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 .
Response to Amendment
The following is a FINAL Office action in reply to the Amendments and Arguments received on July 27, 2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, , 15, and 18 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-7 are drawn to methods while claim(s) 8-20 is/are drawn to an apparatus. As such, claims 1-20 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
Claim 1 (representative of independent claim(s) 8 and 15) recites the following steps:
A method for moderating terms of service (ToS) violations, the method comprising:
receiving, a set of a ToS violation indication; each ToS violation indication of the set of ToS violation indications being associated with a ToS violation category;
generating a first result based on at least one model processing the set of ToS violation indications to determine that the set of ToS violation indications is not false positive reporting of a ToS violation
selecting, via the at least one computer processor and for each ToS violation indication of the set of ToS violation indications, a corresponding filter model from a set of category specific filter models based on the ToS violation category associated with the ToS violation indication;
generating, a second result based on the corresponding filter model processing at least the first result and the ToS violation indication to filter out the ToS violation indication when the corresponding filter model predicts that the ToS violation indication is false positive reporting of the ToS violation;
assigning, for each unfiltered ToS violation indication not filtered out by the corresponding filter model, a priority score to the set of ToS violation indications unfiltered ToS violation indication based on a prediction output of the corresponding ML filter model;
generating, a moderation report comprising the second result, the unfiltered ToS violation indication, and the priority score;
providing the moderation report to one or more agents in a moderation queue ordered based on the priority score
receiving a set of annotations from the one or more agents for the moderation report, the set of annotations indicating whether the second result generated by the corresponding ML filter model is accurate;
generating training labels for the corresponding filter model based on the set of annotations;
updating, one or more of the corresponding filter model and the at least one model based on the training labels
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) moderating terms of service violations (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "mental processes" subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Alternatively, these steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass learning models which are a mathematical relationship. These limitations therefore fall within the “mathematical concepts” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 8 and 15 are determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of:
via at least one computer processor,
via the at least one computer processor performing a first machine-learning (ML) process based at least in part on at least one ML model and one or more operations,
machine learning model
machine learning filter model
via the at least one computer processor performing the first ML process,,
via the at least one computer processor performing the second ML process,
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions for moderating terms of service (ToS) violations, that, when executed by at least one computer processor,
A system for moderating terms of service (ToS) violations, comprising: a memory; and at least one computer processor coupled to the memory
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on producing the abstract idea and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A -Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above in "Step 2A - Prong 2", the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words "apply it" on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding Dependent Claims:
Dependent claims 6, 7, 13, 14, and 19-20 fail to include any additional elements and are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner.
Dependent claims 2-5, 9, 10- 12 and 16-18 include additional limitations that are part of the abstract idea except for:
on an electronic-commerce platform (Claim 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, 17)
network-enabled chat (Claim 3, 10, 17)
via the at least one computer processor (Claim 5, 12)
The additional elements of the dependent claims are equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
Additionally, regarding dependent claims 4, 11 and 18, “Step 2A - Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of “wherein the actions further comprise at least one of allowing a listing of an item for sale on an electronic-commerce platform, blocking the listing of the item, allowing a message of a network-enabled chat between two users of an electronic-commerce platform, hiding the message, or banning a user from using the electronic-commerce platform” serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(g, h)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: The amended features of claim 1, and similarly claims 8 and 15, cannot practically be
performed in the human mind. For example, a human cannot mentally perform the claimed operations of selecting a corresponding ML filter model from a set of category-specific ML filter models, executing that corresponding ML filter model to filter out likely false-positive indications before moderator review, generating a moderation report containing an ML-generated second result and priority score, inserting the moderation report into a moderation queue ordered by priority score, generating training labels from moderator annotations, and updating the corresponding ML filter model based on those training labels. These are not merely observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions. They are computer-implemented operations that control data routing, filtering, queue generation, and ML-model updating within a content-moderation system.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that as stated in the updated 101 rejection above, the particular “selecting …” and “assigning… and “generating" features of the claims are SO broad that they could reasonably be done mentally in the human mind as part of an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. Generating a report or labels is not consider a technical improvement. There is nothing in the claim language nor in the specification that would prohibit such an implementation. In fact, there is no limiting technology tied to these features at all other a generic memory and processor. Therefore, contrary to applicant's assertion, these claimed features can and should be deemed part of a recited abstract idea categorized in Mental Process. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Examiner further maintains that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer,” and that “courts have found requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The Examiner also notes that “both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The instant clams specifically speak to an agent providing the annotations for the report, which further commits the claims the abstract idea of certain methods of human activity.
Lastly, the machine learning features are evaluated as an additional element. It is not a part of the abstract idea. The receiving, generating and selecting steps can be done by mental process.
