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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Based on the amendments and remarks, the rejection under this paragraph has been overcome.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons that follow:
PNG
media_image1.png
490
786
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The abstract idea is selecting third party online content for a user. The steps that make up the abstract idea are the following:
obtaining content data associated with a plurality of generated by or on behalf of a user of a plurality of plurality of
obtaining user engagement data associated with the first user, the user engagement data indicative of interactions between the first user and content generated by one or more third users of the social network;
determining a relevance score for each of the plurality of related to the plurality of second users using a relevance predictive model based on the user engagement data with the one or more third users and attributes associated with the respective content event, the relevance score of each of the
ranking the content events based on the relevance score for each of the plurality of
presenting a subset of the plurality of content events to the first user on a user interface of a device based on the ranking; wherein the first user, the plurality of second users, and the one or more third users are different users of the social network.
Steps 2-4 under their broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations are certain methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic practices which fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” .
Steps 1 and 5 are "extra-solution activity". These steps are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. A
Accordingly, claim 1 (and 13) recite an abstract idea.
Under 2A/2, the elements beyond the abstract idea are a user device and one or more platforms associated with the social network. Neither the claim nor the Specification indicates that the invention improves the recited “device,” or “network’. Instead, their description in the Specification indicates that these elements are used merely as tools to perform the abstract limitations of the claim. Accordingly, the abstract idea falls within the “apply it” framework of MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception.
Under 2B, the additional elements are the device and multiple platforms
The client access device and networks are described as a well-understood device which can be a personal computer, workstation, personal digital assistant, mobile telephone, or any other device capable of providing an effective user interface with a server or database. The device includes a typical combination of hardware and software computer executing conventional instructions notwithstanding the novelty in the abstract idea by itself does not save the claims. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”.
As to the dependent claims – the claims further limit the abstract idea and do not include additional elements for analysis under 2A and 2B beyond the rationale discussed, the database of claim Claims 16-20 are the apparatus and computer readable equivalents of claims 1-15 and are rejected for the same reasons as their corresponding method claims.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that the representative claim is not an abstract idea under 2A/1. The examiner disagrees. The limitations calling for “obtaining, determining and ranking . . . can be done via interpersonal communication by, among other things, merely communicating the data and activity information in real time either orally or in writing. Such interpersonal communications fall squarely within the certain methods of organizing human activity category of the USPTO’s guidelines and, therefore, recite an abstract idea. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(a), 2106.04(a)(2)(II) (noting that managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people are methods of organizing human activity).
Under 2A2 , the Applicant argues that that the abstract idea requires a network architecture that can leverage content understanding for content data associated with one or more second users against user engagement data between a first user and third users to rank and display content, of the second users, to the first user, without relying upon (or even requiring access to) any actual engagement data with the second users.
The examiner disagrees as the arguments are not commensurate with the claimed network architecture. Even assuming, without deciding, the claimed invention enables (1)
the managing and communicating of information, and (2) the directing of content more efficiently than doing so manually these results, it is the capabilities of the generic computer components that are at issue in 2A/2. The claims read on the trivial case of 3 user. As such, there is nothing in the claims, absent the result (the abstract idea) to support the argument.
Under 2B, the Applicant argues, the claims offer a new network architecture, one that can leverage content understanding for content data associated with one or more second users against user engagement data between a first user and third users to rank and display content, of the second users, to the first user, without relying upon (or even requiring access to) any actual engagement data with the second users.
The examiner disagrees as there are no limitations directed to the elements beyond the abstract idea of new network architectures. The applicants argument to the "relevance predictive model" are not persuasive as the predictive model as claimed is part of the abstract idea and the abstract idea and its novelty is not the issue under this section.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Based on the amendment and remarks, the rejection under this paragraph has been overcome.
The closest prior art US-20120166452-A1. A social networking system provides relevant third-party content objects to users by matching user location, interests, and other social information with the content, location, and timing associated with the content objects. Content objects are provided based on relevance scores specific to a user. Relevance scores may be calculated based on the user's previous interactions with content object notifications, or based on interests that are common between the user and his or her connections in the social network. Context search is also provided for a user, wherein a list of search of results is ranked according to the relevance score of content object associated with the search results. Notifications may also be priced and distributed to users based on their relevance. In this way, the system can provide notifications that are relevant to user's interests and current circumstances, increasing the likelihood that they will find content objects of interest
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 RICHARD C WEISBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10AM-8PM PCT.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0580. 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.
RICHARD C. WEISBERGER
Examiner
Art Unit 3693
/RICHARD C WEISBERGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights