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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/12/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, 11, 19-20 are currently amended. Claim 10 is a canceled claim. Claims 1, 19 and 20 are independent claims, and claims 2-9, 11-18 depend from claim 1. Claims 1-9, 11-20 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations: “(ix)displaying a list of contents matching with the current search query; (x) generating; a recommendation for purchasing the content using at least one of a statistical analysis, a machine learning algorithm, artificial intelligence, and a rule- based analysis technique, based on a history of search query and the current search query; and (xi) receiving a selected content from the list of contents by the media outlet. “ It is unclear whether the displayed list of contents include the approved content or not and also it is unclear if the selected content includes the approved content or not. If the approved content is not part of the list of contents and the selected content then it renders the scope of the claim indefinite, because then the functions required for approval of the content have no relationship with the functions of the sale and purchase unit.
The dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 inherent the deficiency of the base claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Since the other two independent claims 19 and 20 recite the same deficiency, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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 1-9, 11--20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, when analyzed as per MPEP 2106.
Step 1 analysis:
Claims 1-9, 11-18 are to a process comprising a series of steps, clam 19 to a system and claim 20 to manufacture, which are statutory (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A Analysis:
Claim 1 recites:
1. (Currently Amended) A method comprising:
(i) receiving through a content receiving unit of a virtual newsroom system, a content from a media person, wherein the media person is a registered media person approved by a registration approving unit;
(ii) allocating the content to at least one of one or more news auditors and an artificial intelligence technique for an analysis of the content based on one or more factors comprising a geo-tagged location, plagiarism, fakery, doctoring, obscenity, hate, grammar, contextuality, originality, consistency, accuracy, headline, and attribution;
(iii) generating a first score and a first rating for the content based on the analysis;
(iv) approving, through an approving unit of the virtual newsroom system, the content, wherein the approval of the content is based on the first score;
(v) generating a second score for the media person, wherein the second score is based on the content received from the media person;
(vi) publishing, on a publishing unit of the virtual newsroom system, the content along with the first rating of the content; and
(vii) enabling, through a sale and purchase unit of the virtual newsroom system, at least one of a sale, a purchase, and an auction of the content, wherein a pricing of the content is dynamically determined based on a count of the target audience of a media outlet;
wherein the sale and purchase unit is operable to execute the steps of:
(viii) receiving a current search query from the media outlet, wherein the current search query comprises keywords for one or more of a location, an area of interest, a language, and a topic;
(ix) displaying a list of contents matching with the current search query; and
(x) generating; a recommendation for purchasing the content using at least one of a statistical analysis, a machine learning algorithm, artificial intelligence, and a rule- based analysis technique, based on a history of search query and the current search query;
(xi) receiving a selected content from the list of contents by the media outlet;
(xii) receiving payment details through a payment gateway;
(xiii) placing a media outlet logo as a watermark in the selected content purchased;
(xiv) generating a link to download the selected content; and
(xv) sharing the link to the media outlet for downloading the selected content.
Step 2A Prong 1 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claims 1-9, 11--20 recite abstract idea.
The highlighted limitations in steps (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vii), and (x) comprising, “ (ii)allocating the content to at least one of one or more news auditors and an artificial intelligence technique for an analysis of the content based on one or more factors comprising a geo-tagged location, plagiarism, fakery, doctoring, obscenity, hate, grammar, contextuality, originality, consistency, accuracy, headline, and attribution; (iii)generating a first score and a first rating for the content based on the analysis; (iv)approving the content, wherein the approval of the content is based on the first score; (v) generating a second score for the media person, wherein the second score is based on the content received from the media person; (vii)enabling a pricing of the content is dynamically determined based on a count of the target audience of a media outlet; and (x)generating a recommendation for purchasing the content using at least one of a statistical analysis, and a rule- based analysis technique, based on a history of search query and the current search query;” fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, allocating content to news auditors and to programs such as an artificial intelligence is a simple process which can be done by a human operator by observing and evaluating the content and then making judgements as which if the editors or programs are needed for analyzing the content for predetermined factors. Generating scores based on an analysis using certain yardsticks can be done by human operators and updating the ratings of the content and media unit as and when the scores change, and updating the price for different purchasers[ for example purchasers buying large quantities can get better pricing] because these limitations, as drafted, do not provide any details reflecting complexities Also, making recommendations based on any analysis or rules can be provided by humans because humans can analyze data using statistics and provide recommendations. Thus, the claim 1 recites a mental process.
The highlighted limitations in steps “(vii)enabling, through a sale and purchase unit, at least one of a sale, a purchase, and an auction of the content, wherein a pricing of the content is dynamically determined based on a count of the target audience of a media outlet; wherein the sale and purchase unit is operable to execute the steps of: (viii) receiving a current search query from the media outlet, wherein the current search query comprises keywords for one or more of a location, an area of interest, a language, and a topic; (ix) displaying a list of contents matching with the current search query; and (x) generating; a recommendation for purchasing the content using at least one of a statistical analysis, and a rule- based analysis technique, based on a history of search query and the current search query; (xi) receiving a selected content from the list of contents by the media outlet; (xii) receiving payment details; (xiii) placing a media outlet logo as a watermark in the selected content purchased; ”, fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts related to commercial activity including sales and purchase activities. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II.
Thus, claim 1 with its dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 recite “Mental Process” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract ideas. Since the other two independent claims 19 and 20 recite similar limitations, they are analyzed on the same basis as reciting “Mental Process” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Under such circumstances when the claim recites more than one abstract ideas, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Here, the limitations fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas, and certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas, which are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Since the other two independent claims 19 and 20 recite limitations similar to claim 1, they are analyzed on the same basis reciting an abstract idea.
Thus, claims 1-9, 11-20 recite abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claims 1-9, 11-20: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the additional limitations:
Virtual newsroom system [comprising generic computers/processors] executing the steps (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii), (xiii), (xiv), and (xv).
The limitations in steps “(i)receiving through a content receiving unit of a virtual newsroom system, a content from a media person, wherein the media person is a registered media person approved by a registration approving unit; (viii) receiving a current search query from the media outlet, wherein the current search query comprises keywords for one or more of a location, an area of interest, a language, and a topic; (ix)displaying a list of contents matching with the current search query; (xi) receiving a selected content from the list of contents by the media outlet; and (xii) receiving payment details through a payment gateway; “, are mere data gathering and outputting for display recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity and insignificant post-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). The computer component of the virtual news system is recited at a high level of generality in the receiving and displaying steps and is used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of receiving data and displaying data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations in step (vi), (xiii), (xiv), and (xv)“ (vi) publishing, on a publishing unit of the virtual newsroom system, the content along with the first rating of the content; (xiii) placing a media outlet logo as a watermark in the selected content purchased; (xiv) generating a link to download the selected content; and (xv) sharing the link to the media outlet for downloading the selected content”, as recited are generic computer functions of publishing content/data, applying watermark/ logo, on digital documents for security purpose and providing hyperlinks for sharing the content/data, and do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. These computer functions, as drafted, comprising publishing content, placing watermarks/logos on digital documents, providing links for sharing the content/data are commonly used practices before the effective date of the claimed invention and the claim limitations are not directed to an improvement in the fields of publishing the content, applying watermarks/logos, and providing links for sharing content/data.
The limitations in step (vii ) “vii) enabling, through a sale and purchase unit of the virtual newsroom system, at least one of a sale, a purchase, and an auction of the content,” amount to implementing generic sales and purchase functions and do not necessitate inextricable tie to computer technology because these steps can be carried out manually and is just performing the disembodied concept on a general-purpose computer. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements in claim 1 step s (vii) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In the limitations of steps in steps (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vii), and (x) the newsroom system computer is recited at a high level of generality and is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Since the limitations of the other independent claims 19-20 recite similar limitations as claim 1, they are analyzed on the same basis as directed to an abstract idea.