Applicant Argues: Claim 1 does not merely recite training or retraining an ML model on data in a particular field. Rather, the claim recites a specific sequence of computer implemented operations: selecting a corresponding category-specific ML filter model based on the ToS violation category; using that corresponding model to filter out likely false positives before moderator review; generating moderation reports for unfiltered indications; ordering those reports in a moderation queue by priority score; receiving moderator annotations for those reports; generating training labels from the annotations; and updating the corresponding ML filter model based on the generated training labels. Thus, the independent claims are not directed to the abstract idea of using ML to make a prediction. The claims instead recite a particular improvement to an automated moderation system that reduces false positive reports reaching moderation agents and improve the category-specific ML filters using annotation-based training labels.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Court was clear in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, 830 F. 3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016) that the important distinction to draw regarding the decision in Enfish and how it relates to any claimed subject matter in question is that the focus of the claims need be on an improvement in computers as tools, not just on abstract ideas that use computers as tools. (See Electric Power Group at 8. "The claims here are unlike the claims in Enfish. There, we relied on the distinction made in Alice between, on one hand, computer-functionality improvements and, on the other, uses of existing computers as tools in aid of processes focused on “abstract ideas” (in Alice, as in so many other § 101 cases, the abstract ideas being the creation and manipulation of legal obligations such as contracts involved in fundamental economic practices). Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; see Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. That distinction, the Supreme Court recognized, has common-sense force even if it may present line-drawing challenges because of the programmable nature of ordinary existing computers. In Enfish, we applied the distinction to reject the § 101 challenge at stage one because the claims at issue focused not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put, but on a specific improvement—a particular database technique—in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; see Bascom, 2016 WL 3514158, at *5; cf Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (noting basic storage function of generic computer). The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.”) (emphasis added)
Based on these findings of fact, the claimed subject matter at best is using a general purpose computer as a tool, but fails to provide any improvement to said computer. The Examiner respectfully notes that the needed "improvement" in terms of patent eligibility is not one resulting from programming a generic processor to perform a different (or even improved) function, but rather a specific and actual improvement to the machine itself is needed. Based on these findings of fact, the Examiner contends the claims are indeed directed towards an abstract idea and Applicant's arguments to the contrary are considered to be non-persuasive.
The Examiner notes that the claimed subject matter could clearly be performed by a human user via a manual and/or mental process, or with pen and paper, and performing said operations on a general-purpose computer at best ties the abstract idea(s) to an online environment. And while implementing the claimed subject matter on a computer may speed up the process, these gains in speed are at best from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, rather than the patented method itself. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed Cir. 2012) ("[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter."). And as in FairWarning (FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), the Court was clear in FairWarning that "[...] As we have explained, "the fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter." Bancorp Servs., 687 F.3d. at 1278."
Based on these findings of fact, the examiner considers applicant's argument to be non-persuasive.
Applicant Argues: But even if claims 1, 8, and 15 do recite abstract ideas (which Applicant does not agree), claims 1, 8, and 15, as amended, have additional elements that integrate the alleged abstract ideas into a practical application, or that amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract ideas,
because they provide at least improvement to a technical field.
The Examiner notes that this claim of significantly more is not representative of an "actual" improvement to the technology itself, but at best is an improvement to the business method or abstract idea itself. In fact, Applicant can provide no tangible findings that there was actually anything different and/or improved in the instant system compared to prior "conventional systems", other than a mere allegation and unsubstantiated, conclusory statement that the instant invention improves existing systems and is significantly more than the abstract idea. However, the Examiner respectfully notes that the features of the claimed invention (i.e. moderating term of service violations using a machine learning filter model) does not represent an improvement, it is merely performing operations with a device. The Applicant cannot point to anything that was specifically done either in the claimed subject matter, the specification, or provided reasoning to show how this is significantly more or provides an improvement to the technology of the conventional system implementation. Moreover, the Examiner respectfully notes that the needed "improvement" in terms of patent eligibility is not one resulting from programming a generic processor to perform a different (or even improved) function, but rather a specific and actual improvement to the machine itself is needed. Based on these findings of fact, the Examiner contends the claims are indeed directed towards an abstract idea and Applicant's arguments to the contrary are considered to be non-persuasive.
Regarding the second machine learning process, Examiner contends that the filtering of inaccurate predictions and essentially rerunning the learning model is how learning models operate and would not be considered an improvement.
Applicant Argues: Claim 1 does not merely "apply" an abstract idea using a generic processor. Instead, the claim recites using ToS violation categories to select corresponding category-specific ML filter models, using those ML filter models to prevent likely false-positive indications from being forwarded to agents, creating moderation reports only for unfiltered indications, ordering those reports in a moderation queue based on ML-generated priority scores, and using agent annotations as training labels for updating the corresponding category-specific ML filter model. These limitations improve the operation of the claimed moderation system by reducing unnecessary moderator review and by improving the ML filters using labels generated from the same moderation workflow.
Applicant claims that the instant application improves filters using labels/ annotations that are sent by agents. This alleged improvement is not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. A showing that a claim is directed to any improvement does not automatically mean a claim is patent eligible (e.g., an improved business function or an improved idea itself is not patent eligible).
Applicant Argues: independent claims 1, 8, and 15, as amended, are patent-eligible under Step 2B of the Revised Guidance. The amended claims recite a specific, ordered combination of the following operations that was not alleged by the Office Action to be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
In combination, the steps disclose a sequence of operations that include receiving data, analyzing the data for false positives, and making predictions about future false positives based on the received and analyzed data . The only arguable inventive aspect of this set of steps is the particulars of the information processed. Apart from such particulars as is known of those of ordinary skill , the claimed combination of operations amounts to a generic, routine and conventional sequence of generic, routine and conventional operations of a computer system.
None of the claims (independent or dependent) effects an improvement to another technology or technical field; nor does any of the claims amount to an improvement to the function of the system for moderating terns of service.
Accordingly, Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
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 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 RASHIDA R SHORTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday from 9am- 530pm. 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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/RASHIDA R SHORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights