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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17 (e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/30/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1,14, 18 have been amended.
Claim 21 has been added.
Claims 3 has been canceled.
Claims 1-2, 4-21are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 09/30/2025 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 1-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101:
A. The Pending Claims are not directed to an Abstract Idea identified by the Examiner
Applicant argues that “ The pending claims are not merely directed to organizing human activity/business activities that fall within any of the enumerated sub-groupings of business relations recited in the MPEP, but instead involve specific, novel technological elements. Claim 1, for example, recites "the server tracks the social media activity over the network by exchanging application programming interface (API) requests and calls with the social media server to process an amount of sharing a network link associated with the first content over the network and whether a share is converted." Such electronic interaction between two remotely located servers is unrelated to the specific business activities enumerated by the MPEP as business relations. Because the pending claims do not fall within the enumerated sub-grouping of business relations for the "Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas, the claims are not directed to the Abstract Idea identified by the Examiner ( page 1/6)”.
Examiner disagrees. the recitation of claim 1 of: "the server tracks the social media activity over the network by exchanging application programming interface (API) requests and calls with the social media server to process an amount of sharing a network link associated with the first content over the network and whether a share is converted" 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, the 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).
Also, the recitation of the additional elements of using “ a server, a network that perform exchanging application programming interface (API)” is merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. 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 1-20 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
B. The Pending Claims are further not directed to a Judicial Exception because the Claims as-a-whole Integrate any Exception into a Practical Application:
1. The Claimed Invention Improves Network Optimization and Performance as a whole :
Applicant argues that “The Examiner's position fails to recognize the technical improvements embedded in the claimed method, which involve network optimization and improved network performance as a result of changes in function of the server. Improvements in the context of § 101 are not only limited to an improvement that effects a change in the "actual computer" itself, as the Examiner requires. In contrast, in the context of the claimed invention, the technological improvement relating to network optimization and performance as a whole, not to any one computer, qualifies as an improvement that integrates the exception into a practical application. The pending claims recite "the server tracks the social media activity over the network by exchanging application programming interface (API) requests and calls with the social media server to process an amount of sharing a network link associated with the first content over the network and whether a share is converted," and "based on the SEF for the first user account, electronically enabling access at the server to a higher priority tier of the prioritized list of tiers of content for the first user account." (Claim 1). As a result, the claim as a whole introduces new and efficient improvements in the ways that the server makes determinations for enabling electronic access to the content offerings over the network per user account, rather than previous content systems enabling a user with full access to any number of content that requires the server to have a larger supply of memory, processing power available to serve all content to all users, and requires usage of more network bandwidth. By restricting certain content to certain users at certain times, on the basis of user account activity, the server operates more efficiently and more quickly, and requires less processing power, and excess data traffic is avoided resulting in an optimized usage of available bandwidth of the network. Aspects of the claimed invention thus are directed to technological improvements in both content delivery and network resource management. The claimed improvements further are technological in nature, rather than a method limited to merely applying an abstract idea (e.g., ranking or filtering content). Pending claims involve a novel and specific method of content delivery, which requires the use of the recited specialized algorithm including server- and social media server-based decision logic to achieve improvements in the overall network performance. Because the pending claims recite features that improve the functioning of the network as a whole, the claimed elements (as a whole) integrate any judicial exception into a practical application, thus rendering the claim patent eligible under § 101 (page 3/6)”.
Examiner disagrees. The claims do not recite network optimization and/ or improved network performance as a result of changes in function of the server. network optimization and improved network performance, does not change nor effect the actual computer itself.
The computer still has the same processor, the same amount of memory, and still functions in the stands way a computer is intended to function. The network still has the same amount of bandwidth. Thus, there is no change to the computer itself or the way in which it is capable of functioning.
Any purported improvement in regards to performing specific method of content delivery, which requires the use of the recited specialized algorithm including server- and social media server-based decision logic to achieve improvements in the overall network performance that are required to processes by the server set are rooted solely in perform the identified abstract idea that is merely being applied with a general-purpose computer. Improvements of this nature are improvements in inelligible subject matter (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.). The same is true for the purported technological fields of content delivery, which requires the use of the recited specialized algorithm including server- and social media server-based decision logic.
The purported improvements are rooted solely in the abstract idea itself that is merely applied using a general purpose computer. As such, an purported improvement in what the applicant calls a technical field is an improvement in ineligible subject matter. In order for an improvement to a technology or technological filed to overcome a 35 USC 101 rejection, the purported improvement must be rooted in the "additional elements" which in this case they are not. The claimed additional elements are merely a general purpose computer upon which an abstract idea is merely being applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2.
