DETAILED ACTION
This is in reference to communication received 17 September 2026. Claims 1 – 20 are pending for examination. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an 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 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 1, representative of claims 11 and 17, in part is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim appears to be directed toward a judicial exception namely an abstract idea. Claim 11 recites invention directed to making a content collection accessible to a user of a client application, the content collection including a plurality of content elements and a plurality of advertising elements; causing a user interface having a display area divided into an interaction area and an advertising display area to be displayed to the user, wherein the user interface is generated by: merging advertising data of the plurality of advertising elements with interaction element comprising an avatar; reconfiguring advertising elements for display within a portion of the user interface having the advertising display area separate from the interaction area; determining a first display time data indicating a first amount of time that a first portion of the plurality of content elements have been displayed, and a second display time data indicating amount of time that a second portion of the plurality of advertising elements have been displayed; determining, one or more user inputs to skip content during display of the first portion of the plurality of content elements and during display of the second portion of the plurality of advertising elements; based upon which an advertising display time to a content element display time ratio is determined; the display order is modified to produce a modified display order indicating change in sequence for the advertisement element from first position to a second position; causing, the advertising element to be displayed at the second position of the sequence in the advertising display area based on the modified display order; and causing, while the advertising element is displayed in the advertising display area, the interaction element to be displayed in the interaction area, which, pursuant to MPEP 2106.04, is aptly categorized as a method of organizing human activity (i.e. advertising). Therefore, the claims recite a judicial exception.
In addition, claimed invention is directed to defining how the layout of plurality of user-interfaces and defining that when determination is made that an advertising-element has to be displayed, a second-user-interface with the advertising-element is presented to the user on the user-interface used by the user, which, pursuant to MPEP 2106.04, is aptly categorized as a method of organizing human activity (i.e. advertising). Therefore, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Represented claims 11 and 17, which do recite statutory categories (machine, product of manufacture, for example), the same analysis as above applies to these claims since the method steps are the same. However, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. These claims add the generic computer components (additional elements) of a system comprising one or more hardware processors and a memory (claim 11), and a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions that when executed by a processor of a machine cause the machine to perform the method addressed above (claim 17).
The processor, memory, and non-transitory machine-readable medium are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the processor, memory, and non-transitory machine-readable medium amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
When taken as an ordered combination, nothing is added that is not already present when the elements are taken individually. When viewed as a whole, the marketing activities amount to instructions applied using generic computer components.
As for dependent claims 2 – 10, 12 – 16 and 18, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of disclosing additional limitations that further limit the abstract idea with details regarding making a determination that the advertising element is compatible with user interactions based on data obtained from a server wherein animated avatar will displayed in the interaction area; user is enabled to select their avatar, defining avatar corresponding to the user(s) which will be presented in the presentation area in conjunction with text content provided by an additional user in a social graph of the user; generating an engagement score for the user based on the record of the input of the user; determining a frequency of presentation of advertising elements based on the engagement score. Thus, the dependent claims merely provide additional non-structural (and predominantly non-functional) details that fail to meaningfully limit the claims or the abstract idea(s).
As for dependent claim 20, this claim recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of defining that the content element is one of a plurality of content elements; the advertising element is one of a plurality of advertising elements; determining first display time data indicating a first amount of time that the plurality of content elements are displayed, and determining second display time data indicating a second amount of time that the plurality of advertising elements are displayed; determine whether any user input need to be skipped during displaying of advertisement, and causing display of the one or more additional content elements and the one or more additional advertising elements according to the modified presentation order. Thus, the dependent claim 20 merely provide additional non-structural (and predominantly non-functional) details that fail to meaningfully limit the claims or the abstract idea(s).
Additionally, claim 20 recites limitations: to produce the modified display order. at least one of an additional advertising element is added to the plurality of advertising elements or an additional content element to the plurality of content elements.
As currently claimed, it is deemed that the recited steps are insignificant extra-solution activity because the results of the determination of skipping of content is not used in the claimed invention. Claimed invention will produce similar results without the two recited steps as noted above.
Therefore, claims 1 – 20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter, as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument that pending claimed amended invention is eligible for patent because cited prior art does not teach the amended invention have been fully considered and accepted.
Applicant's argument that pending claimed amended invention is eligible for patent under 35 USC 101 because the amended invention provide technical improvements over existing methods and systems is acknowledged and considered.
However, applicant’s arguments are directed to added limitations. Upon further consideration it is deemed that the claimed invention is not eligible for patent under 35 USC 101, and have been responded to in Rejection under 35 USC 101 section.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lewis et al. US Publication 2018/0315096.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Naresh Vig whose telephone number is (571)272-6810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 06:30a - 04:00p.
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, 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 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.
/NARESH VIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
September 28, 2026