The limitations in step , as analyzed above, recites an abstract idea of generating a recommendation for purchasing the content using at least one of a machine learning algorithm, and artificial intelligence, besides using a statistical analysis and a rule- based analysis technique. The statistical analysis and the rule-based analysis can be done by humans using mathematical formulas with a pen and paper. The use of a machine learning algorithm, and artificial intelligence, to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the of a machine learning algorithm, and artificial intelligence function. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “generating a recommendation” and do not include any details about how the “generation of recommendation” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of using a machine learning algorithm, and artificial intelligence function also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element “using a machine learning algorithm, and artificial intelligence function” limits the identified judicial exceptions “generation of recommendation”, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (a machine learning algorithm, and artificial intelligence function) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Even when viewed individually and in combination, the additional elements in claims 1, 19, and 20 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO) because they do not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Dependent claims 2-3, 7, 9, 12 , 13, 14,16, recite non-functional descriptive subject matter and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea as they are mere extension of the scope already analyzed and discussed for claim 1. The limitations in claims 4 and 5 of authenticating content by a news editor or using an artificial intelligence are directed to implementing abstract ideas, the limitations in claim 6 of using a watermark on the published content is a generic function , in claim 8 updating second store dynamically with every new content facilitating registration are generic computer functions, limitations in claim 11 of authenticating the media unit, and in claims 17-18 generating first rating and second rating based on the first and the second store cover performance in min mind, limitations in claim 15 is mere gathering data and in claim part of extension of the scope already discussed for claim 1
As analyzed above, the additional elements in claims 1-9, 11-20 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea as such:• An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; See MPEP 2106.05(a); an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; See MPEP 2106.05(b); an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; see MPEP 2106.05(c); and an additional element applies or uses 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.29 an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; See MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo .
Even when viewed individually and in combination, the additional elements in claims 1-9, 11-20 do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). Step 2A=Yes. Claims 1-9, 11-20 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claims 1-9, 11-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since claims are as per Step 2A are directed to an abstract idea, they have to be analyzed per Step 2B, if they recite an inventive step, i.e., the claim recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to “Significantly More” than the judicial exception in the claim.
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims 1-9, 11-20 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using a generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims include insignificant extra‐solution activity. Under the 2106.05 subsection I.A., a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra‐solution activity in Step 2A should be re‐evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps and the displaying step were considered to be extra‐solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re‐evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well‐understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the example does not provide any indication that the computer components are anything other than a generic, off the shelf computer component and the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs, Versata court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d) (ii) indicate that mere receiving, acquiring, transmitting, and displaying steps using a generic computer is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
The claims 21, 19 and 20 recite the limitations in steps (xiii), (xiv), and (xv)of placing a logo/watermark on a digital document for security purpose, and creating a link for sharing the content, which are well-understood, routine and convention activities, as is evident from the references: (i) Pasqua [US 20050053258 A1; see para 0004] and Piersol et al. [US 20060147083 A1; see para 0007] describe inserting digital watermarks is a conventional activity; “Pasqua [0004] Conventional watermarking schemes insert digital watermarks into an image or audio file by slightly modifying selected data samples of the file. Inserting watermark information into an image or audio file in this manner is generally acceptable because subtle changes of a data sample of an image or audio file are nearly imperceptible to a viewer or listener of the file.”, and Piersol et al.” [0007] One prior art solution to this problem is to add a digital watermark to the document. The digital watermark is difficult to reproduce, and therefore, provides a level of security to the document since only the party applying the watermark is likely able to have it placed on the document.”.]. Huang [US 2007/0155372 A1; see para 0005] and WO 2014132246 A1; see para 0064] describe that providing links for sharing content/data is a conventional activity; Huang “[0005] Mobile commerce is already been widely used to provide business information by mobile operators or network service providers. A well-known technique to implement mobile commerce is WAP PUSH, which provides the ability to enable a user to directly download links on specific mobile operators or network service providers by sending a link via SMS that automatically launches when the message is opened.”; and WO 2014132246 A1 “[0064] ……..For example, client agent 141, or a similar module, may be downloaded to user computing device 140 in response to a request to receive a data object. For example, in order to share processed data object 126, a link may be provided and used, as known in the art, to download client agent 141. ……’]. Thus, simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving, acquiring, transmitting, and displaying steps and as well applying watermark/logo on digital documents and providing links for sharing content are well-understood, routine conventional activities are supported under Berkheimer Option 2. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) 2: Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Even when considered individually and in combination, the additional elements in claims 1-9, 11-20 represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Thus, pending claims 1-9, 11-20 are patent ineligible.
4. Prior art discussion: Prior art of record which is pertinent to the claimed invention is listed below:
Reference independent claims 1, 19 and 20, the prior art of record, alone or combined, neither teaches nor renders obvious at least the limitations, as a whole, comprising “allocating the content to at least one of one or more news auditors and an artificial intelligence technique for an analysis of the content based on one or more factors comprising a geo-tagged location, plagiarism, fakery, doctoring, obscenity, hate, grammar, contextuality, originality, consistency, accuracy, headline, and attribution; enabling, through a sale and purchase unit of the virtual newsroom system, at least one of a sale, a purchase, and an auction of the content, wherein a pricing of the content is dynamically determined based on a count of the target audience of a media outlet; wherein the sale and purchase unit is operable to execute the steps of: receiving a current search query from the media outlet, wherein the current search query comprises keywords for one or more of a location, an area of interest, a language, and a topic; displaying a list of contents matching with the current search query; and generating; a recommendation for purchasing the content using at least one of a statistical analysis, a machine learning algorithm, artificial intelligence, and a rule- based analysis technique, based on a history of search query and the current search query; receiving a selected content from the list of contents by the media outlet; receiving payment details through a payment gateway”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the independent claims 1, 19 and 20. Claims 2-9, 11-18 depend from claim 1.
5. Discussion of the most relevant prior art:
The following references have been identified as the most relevant prior art to the claimed invention. These references may disclose some of the elements individually from the limitations of the independent claims 1, 19, and 20 but do not, alone or combined, teaches or renders obvious the limitations described in the para 0004 above.
(i) Pasqua [US 20050053258 A1; see para 0004]] describes inserting digital watermarks is a conventional activity; “Pasqua [0004] Conventional watermarking schemes insert digital watermarks into an image or audio file by slightly modifying selected data samples of the file. Inserting watermark information into an image or audio file in this manner is generally acceptable because subtle changes of a data sample of an image or audio file are nearly imperceptible to a viewer or listener of the file.”].
(ii) Piersol et al. [US 20060147083 A1; see para 0007 ] describes adding watermark to a digital document ” [0007] One prior art solution to this problem is to add a digital watermark to the document. The digital watermark is difficult to reproduce, and therefore, provides a level of security to the document since only the party applying the watermark is likely able to have it placed on the document.”.].
(iii) Huang [US 2007/0155372 A1; see para 0005] describes providing links for sharing content/data as a conventional activity “[0005] Mobile commerce is already been widely used to provide business information by mobile operators or network service providers. A well-known technique to implement mobile commerce is WAP PUSH, which provides the ability to enable a user to directly download links on specific mobile operators or network service providers by sending a link via SMS that automatically launches when the message is opened.”;].
(iv) Reference Edwards et al [US Pub: 2011/0054959 cited in the IDS filed 08/14/2023 teaches the steps of receiving a content from a media unit [See Fig.3 and paras 0110—0112]; generating a score for the content providers [See paras 0012, 0023—0024, and 0084—0086]; publishing the content for sale [0012, 0068-0071; but fails to teach or render obvious, alone or combined, at least the limitations cited above in para 4.
(v) Kim et al. [US 20150120717 A1 cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 06/12/2025; see Abstract and para 0326] discloses displaying a list of results in response to a search query including keywords [See paras 0326, “ [0326] In an example of the first step of analysis, the system employs a simple text query interface, to identify data objects, which may be blog posts, relevant to a query, in case a user is seeking specific information. Once one or more terms, or keywords, of interest are identified, a search query is formed and relevant blog posts are retrieved”.
NPL references:
(vi) Prabhakar et al. “ Check Mate: Prioritizing User Generated Multi-Media Content for Fact-Checking”; Published in: Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Volume 15(1), 2021 with publication date: 2020-10-26 retrieved from IP. Com on 09/25/2025 describes the need for fact-checking the content of news media articles.
(vii) X. Liu, A. Nourbakhsh, Q. Li, S. Shah, R. Martin and J. Duprey, "Reuters tracer: Toward automated news production using large scale social media data," 2017 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), Boston, MA, USA, 2017, pp. 1483-1493, retrieved from Ip. Com on 06/9/2025 and cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 06/12/2025 describes Reuters Tracer system, which is topic and domain agnostic, identifies emerging conversations from 12+ million tweets on Twitter per day and selects those that are news-like. Then, it contextualizes each story by adding a summary and a topic to it, estimating its newsworthiness, veracity, novelty, and scope, and geotags it. Tracer uses models to produce scores indicate the degree of veracity and newsworthiness scores to reflect the order of the different grades of newsworthiness for retrieved content and separate them at certain thresholds.
Foreign references:
(viii) WO 2014132246 A1 describes providing links for sharing content/data as a conventional activity “[0064] ……..For example, client agent 141, or a similar module, may be downloaded to user computing device 140 in response to a request to receive a data object. For example, in order to share processed data object 126, a link may be provided and used, as known in the art, to download client agent 141. ……’].
(ix) GB 2633363 A cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 06/12/2025 [See abstract] describes a computer-implemented method and system for content generation hosting a web user interface portal on one or more servers which can be accessed by the plurality of members through their terminals to receive content , such as a social media post, a blog post or video, from the members and the received content can be uploaded to a website for viewing.
6 Note: If the independent claims 1, 19 and 20 are amended to overcome 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 101 rejections this application can be placed in condition for allowance. All amendments will be subject to further reconsideration and search.
Response to Arguments
7.1. 35 USC 112(a) rejection in the Final Action mailed 10/01/2025:
In view of the current amendments to the independent claims 1, 19, and 20, the Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11, filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-9, 11-20 under 35 USC 112(a) has been withdrawn.
7.2. 35 USC 101 rejection:
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025, see pages 7-10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for following reasons:
Step 2A, Prong One analysis:
Applicant’s arguments on pages 7-8 have been fully considered but not found persuasive because the limitations in the independent claims 1, 19 and 20 “set forth” or “describe” Mental Processes and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, as analyzed in para 3 above . The limitations in steps (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vii), and (x) fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. For example, allocating content to news auditors and to programs such as an artificial intelligence is a simple process which can be done by a human operator by observing and evaluating the content and then making judgements as which if the editors or programs are needed for analyzing the content for predetermined factors. Generating scores based on an analysis using certain yardsticks can be done by human operators and updating the ratings of the content and media unit as and when the scores change, and updating the price for different purchasers[ for example purchasers buying large quantities can get better pricing] because these limitations, as drafted, do not provide any details reflecting complexities Also, making recommendations based on any analysis or rules can be provided by humans because humans can analyze data using statistics and provide recommendations. Thus, the claim 1 recites a mental process. The limitations in steps “(vii), (viii), (ix) , (x) , (xi), and xiii) , fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts related to commercial activity including sales and purchase activities. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II.
Thus, claim 1 and the other two independent claims 19 and 20, which recite similar limitations as claim 1 recite a judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-9 have been fully considered but not found persuasive because the additional elements in the independent claims 1, 19 and 20 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as analyzed in para 3 above .
The additional elements including applying watermarks on digital content and providing links for sharing content are generic computer functions amounting to simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). See references cited above: (i) Pasqua [US 20050053258 A1; see para 0004] and Piersol et al. [US 20060147083 A1; see para 0007] describe inserting digital watermarks is a conventional activity, and Huang [US 2007/0155372 A1; see para 0005] and WO 2014132246 A1; see para 0064] describe that providing links for sharing content/data is a conventional activity. As such these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to “Significantly More” because , as recited, not add any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
The receiving payment details via a gateway is a mere automation of a manual activity wherein receiving payment details for any sale or purchase transaction are required and can be done manually. The updating of public ratings or pricing for the content whenever needed is a mental process and can be done by humans by observing and evaluating the old data/pricing and received new data/pricing. The receipt of search query and delivering digital content are mere data gathering/outputting/transmitting amounting to non-significant extra-solution activity and the computer is used as tool for performing these generic functions , as analyzed in para 3 above Further publication of content is a generic computer function, wherein the content for sale with required metadata can be published and displayed on web pages. The recommendation of content based on a history of search query is a mental process wherein a human can perform using mathematical concepts or rules to recommend the data. The recitation of using a machine learning algorithm, and artificial intelligence function also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed, as analyzed above in para 3. Although the additional element “using a machine learning algorithm, and artificial intelligence function” limits the identified judicial exceptions “generation of recommendation”, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (a machine learning algorithm, and artificial intelligence function) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the additional elements argued by the applicant on pages 8-9 , when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). See detail analysis in para 3 above.
Step 2B analysis: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. Applicant’s arguments on pages 9-10 have been fully considered but not found persuasive because the additional elements , individually and in combination do not add an inventive concept to the claim, as analyzed in para 3 above.
The applicant’s arguments, “ The ordered combination of features includes i. automated multi-factor content scoring including geo-tag analysis, fakery detection, grammar, originality, contextuality, etc.; ii. dynamic approval based on system-enforced criteria; iii. dynamic rating updates tied to both content and media person; iv. machine-executed dynamic pricing using target-audience metrics; v. technical digital-asset transformation through watermarking; vi. secure payment processing through an integrated payment gateway; vii. system-generated download link creation and content distribution. The ordered combination of operations recited in the present claims is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. A determination of conventionality requires evidentiary support, and in the parent case the Examiner expressly found that similar claim features amounted to 'significantly more,' confirming that the present claim structure is likewise not conventional. The same conclusion is warranted for the continuation claims. Thus, even under Step 2B, the claims recite an inventive concept. “, are not persuasive, because the additional elements , as analyzed in Step 2A, prong Two, were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity , processing mental processes using a generic computer amounting to performing generic computer functions. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims 1-9, 11-20 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using a generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.The receiving /transmitting and the displaying step were considered to be extra‐solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re‐evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well‐understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the example does not provide any indication that the computer components are anything other than a generic, off the shelf computer component and the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs, Versata court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d) (ii) indicate that mere receiving, acquiring, transmitting, and displaying steps using a generic computer is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The claims 21, 19 and 20 recite the limitations in steps (xiii), (xiv), and (xv)of placing a logo/watermark on a digital document for security purpose, and creating a link for sharing the content, which are well-understood, routine and convention activities, as is evident from the references cited above. Thus, simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
The recitation of using a machine learning algorithm, and artificial intelligence function also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element “using a machine learning algorithm, and artificial intelligence function” limits the identified judicial exceptions “generation of recommendation”, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (a machine learning algorithm, and artificial intelligence function) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
A conclusion that the receiving, acquiring, transmitting, and displaying steps and as well applying watermark/logo on digital documents and providing links for sharing content are well-understood, routine conventional activities are supported under Berkheimer Option 2. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) 2: Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Applicant has not submitted separate arguments for other pending claims. Rejection of other claims 2-9, 11-20 rise and fall with the rejection of claim 1.
In view of the foregoing, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of the independent claims 1, 19-20 with the dependent claims 2-9 and 11-20 do recite an abstract idea. The rejection under 35 USC 101 is sustainable and maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOGESH C GARG whose telephone number is (571)272-6756. The examiner can normally be reached Max-Flex.
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, Jeffrey A. Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/YOGESH C GARG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688