Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Detailed Action
This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed 04/30/2026.
Claims 2 – 7, 10 – 18, and 20 – 21, are pending; claims 8, 9, and 19 being presently cancelled.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments and remarks of 04/30/2026 have been entered.
Applicant’s withdrawal of claims 20 and 21 is improper and ineffective. The previous Office Action did not specify or require a restriction of certain claims. A cancellation of these claims would properly remove them from further consideration. As such, the Examiner has considered these claims as previously presented and includes certain rejections for these claims herein.
The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action.
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 2 – 7, 10 – 18, and 20 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step 1 of eligibility analysis, the instant claims are directed towards a method and a system; thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories and are considered eligible subject matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One, of analysis, the amended claims set forth a method of collaborative annotating of content among a community of users. Parsing and analyzing of ‘facts’ pertaining to certain logical types requires the users to annotate and provide feedback concerning these ‘facts’ and then scoring the users and their commentary. A final structured argument (statement) is then presented to all users based on the collaborative efforts. These collaborative efforts of this community of users describes social activities of discourse and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. This concept is included within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 2, which is illustrative of claim 20, contains those elements that define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
A method for networked-based collaborative annotation of propositional content, the method comprising:
accessing a network-based digital resource presenting factual elements as part of a series of statement elements;
parsing the factual elements of the series of statement elements from the network-based digital resource, wherein parsing generates a string characterized by a plurality of words;
analyzing the string using an open recursive language model stored in network memory to associate a plurality of different components of the word string with respective logical types, wherein the plurality of different components include a first component that belongs to a first logical type and a second component that belongs to a second logical type;
presenting the string to a community of users in a distributed computer network as an annotatable content layer allowing for synchronous collaboration and that includes a linked representative display of a structured argument in respective associated states corresponding to the associated logical types;
receiving feedback data from the community of users corresponding to annotations of the parsed factual elements of the structured argument, wherein the feedback data is generated based on at least consideration of the first component belonging to the first logical type and the second component belonging to the second logical type;
updating the open recursive language model in response to the received feedback data, wherein the feedback data updates the recursive language model in real-time as it is received from the community of users whereby subsequent string parsing utilizes an updated plurality of components corresponding to the first and second logical type;
modifying the respective associated state of the linked representative display of a structured argument in real-time and in accordance with the updated open recursive model based on feedback specific to a respective associated state of one of the statement element; and
scoring both users from the community of users and the network-based digital resource responsive to an extent of received feedback data, wherein the score of the users and the network-based digital resource further weights and updates the model.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, the Examiner has determined that the identified abstract idea (judicial exception) is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP 2106.05(f) it is noted that simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology.
Claims 2 and 20 recite only the following additional elements:
accessing a network-based digital resource;
an open recursive language model stored in network memory;
a distributed computer network;
the system comprising: a network interface that allows for access to a network-based digital resource;
at least one local memory; and
at least one processor;
instructions stored in the at least one local memory.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has described these computing elements generically in their disclosure, at Specification [0024, 0025, 0032 – 0034], and Figures 6 and 7 as filed. See also [0160 – 0164] describing generic systems.
The claims further include an open recursive language mode stored in network memory. However, the broad definition of this claim element is disclosed as: “Exemplary embodiments can be implemented to provide and allow machine and/or human processing of each of various tasks (e.g., analyzing, parsing, editing, etc.). For example, according to one embodiment, the technological implementation includes a human performing the parsing of a given text, while in alternative embodiments the content is processed automatically according to a natural language model as discussed above“. See Specification [0087]. Thus, Applicant’s definition is congruent to the definition known by one in the art as ‘representing something by breaking it down into components’; i.e., word strings, recited above. Further, an open recursive language model is not detailed within the disclosure, it merely describes an intended result of a general language model employed; “…an open system that is essentially recursive.” See Specification [0095]. Thus, Applicant defines this model broadly as well, which one skilled in the art understands to be a computer program that has been trained on data. This additional element describes mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea within a computer environment to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of: (accessing a network-based digital resource; an open recursive language model stored in network memory; a distributed computer network; the system comprising: a network interface; at least one local memory; and at least one processor; instructions stored in the at least one local memory), amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception within a computer environment cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 3 – 7, 10, 16, and 21, contain limitations that are further refinements to the same abstract ideas found in claims 2 and 20. Recitations to a logical type,; counterpoints, critiques, or rebuttals; arguments; a conversation among two users; and feedback, are all the core facts to be evaluated and opined on and are directed to the abstract idea. These limitations further are performed by the “network-based and computerized system described in claims 2 and 20, which amounts to no more than simply instructing one to implement the abstract ideas within a computer environment. This does not render the claims as being patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Dependent claims 11 – 15 and 17, and 18, contain limitations that are further refinements to the same abstract ideas found in claim 2. Recitations to a web-site, streaming media source, visual mapping, a live event, digital processing and analysis, and visually displaying, are limitations performed within a computer environment – the system broadly defined within claim 2. This does not render the claims as being patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Therefore, for the reasons cited above, claims 2 – 7, 10 – 18, and 20 – 21, are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without reciting significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 04/30/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments discuss rejection of prior claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See page 7. Based on the reasoning that follows, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments.
Applicant first argues that the amendments cement a claimed invention outside the bounds of a mental process. The Examiner concurs with this statement but remarks that the amendments to claim 2 have resulted in the claims now describing collaborative annotating of content among a community of users. Parsing and analyzing of ‘facts’ pertaining to certain logical types requires the users to annotate and provide feedback concerning these ‘facts’ and then scoring the users and their commentary. The collaborative efforts of this community of users describes social activities of discourse (known in the art to be written or spoken communication, debate, or conversation), as well as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (the community of users.) This concept is included within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, Applicant’s amendments to the claims still result in the claims reciting an abstract idea. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant next argues the claims are more than mere instructions to apply an exception within a computer environment. Applicant contends the amendments elements allowable when considered at MPEP 2106.05(a), MPEP 2106.05(c), and MPEP 2106.05(d). See page 8. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant.
At MPEP 2106.05(a), it is noted, if it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The Examiner concludes that the specification does not explicitly set forth any improvement to technology, and Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant discusses improving the content of the discourse, by rebuttal, editing, or revising; but this improves the abstract idea of collaborative interactions and does not put forth steps or components that are improvements to the system utilized.
Applicant’s reliance on MPEP 2106.05(c) is misplaced and also not persuasive. This section of the MPEP, describing a particular transformation, defines an "article" to include a physical object or substance. Applicant’s transformation of data is not on point with MPEP 2106.05(c) and is not persuasive. Further, regarding data, MPEP 2106.05(c) details: for data, mere "manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’" has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1755, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
Applicant’s reliance on MPEP 2106.05(d) is also misplaced. The Examiner has rejected all previous claims as well as the instant amended claims as being mere instructions to apply an exception, per MPEP 2106.05(f), and has not relied on MPEP 2106.05(d), concluding the claims recited well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Therefore, no factual determination to support this conclusion is required. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant next points to the August 04 Memorandum as providing support for eligibility. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Notably, the August 04 Memorandum explicitly noted that no new USPTO practice or procedure was announced for existing USPTO guidance regarding evaluating subject matter eligibility. Thus, the Examiner has concluded and detailed above, that the instant claims set forth a method of collaborative annotation of content among a community of users. These collaborative efforts of the community of users describes social activities of discourse and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. This concept is included within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Further, the combination of additional elements, are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). The Examiner adds that an inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As detailed above, the additional elements within the amended claims include: (accessing a network-based digital resource; an open recursive language model stored in network memory; a distributed computer network; the system comprising: a network interface; at least one local memory; and at least one processor; instructions stored in the at least one local memory). As also detailed above, the Examiner has concluded these amount to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception within a computer environment cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Regarding claims 2 and 20, prior art does not teach nor suggest a system or method as claimed. Based upon amendments to the claims and updated research, the Examiner maintains the conclusion detailed within the Office Action filed 03/19/2025.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST.
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 Monfeldt can be reached at (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 published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DONALD J. EDMONDS
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights