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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on 06/11/2026.
Claims 1, 14, 18 have been amended.
Claim 3 has been canceled.
Claims 1-2, 4-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 06/11/2026 have been fully considered and discussed in the next section. Applicant is reminded that the claims must be given its broadest, reasonable interpretation.
With regard to claims 1-2, 4-21 rejection under 35 USC § 101:
A. The Amended Claims did not Pass Step 2A, Prong Two (Practical Application)
Applicant argues that “By referencing this explicit claim language, it is evident that Claim 1 does not recite a generic business concept. The claimed process requires calculating the spatial geometry of downstream user profiles ("shared user accounts that converted the network link") relative to a derived cluster center ("target node centroid") belonging to a matching product category vertical. Because the host server dynamically reorganizes file access permissions ("electronically enabling access at the server to a higher priority tier") based on this multi-platform cluster relevancy check, the claim addresses a technical problem unique to network systems. The exception is entirely integrated into a practical application, rendering the claim eligible under Step 2A. Put another way, the system of Claim 1 operates by measuring alignment between cross- network social conversions and specialized affinity clusters to dynamically unlock restricted database nodes. This is an inherently technical solution to a network-security and dynamic file- provisioning challenge, which is entirely distinct from generic business administration. The claims thus reflect a clear practical application under MPEP 2106.04 (page 3/9)”.
Examiner disagrees. The claimed process that requires calculating the spatial geometry of downstream user profiles ("shared user accounts that converted the network link") relative to a derived cluster center ("target node centroid") belonging to a matching product category vertical and or result in dynamically reorganizes file access permissions ("electronically enabling access at the server to a higher priority tier") based on this multi-platform cluster relevancy check, is directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis.
Since analyzing data is part of the abstract idea itself, any improvement obtained by automating the analyzing of the data in an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matters (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.
As such, claim 1 as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
The use and the recitation of the server and network is merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. That is the claimed server still has the same processor, the same amount of memory, and still functions in the stands way a server and/ or a network is intended to function. The claimed network still has the same amount of bandwidth and performs its functionality of connecting a group of two or more connected devices or parts that share information and resources. Thus, there is no change to the claimed server itself, or the network in which they are capable of functioning. That is the claimed server and the claimed network fails to (a) improve another technology or technical field and (b) improve the functioning of the computer itself and (c) applies the abstract idea with or by use of, a particular machine, which is a generic computer performing generic computer functions and are not seen to recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Thus, any improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea, is an improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied. This type of judicial exception merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and thus, claim 1 is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1-2, 4-21 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
B. The Examiner did not Misapplication of SAP v. Investpic
Applicant argues that “Claim 1 does not merely gather social analytics to display a business report; it introduces a highly specific, software-driven gating mechanism that fundamentally changes how a server provisions system data nodes to remote clients over a network. As mentioned above, the server does not perform generic, broad data-gathering, but rather is structurally confined to active network signaling by (i) "exchanging application programming interface (API) requests and calls with the social media server to process an amount of sharing of a network link... and whether a share is converted," and the system (ii) calculates a "distance-based centroid clustering algorithm that normalizes a geometric distance of shared user accounts that converted the network link relative to a target node centroid within an affinity cluster of the network," which is dynamically tied to a targeted domain (iii) by ensuring that "the target node centroid relates to a category of products including the list of content," and outputs (iv) an automated data-permission protocol by "electronically enabling access at the server to a higher priority tier of the prioritized list of tiers of content for the first user account." When the claim language is properly considered as a whole, the improvement is not a mere business advantage; it is an optimization of network resource management and dynamic data security gating. As explicitly detailed in paragraph [0005] of the specification, the server implements this technical architecture to resolve a network resource bottleneck. Rather than providing broad client access to massive content payloads-which exhausts server memory, drains processing power, and floods available network bandwidth-the system uses the dynamic, cluster-verified API conversion loop to open restricted nodes sequentially. By restricting specific data assets based on verified network propagation distance calculations, the system preserves server memory cycles and prevents excess data traffic, optimizing the available bandwidth of the network as a whole. This is a technical solution to a technical problem, satisfying Step 2A, Prong Two (page 6/9)”.
Examiner disagrees. the process of (i) "exchanging application programming interface (API) requests and calls with the social media server to process an amount of sharing of a network link... and whether a share is converted," (ii) calculates a "distance-based centroid clustering algorithm that normalizes a geometric distance of shared user accounts that converted the network link relative to a target node centroid within an affinity cluster of the network," which is dynamically tied to a targeted domain (iii) by ensuring that "the target node centroid relates to a category of products including the list of content," and outputs (iv) an automated data-permission protocol by "electronically enabling access at the server to a higher priority tier of the prioritized list of tiers of content for the first user account" is directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis.
Since analyzing data is part of the abstract idea itself, any improvement obtained by automating the analyzing of the data in an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matters (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.
As such, claim 1 as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes). The use and the recitation of the server and network is merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed.
In order for a claim to overcome a rejection under Step 2a, Prong 2, the purported improvement must be rooted in the “additional elements” of the claim in a manner other than merely applying the abstract idea using a general-purpose computer with generic computer components. “Additional elements” are defined as those elements of a claim that are not part of the abstract idea itself. The only “additional elements” in the claims are a computer system comprising a data store which is a general-purpose computer with generic computer components that is used as a tool to merely apply the abstract idea.
As such, the “additional elements” of the claim, whether considered individually or as a whole, are incapable of transforming the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2. The argued limitations that purportedly result in the argued improvement are all part of the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using the general-purpose computer with generic computer components. Improvements of this nature are improvements rooted solely in the abstract idea itself and are considered an improvement to an abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matter (see MPEP 2106.05(a) - “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement”; and MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) - “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology”; and the SAP v Investpic decision - Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.).
As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1-2, 4-21 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
C. The Amended Claims did not Pass Step 2B: The Ordered Combination Recites an Inventive Concept
Applicant argues that “Claim 1 does not merely recite applying conventional steps at a high level of generality. The inventive concept of Claim 1 is found in the tightly integrated, interdependent relationship between cross-platform data actions and internal database permissions. Looking at features of Claim 1 as an ordered combination, the claim pairs:" The extraction of remote, dynamic link propagation metrics ("whether a share is converted") via automated server-to-server interaction ("exchanging API requests and calls"), with " An active, geometric graph optimization protocol ("distance-based centroid clustering algorithm" evaluating destination endpoints relative to an "affinity cluster" corresponding to a specific "category of products"), which directly dictates " Real-time file system restructuring at a localized machine ("dynamically determined" node placement and "electronically enabling access at the server to a higher priority tier"). This precise combination is highly unconventional and prevents preemption of social media marketing because it restricts the claim's scope to a specific execution of functions: one where social media network-link conversions are geometrically normalized against category centroids to control data payload visibility on an application interface. Put another way, the claims establish a reciprocal feedback loop where success of distributed network links (conversions by shared user accounts) is algorithmically mapped against a product-category cluster centroid to alter localized user file-access permissions at the host server. This specific, structural intertwining of network link conversion metrics with localized database access-control permissions is deeply embedded in computer technology and does not preempt the abstract concept of marketing (page 7/9)”.
Examiner disagrees. the claimed steps that “establish a reciprocal feedback loop where success of distributed network links (conversions by shared user accounts) is algorithmically mapped against a product-category cluster centroid to alter localized user file-access permissions” is directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis.
Since analyzing data is part of the abstract idea itself, any improvement obtained by automating the analyzing of the data in an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matters (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.
As such, claim 1 as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes). The use and the recitation of the server and network is merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed.
In order for a claim to overcome a rejection under Step 2a, Prong 2, the purported improvement must be rooted in the “additional elements” of the claim in a manner other than merely applying the abstract idea using a general-purpose computer with generic computer components. “Additional elements” are defined as those elements of a claim that are not part of the abstract idea itself. The only “additional elements” in the claims are a computer system comprising a data store which is a general-purpose computer with generic computer components that is used as a tool to merely apply the abstract idea.
The use of generic computer components to transmit information through a graphical user interface does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements of server and network do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. As such looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Further more, MPEP 2106.04 I which recites in part (emphasis added): “While preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, questions of preemption are inherent in and resolved by the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (the Alice/Mayo test referred to by the Office as Steps 2A and 2B). Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1150, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379, 115 USPQ2d 1152, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2015).”
It is respectfully submitted that in the present case, as seen in the Final Rejection and above, the Office analyzed the claims under 2A and 2B, thus resolving the question of preemption. Specifically, under 2A it was concluded that claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application, and under 2B it was determined that additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, when evaluated individually and in combination, did not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 1-2, 4-21 under 35 USC § 101 is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Applicant argues that “ Under DDR Holdings, the claims remain patent-eligible as they are structurally confined to solving a platform-access vulnerability unique to the internet environment, and this ordered combination alters how an internet server routes and manages content tier access based on external network graph conversions. As such, the claims provide a meaningful technical limitation that satisfies Step 2B. The Examiner distinguishes BASCOM Global Internet Services Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), by stating that the instant claims do not constitute an "arrangement of parts," but merely recite conventional servers executing standard processes. Applicant respectfully traverses this narrow interpretation. In Bascom, the inventive concept did not reside in inventing a brand-new hardware filter, but rather in the unconventional distribution and placement of a customizable filtering tool within a network architecture to achieve content filtering specific to individual accounts. Amended Claim 1 presents an identical, technology-gated parallel, as in BASCOM. While a server, an API, and a social network are individually well-known general elements, their structural ordering and executed functionality within Claim 1 creates a highly restrictive, unconventional data pipeline where: the host server locks down standard content repositories into a split tiered-node grid ("dynamic determined positions" versus "static positions") and the key required to alter the localized file system's access state is tied to an automated server-to-server API validation loop that evaluates the topological placement of downstream users ("shared user accounts that converted the network link") relative to a calculated cluster center ("target node centroid"). Because the claims define a specific, non-conventional structural architecture that bridges remote graph-conversion metrics with localized security state transitions, they recite an inventive concept under Step 2B that safely survives Section 101 scrutiny. Accordingly, the pending claims recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Withdrawal of the outstanding eligibility rejection is respectfully requested (page 8/9)”.
Examiner disagrees. The instant claimed invention and Bascom have different claim sets and different fact patterns. in Bascom, the Courts concluded that the claim limitation takes as an “ordered combination” under step two are an inventive concept, sufficient for patent eligibility under 35 USC 101. Because of the ordered combination elements, the claims in Bascom were considered to improve the functionality of the computer, and thus amounted to significantly more.
Unlike the arrangement in BASCOM Global Internet Services Inc. V. AT&T Mobility LLC, the instant claims do not constitute an arrangement of parts, but rather conventional servers, processors, etc. In the instant claims’ invocation of computers, networks and displays does not transform the claimed subject matter into patent-eligible applications. As evident by Applicant’s specification “A general-purpose server computer, a personal computer, or the like can be used for the processing apparatus 1, and the information processing apparatus 1 can be configured using a plurality of computers (paragraph 33-34 and 45)”.
Also, the use of a server and network that exchange application programming requests and calls fails to (a) improve another technology or technical field and (b) improve the functioning of the computer itself and (c) applies the abstract idea with or by use of, a particular machine, which is a generic computer performing generic computer functions and are not seen to recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Indeed, the identified improvements recited by Applicant are really, at best improvements to the performance of the abstract idea (e.g., improvements made in the underlying business method (to process an amount of sharing a network link associated with the first content over the network and whether a share is converted," which is used as a trigger to electronically enabling access at the server to a higher priority tier of the prioritized list of tiers of content for the first user account) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology.
As such, the examiner finds that any improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is an improvement to a business process. Second, under Step 2a, Prong 2, the improvement to a technology or technological field must be rooted in the additional element. Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself.
In the instant case the only additional elements are a server , API and network, which are just general-purpose computers with generic computing components upon which the abstract idea is applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 or be considered significantly more under Step 2b. that is looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Thus, any improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea, is an improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied. Improvements of this nature are not patent eligible (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because there are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.). Thus, the rejection has been maintained.
Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 1-2, 4-21 under 35 USC § 10rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
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 1-2, 4-21 are directed to a system and a method which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes). However, claims 1-2, 4-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea:
receiving, a list of content;
dividing content of the list of content into a normal set and an exclusive set;
ranking content of the normal set based on a user preference vector, wherein the user preference vector is determined according to data available per user accounts that is indicative of prior consumption of related content;
creating a prioritized list of tiers of content, wherein each tier includes a plurality of nodes populated with content from the ranked normal set at positions of the plurality of nodes dynamically determined per the user accounts and with content from the exclusive set at a static position;
publishing, the prioritized list of tiers of content and restricting access to certain tiers of the prioritized list of tiers of content;
receiving, a selection of a first content from a first tier, wherein the first tier is an unrestricted tier and the selection is associated with a first user account;
determining, a social engagement factor (SEF) for the first user account based on an amount of social media activity that is associated with the first content and is attributed to the first user account, wherein tracks the social media activity by exchanging application programming interface (API) requests and calls with the social media to process an amount of sharing of a network link associated with the first content and whether a share is converted, and wherein determining the amount of social media activity of the SEF comprises calculating an engagement rate via a distance-based centroid clustering algorithm that normalizes a geometric distance of shared user accounts that converted the link relative to a target node centroid within an affinity cluster and the target node centroid relates to a category of products including the list of content; and
based on the SEF for the first user account, electronically enabling to a higher priority tier of the prioritized list of tiers of content for the first user account;
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of a computer with one or more hardware processors coupled to a non-transitory memory and configured to execute software instructions ( API and computing device, server , network (e.g. a general purpose computer with generic computer components) and a database to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and one or more generic computer component.
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, storing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying data and, as such, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
receiving, at a server, a list of content;
receiving, from a computing device accessing the server over the network, a selection of a first content from a first tier, wherein the first tier is an unrestricted tier and the selection is associated with a first user account;
More The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and generic computer components performing a generic computers function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and generic computer components. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on one or more computers, or merely uses computers as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes). When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a computer with one or more hardware processors coupled to a non-transitory memory and configured to execute software instructions ( API and computing device, server , network (e.g. a general purpose computer with generic computer components) and a database to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and one or more generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on one or more computers, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires one or more general-purpose computer and generic computer components (as evidenced from paragraphs 33 and 45 of the applicant’s specification) and the affinity v Direct TV decision which states that a database is a generic computer component); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility.
Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, displaying, storing, and/or transmitting data (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
receiving, at a server, a list of content;
receiving, from a computing device accessing the server over the network, a selection of a first content from a first tier, wherein the first tier is an unrestricted tier and the selection is associated with a first user account;
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e., “PEG” Step 2B=No). For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible. Same Judicial analysis is applied here to independent claims 14 and 18.
The dependent claims 2,4-13, 15-17 and 19-20 appears to merely further limit the abstract idea: distributing content from the ranked normal set into the plurality of nodes per tier such that each tier is populated with both high ranking content and low ranking content (claims 2 and 15); accessing social media monitoring software to analyze social media posts associated with a social media account linked to the first user account (claim 4); determining the SEF for the first user account based on accumulating the amount of social media activity over the network over time that is associated with the first content and is attributed to the first user account, wherein the SEF varies over time based on the amount of social media activity (claims 5 and 16); receiving a list including one or more of merchandise information, promotions, and discounts.( claim 6); receiving a list of products (claim 7); wherein the exclusive set is determined based on extrinsic properties of the products including a value of the products (claim 8); assigning a point total for the first user account based on a number of selections of the first content from the first tier by all the user accounts; determining a score for the first user account based on the point total multiplied by the SEF; and wherein electronically enabling access at the server to the higher priority tier of the prioritized list of tiers of content for the first user account comprises: determining that the score for the first user account is above a threshold; based on determining that the score for the first user account is above the threshold, electronically enabling access at the server to the higher priority tier of the prioritized list of tiers of content for the first user account (claim 9); modifying content included in the prioritized list of tiers of content that is accessible at the server by the first user account (claim 10); after expiration of a time period, the server sending an electronic notification to the first user account indicating availability to execute an electronic transaction over the network for all selected content (claims 11,17, 19); electronically enabling access at the server to subsequent higher priority tiers of the prioritized list of tiers of content for the first user account, in a serial manner, based on the SEF for the first user account satisfying a threshold for the amount of social media activity required for content selected in a respective tier and being attributed to the first user account ( claims 12, 20); determining unselected content in the prioritized list of tiers of content; creating an updated prioritized list of tiers of content by removing at least some of the unselected content from some tiers of content; and republishing, by the server, the updated prioritized list of tiers of content (claim 13); wherein the function of determining the SEF for the first user account comprises: determining the SEF for the first user account based on accumulating the amount of social media activity over the network over time that is associated with the first content and is attributed to the first user account, wherein the SEF varies over time based on the amount of social media activity (claim 21); and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No). Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-2, 4-21 are not patent eligible.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-21 would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant were to be able to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections identified above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The most relevant prior the examiner has found is:
Hollis et al, Pub No : 2021/0256627 A1 teaches Disclosed herein are systems and methods for internet publishing. In some aspects, the systems and methods may be implemented by software designed for users such as, for example, small businesses, to manage and implement an online digital strategy. A digital web-based platform, for example, may be used to establish and expand the online presence of a brand. In some aspects, the systems and methods may be implemented to publish, syndicate, and monetize content in an automated and seamless manner from a single interface as well as to monitor and respond to information relevant to such content.
Yang et al, US Pub No: 2022/0038402 A1 teaches Systems, devices, methods, media, and instructions for automated image processing and content curation are described. In one embodiment a server computer system receives a plurality of content communications from a plurality of client devices, each content communication comprising an associated piece of content and a corresponding metadata. Each content communication is processed to determine associated context values for each piece of content, each associated context value comprising at least one content value generated by machine vision processing of the associated piece of content. A first content collection is automatically generated based on context values, and a set of user accounts are associated with the collection. An identifier associated with the first content collection is published to user devices associated with user accounts. In various additional embodiments, different content values, image processing operations, and content selection operations are used to curate content collections.
Lockton et al, US Pub No: 2021/0146238 A1 teaches A game of skill played simultaneously by several players whereby each participant effectively competes only against players having a similar skill tier to provide a better opportunity to win awards. The system includes a central computer system with each remote participant having a mobile device such as a cell phone. The system also provides for effective promotion or updating to a higher skill tier of successful players of the game. Each skill tier adds complexity which increase point potentials. The game play is relatively easy initially, permitting new users to enjoy success in the game. As the user becomes more skilled and reaches higher tiers prizes increase and game elements become more challenging thus motivating continued play while retaining a player's interest. While players are able to view all scores including those in higher tiers, they will know that players in other tiers had more opportunities to earn points.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant' s disclosure.
Maharajh, US Pub No: 2008/0201225 A, teaches the present invention provides a method and system for delivery of content on a mobile media platform, providing a consumption profile, and delivering content to a mobile device, wherein content delivery is based at least in part on the consumption profile. Further, in embodiments, the present invention provides a consumption profile for a mobile media platform comprising a device profile, a user profile, a network profile, an encoding profile, and a content profile.
Thomas et al, US Pub No: 2023/0245162 A1 teaches Systems and methods are provided for recommending benefit types of benefit items to offer within a membership platform. Exemplary implementations may: obtain benefit information for content creators of a membership platform; obtain creator profile information for content creators of a membership platform, the creator profile information including individual creator types of individual content creators; obtain benefit information for the content creators, the benefit information including descriptions of benefit items offered by the content creators to subscribers of the membership platform in exchange for consideration, the benefit items being characterized by benefit types; generate, based on the creator profile information and the benefit information, recommendations for the benefit types of the benefit items the content creators of a given creator type should offer; effectuate presentation of the recommendations on a user interface displayed on computing platforms of the content creators; and/or perform other operations.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 files within TWO MONTHS from 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Affaf Ahmed whose telephone number is 571-270-1835. The examiner can normally be reached on [ Mon-Thursday 8-6 pm ].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached at 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 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.
/AFAF OSMAN BILAL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights