric that is indicative of a likelihood that a user will have a desired response to consuming the content item;
[2] receiving, over one or more networks, a plurality of input communications transmitted from a plurality of user devices using a plurality of messaging-based communication channels, each messaging-based communication channel of the plurality of messaging-based communication channels being associated with a corresponding format, and each input communication of the plurality of input communications having the corresponding format of the messaging-based communication channel used to transmit the input communication;
[3] transmitting a plurality of replies to the plurality of user devices, each reply being transmitted in response to a respective user device of the plurality of user devices transmitting a corresponding input communication of the plurality of input communications, each reply being transmitted using the same messaging-based communication channel of the respective input communication and the corresponding format;
wherein transmitting the plurality of replies includes:
based on the corresponding input communication,
[4] determining a set of input parameters indicating each of a categorical designation and a context of the input communication;
[5] selecting, from the stored collection of content items, one or more content items of the collection based at least in part on
(i) the set of input parameters,
(ii) the set of categories associated with each content item of the collection, and
(iii) the performance metric associated with each content item of the collection;
[6] assembling a reply to the input communication based on the selected one or more content items, wherein assembling the reply includes
(i) combining at least a word or phrase of the one or more selected content items with a message reply template that is selected based on the context of the input communication, and
(ii) structuring the reply, including the one or more content items, to have the corresponding format of the corresponding messaging-based communication channel used to transmit the corresponding input communication;
[7] transmitting, over the one or more networks, the reply to the user device using the corresponding messaging-based communication channel used to transmit the corresponding input communication;
[8] subsequent to transmitting the plurality of replies to the plurality of user devices, monitoring for activities of the one or more user devices; and
[9] updating the performance metric of at least one selected content item, including the selected word or phrase, based on information determined from monitoring the activities of the one or more user devices.
Note: for referential purpose, numerals [1]-[9], are added to the beginning of each step.
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 1-13 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.
Step 1: when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e.,
(1) process,
(2) machine,
(3) manufacture or product, or
(4) composition of matter.
Step 2A, Prong 1: If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception, i.e.,
1) law of nature,
2) natural phenomenon, and
3) abstract idea.
and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include:
(1) Mathematical concepts -- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
(2) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
(3) Certain methods of organizing human activities.
(i) fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
(iii) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
For instance, in Alice Corp. (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)), the Court found that “intermediated settlement” was a fundamental economic practice, which is considered as (1) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
Step 1:
In the instant case, with respect to claims 1-16:
Claim categories:
System1 (machine): 1-10, and
Article1: 11-16, and
Analysis of Step 1:
Machine: claims 1-10 are directed to a system comprising a processor, and memory having instructions for causing the system to carry out a series of steps or acts, for managing an item (content) effectively by monitoring its usage by a user. (Step 1:Yes).
Article: claims 11-16 are directed to N-T computer readable medium that stores instructions when executed by a processor causes the computer to perform steps for managing an item (content) effectively by monitoring its usage by a user. (Step 1:Yes).
Thus, the claims 1-16 are generally directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A,
(1) Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
(2) Prong Two: Are there any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, then proceeds to step 2B.
Step 2B: Are there any additional elements that adds an inventive concept to the claim? Determine whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, and conventional” in the field (see MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
A. Step 2A, Prong One:
Claim 1, as exemplary, recites a method for managing an item (content) effectively by monitoring its usage by a user, is a fundamental economic principle or business practice for monitoring a content item and its effectiveness, i.e. an display add or published stock price to consumers and how the consumers use the received content effectively by carrying out steps related to the received stock price or the received ad, which is considered as (i) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
Furthermore, independent claims 1, and 11 recite an abstract idea related to evaluation the effectiveness of the usage of a content item by monitoring how the users use the content item, which constitutes an abstract idea based on “Mental Processes” related to concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
(2) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
B. Step 2A, Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical applications because it deals with a method for managing an item (content) effectively by monitoring its usage by a user, by carrying out steps of:
The claims recites the additional elements of:
Steps: Types
[1] store content (data) Data gathering, insignificant extra-solution activity (IE-SA) step.
[2] receive … input (data) Data gathering, IE-SA.
[3] transmit …replies (data) Data gathering/transmitting, IE-SA
[4] determine .. input (data) Mental step/analysis-prediction
[5] select… content items (data) Mental step/analysis-prediction
[6] assemble items for reply. Mental step/analysis-prediction.
[7] transmit … reply (data) Data transfer, IE-SA.
[8] monitor … activities. Mental step.
[9] update … metric (data). Data gathering/updating, IE-SA.
Steps [1], [2], [3], [7] and [9] are data gathering, transmitting and updating which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Steps [4], [5], [6] and [8] are for evaluating the effectiveness of an item (content) by identifying how it’s being used by a user by monitoring the user’s activities in using the content. These mental steps or well known business activities for managing an item (content) effectively by monitoring its usage by a user.
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mental processes) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
C. Step 2B:
The claims recites the additional elements of steps [1]-[9] above.
Steps [1], [2], [3], [7] and [9] are data gathering, transmitting and updating which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Steps [4], [5], [6] and [8] are for evaluating the effectiveness of an item (content) by identifying how it’s being used by a user by monitoring the user’s activities in using the content. These mental steps or well known business activities for managing an item (content) effectively by monitoring its usage by a user. These mental steps or well known business activities for analyzing how the content is being used by a user by monitoring user’s activities of using the content item.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, the additional elements, steps [4]-[6] and [8], when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s). As for the system or article claims, mere instructions to apply an exertion using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components, i.e. a processor, a memory to store a set of instructions, are claimed at high level of generality to perform their basis functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP 2106.05 (f), (g) and (h). The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network, sorting data, analyzing data, and transmitting the data is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The claim are basically collect data, analyze data, and provide set of results, which are not patent eligible, see Electric Power Group, LLC. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
As for dep. claim 2-3 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the monitored activities of the correspondent user device, i.e. user feedback and actions, these further limit the abstract idea of the monitored user actions, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 2-3 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus do not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claims 4-6 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the monitored user actions, these further limit the abstract idea of the analyzed user action parameters, and are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 7 (part of 1 above), which deals with further details of the collected content items and the reply communication, received across multiple channels, etc., these further limit the abstract idea of the content object, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 7 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus do not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claims 8-10 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the collected content items and the reply communication, these further limit the abstract idea of the content object and the reply communication features, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 8-10 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus do not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
Therefore, claims 1-16 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. step 2B: NO
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 differences 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 in which 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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
On October 10, 2007, the Patent Office issued the "Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.," 73 Fed. Reg. 57,526 (2007) (hereinafter the Examination Guidelines). Section III is entitled "Rationales to support rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103." Within this section is the following quote from the Supreme Court: "rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by merely conclusory statements; instead there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Under the Examination Guidelines, the following is a list of rationales that may be used to support a finding of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
(a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(b) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(c) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(d) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(e) "Obvious to try" choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(f) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and
(g) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation (TSM) in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Each rationale is resolved using the Graham factual inquiries.
Claims 1-10 (system) and 11-16 (article1) are rejected under 35 pre-AIA U.S.C. 103(a) as being un-patentable over:
Name Publication
(1) SHIVAKUMAR US 2015/0.081.611, and
(2) AGARWAL ET AL. US 2022/0.120.208.
SHIVAKUMAR discloses a network computer system comprising:
[I] one or more processors;
[II] a memory to store a set of instructions;
wherein the one or more processors execute the set of instructions to perform operations that comprise:
PNG
media_image1.png
512
766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[1] storing a collection of content items, each content item of the collection being associated with a metadata set that includes
(i) a set of categories that are indicative of a set of characteristics of the content item, and
{see [0030 On the request from the user contents received are fed in the step 201 to the learning module 109. Content fed to the learning module 109 is analyzed and categorized in step 202..}}
{[0031 … user’s prior knowledge data, and user’s preferences, about the content type and the presentation type and format, …, is stored on the memory for further usage.]}
{[0032 Content analyzed and categorized in step 202 is further mapped to the user’s knowledge level and user’s preferences about the content type, presentation type and format,…]}
(ii) a performance indicator that is indicative of a likelihood that a user will have a desired response to consuming the content item;
{[0033 …monitoring the user’s behavior during the personalized content presentation. The user’s activities monitored … comprise the click events, download events, usability analysis, reading time, and scroll data among many other behavioral aspects of user. ]}
Any of the user’s behavior (responses or activities) to the content is considered as performance indicator such as click events, download events, etc.
[2] receiving, over one or more networks, a plurality of input communications transmitted from a plurality of user devices using a plurality of messaging-based communication channels, each messaging-based communication channel of the plurality of messaging-based communication channels being associated with a corresponding format, and each input communication of the plurality of input communications having the corresponding format of the messaging-based communication channel used to transmit the input communication;
PNG
media_image2.png
508
754
media_image2.png
Greyscale
{see Fig. 1 which deals with the type and communication channel of the user, and
[0030 On the request from the user contents received are fed in the step 201 to the learning module 109. Content fed to the learning module 109 is analyzed and categorized in step 202..],
[0032 Content analyzed and categorized in step 202 is further mapped to the user’s knowledge level and user’s preferences about the content type, presentation type and format,…]}
[3] transmitting a plurality of replies to the plurality of user devices, each reply being transmitted in response to a respective user device of the plurality of user devices transmitting a corresponding input communication of the plurality of input communications, each reply being transmitted using the same messaging-based communication channel of the respective input communication and the corresponding format;
wherein transmitting the plurality of replies includes:
based on the corresponding input communication,
[4] determining a set of input parameters based on the input communication; the set of input parameters indicating each of a categorical designation and a context of the input communication;
{see [0030 On the request from the user contents received are fed in the step 201 to the learning module 109. Content fed to the learning module 109 is analyzed and categorized in step 202..}}
[0032 … In step 207, the personalized content is transformed into user preferred presentation type and format and … for delivering to the user.],
PNG
media_image3.png
698
484
media_image3.png
Greyscale
{see Fig. 2, step 207 “processing content into preferred / best chose presentation type and formats”}
[5] selecting, from the stored collection of content items, one or more content items of the collection based at least in part on the set of input parameters, the set of categories associated with each content item of the collection, and the performance metric associated with each content item of the collection;
{[0030 On the request from the user contents received are fed in the step 201 to the learning module 109. Content fed to the learning module 109 is analyzed and categorized in step 202..},
[0032 Content analyzed and categorized in step 202 is further mapped to the user’s knowledge level and user’s preferences about the content type, presentation type and format,…]}
[6] assembling a reply to the input communication based on the selected one or more content items, wherein assembling the reply includes
(i) combining at least a word or phrase of the one or more selected content items with a message reply template that is selected based on the context of the input communication, and
(ii) structuring the reply, including the one or more content items, to have the corresponding format of the corresponding messaging-based communication channel used to transmit the corresponding input communication;
{see Fig. 2, 207 “Processing content into preferred presentation type and formula” and respective
[0032 … In step 207, the personalized content is transformed into user preferred presentation type and format and … for delivering to the user.],
[0036 …Semantic analyzer 302 … which processes the words in a given context to extract the “meaning or core concept” of the content feed. Based on the concepts extracted, ...],
[0038 Pattern analyzer 307 …analyzes the patterns, trends, arrays, series, and other similar aspects from the content feed 301...Theme analyzer 308 is another component of NLP that identifies the central theme of the subject matter from the content feed 301”].
PNG
media_image4.png
528
430
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 teaches the content presentation module using various reply templates.
In view of the teachings assembling a reply communication based on “Theme analyzer” or “semantic analyzer,” the selection of content including a word or phrase for assembly of a reply or delivering communication to the user based on user’s preference and communication format and template would have been obvious. The feature of “user preferred presentation type and format” would inherently includes the user’s desired template.
[7] transmitting, over the one or more networks, the reply to the user device using the corresponding messaging-based communication channel used to transmit the corresponding input communication;
{see Fig. 2, step 208 “Presenting content to the user in a preferred language and preferred layout”,
[0032 … In step 207, the personalized content is transformed into user preferred presentation type and format and … for delivering to the user.]}
[8] subsequent to transmitting the plurality of replies to the plurality of user devices, monitoring for activities of the one or more user devices; and
PNG
media_image5.png
486
702
media_image5.png
Greyscale
{see Fig. 2, step 209 “Monitoring user’s activities, collecting feedback”,
[0032 … In step 207, the personalized content is transformed into user preferred presentation type and format and … for delivering to the user.],
[0033 …monitoring the user’s behavior during the personalized content presentation. The user’s activities monitored … comprise the click events, download events, usability analysis, reading time, and scroll data among many other behavioral aspects of user. ]
SHIVAKUMAR fairly teaches the claimed invention except for item “performance metric” in step [1], (ii) and step [9] of updating the performance metric.
In a similar content management system, AGARWAL ET AL. is cited the use of a performance metric as an indicator that a user will have a response to consuming the content item and step of updating the performance metric of the content item based on information determined from monitoring the activities of the corresponding user, see [0035].
PNG
media_image6.png
475
475
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to application was filed to modify the system of SHIVAKUMAR by including a performance metric as an indicator that a user will have a response to consuming the content item and step of updating the performance metric of the content item based on information determined from monitoring the activities of the corresponding user as taught by AGARWAL ET AL. for effective content management. Rationale G (TSM), combine. The updating of the performance metric would inherently include the monitored content such as selected word or phrase. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to include other performance metric features such as selected word or phrase used in the reply communication features.
Regarding dep. claim 2 (part of 1 above) and respective dep. claim 12 (part of 11 above), which deals with further features of the monitored user activities, received feedback and updating the performance metric, this is taught in SHIVAKUMAR Fig. 2, step 209, “Monitoring user’s activities, collecting feedback” and AGARWAL ET AL. [0035] for the updating of the performance metric features.
Regarding dep. claim 3 (part of 1 above) and respective dep. claim 13 (part of 11 above), which deals with further features of the monitored user activities, performed actions correlative to an effectiveness of the content item and updating the performance metric, this is taught in SHIVAKUMAR [0033] and AGARWAL ET AL. [0035] for the performed effective actions updating of the performance metric features.
{[0033 …monitoring the user’s behavior during the personalized content presentation. The user’s activities monitored … comprise the click events, download events, usability analysis, reading time, and scroll data among many other behavioral aspects of user. ]}
PNG
media_image7.png
148
508
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding dep. claim 4 (part of 1 above) and respective dep. claim 14 (part of 11 above), which deals with further features of the monitored user activities, performed actions indicative of an extent of the user’s engagement, this is taught in SHIVAKUMAR [0033].
{[0033 …monitoring the user’s behavior during the personalized content presentation. The user’s activities monitored … comprise the click events, download events, usability analysis, reading time, and scroll data among many other behavioral aspects of user. ]}
By clicking a portion or all of the events, or download some events, the user’s actions show an extent of the user’s engagement.
Regarding dep. claim 5 (part of 1 above) which deals with further features of the monitored user activities, performed actions such as utilize a product or service that is related to the input communication, this is taught in SHIVAKUMAR [0032], Fig. 2, steps 203, 204, 206, 208 and 209.
{[0032 Content analyzed and categorized in step 202 is further mapped to the user’s knowledge level and user’s preferences about the content type, presentation type and format,…]}
Regarding dep. claim 6 (part of 1 above) which deals with further features of the monitored user activities, terminating a session after receiving the reply communication, this is taught in SHIVAKUMAR [0032], Fig. 2, step 209 and 205 which stores the user activities and collected feedback in the memory and completes the reply communication.
Regarding dep. claim 7 (part of 1 above) and respective dep. claim 15 (part of 11 above), which deals with different channels and formats for collecting of content items, this is taught in SHIVAKUMAR Fig. 1, 101, Content Sources, and respective [023] which teaches different channels and formats for collecting of content items.
PNG
media_image8.png
512
778
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
394
400
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding dep. claim 8 (part of 1 above) and respective dep. claim 16 (part of 11 above), which deals with content items stored and formatted, these are taught in SHIVAKUMAR [0032] which deals with content analyzed, stored and delivered.
PNG
media_image10.png
225
450
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding dep. claim 9 (part of 1 above), which deals with selected content parameters, i.e. based on relevancy determination, this is taught in SHIVAKUMAR Fig. 2, and respective [0032] which deals mapping content to the user’s knowledge levels and user’s preferences and requested by the user.
Regarding dep. claim 10 (part of 1 above), which deals with selected content parameters, i.e. based on a channel used to communicate with the corresponding user device, this is inherently taught in SHIVAKUMAR Fig. 2, and respective [0032] which deals mapping content to the user’s preferences and presented to the user at the user device 130 in step 208 which requires a selective channel of communication.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/4/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
101 Rejection:
PNG
media_image11.png
196
672
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s comment that the steps of “storing data…”, “assembling..”, “transmitting..”, “monitoring activities….” and “updating the performance metrics of the content item” integrate a judicial exception “monitoring a proper response to a user’s input (activity)” into a practical application is not persuasive because these steps are well known mental steps for responding to a received user’s input (activity) by analyzing the key concept (words) of the user’s input and match the key concepts with well known responses.
Applicant’s comparison the current claims to the BASCOM Global Internet case, which is eligible, is not proper.
As shown below, BASCOM Global Internet case deals with Content Filtering technology using content filtering software being installed on a remote server or at remote location with customizable features specific to each end user.
PNG
media_image12.png
470
674
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s comment with respect to the similarity of Example 42 is noted but not found to be persuasive because Example 42 recites a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. Thus it meets the requirement of Step 2A, prong 2. The current claim does not deal with this issue.
4. 103 Rejection:
Applicant’s comment that SHIVAKUMAR/AGARWAL does not teach the amended features is not persuasive in view of the new citations being cited to teach the amended features as cited above.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tan "Dean" D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6806. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 6;30-4:30 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah M Monfeldt can be reached on 571-270-1833. 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.
/TAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689