Thus, there is no improvement to the functioning of the network as a whole, the claimed elements (as a whole) do not integrate any judicial exception into a practical application, thus rendering the claim patent ineligible under § 101.
As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
2. The Pending Claims, as a whole, Include a Combination of Additional Unconventional Elements that Confine any Judicial Exception (Abstract Idea) to a Particular, Practical Application
Applicant argues that “ Limitations that confine the judicial exception to a particular, practical application of the judicial exception amount to significantly more or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For example, in BASCOM, the combination of additional elements, and specifically "the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user" where the filtering tool at the ISP was able to "identify individual accounts that communicate with the ISP server, and to associate a request for Internet content with a specific individual account," were held to be meaningful limitations because they confined the abstract idea of content filtering to a particular, practical application of the abstract idea. 827 F.3d at 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d at 1243. (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(3)). Unlike the claimed system, previous content systems enable browsing on websites where a user has full choice and access to any number or type of an offer via an electronic transaction. (See, paragraph [0002]). Targeted offers to users can be made, however, prior art targeting is controlled by access of the content supplier. Instead, the claim recites a "technology-based solution" of enabling access to electronic content that overcomes the disadvantages of prior art systems by putting the user account in control of what data is electronically available to which user account and at what time period on the basis of social media activity over the network per user account. Like BASCOM, the combination of additional elements in the claim, and specifically filtering content offerings at the server, remote from end-users, with filtering customized dynamically per user on the basis of the social medial activity over the network, where the server. identifies and "tracks the social media activity over the network by exchanging application programming interface (API) requests and calls with the social media server 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, are meaningful limitations because they confine the abstract idea of content filtering to a particular, practical application of the abstract idea. (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(3)). Because the pending claims include a combination of additional unconventional elements, the claims confine any judicial exception (abstract idea) to a particular, practical application, thus rendering the claim patent eligible under § 101 for at least the same reasons as held in BASCOM (page 5/6)”.
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.
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 1-20 rejection 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 rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception subject matter, specifically an abstract idea. The analysis for this determination is explained below:
Step 1, determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. In this case, Step 1, determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claim (s) 1-2, 4-13 are directed to a process (i.e. a method); claim(s) 14-17 are directed to a machine (i.e. a system); claim (s) 18-21 are directed to a manufacture (i.e. a non transitory computer medium).
The claimed invention is directed to at least one judicial exception (i.e a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim (s) 1, for instance 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, accessing, 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 accessing a social media, a social engagement factor (SEF) for the first user account , herein the server tracks the social media activity over the network by exchanging application programming interface (API) requests and calls with the social media server to process an amount of sharing of a network link associated with the first content over the network and whether a share is converted; andbased on the SEF for the first user account, electronically enabling access at the server 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 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. “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 computing device, server , network, API ”. The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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 a computer, or merely uses a computer 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.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “a computing device, server , network, API”, to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a 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 a computer, 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 a general purpose computers communicating over a general purpose network (as evidenced from paragraphs 33 and 45); 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 are considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, storing and/or transmitting data:
receiving, at a server, a list of content; dividing content of the list of content into a normal set and an exclusive set;
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 exception 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 of Certain methods of organizing Human Activity” as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), by adding additional steps of “ 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 2,4-13, 15-17 and 19-21 are not patent eligible.
Thus, the dependent claims further narrows the abstract idea and/or recite additional elements monitoring software (claim 4); previously rejected in the independent claims 1, 14 and 18 .
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2,4-21 would be allowable if the applicant were to be able to overcome the Claim rejection under 35 USC § 101.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter, none of the cited reference discloses the claimed features of independent of claims 1, 14 and 18. As such, the examiner, has been unable to find prior art that discloses the combination of the claimed features and claimed feature of claim 9 of : determining a score for the first user account based on the point total multiplied by the SEF:
Thus, the claims contain subject matter that would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant to be able to overcome the claim rejections under 35 USC § 101, above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Thomas et al, US Pub No: 2023/0245162 A1, teaches systems and methods to recommend benefit types of Benefit items to offer within a membership platform.
Zambelli et al, US Pub No: 2024/0061911 A1 teaches methods for enabling access to content offerings involves electronically enabling access at server to higher tier of prioritized list of tiers content for first user account.
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 [M- R 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