DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
In response filed on November 3, 2025, the Applicant amended claims 1, 7, 9-12, 14, 16, 18, and 20; and cancelled claims 13 and 19. Claims 2 and 8 were previously cancelled. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, 14-18, and 20 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
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 Amendments and Arguments
v Applicant has amended the claims to correct informalities identified in the previous action. These objections have been withdrawn accordingly.
v Applicant’s amendments and argument regarding the Examiner’s interpretation of “to save network resources, computing resources, and storage resources of the user and the target recipients” is persuasive. This phrase is no longer an intended outcome. However, Examiner notes the amended claim language has introduced a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(a). See below.
v With respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, 14-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §112 (b), Applicant has not appropriately amended the claims. The claims have not been amended such that they no longer recite all that which was identified as indefinite. The claims do not include a step of determining a target indicator. The claims instead involve a step of determining a recommended value of a target indicator. The limiting effect this wherein clause has on the scope of the claimed invention is therefore unclear. Therefore, the claim is still indefinite for failing to particularly and distinctly claim the subject matter which the application regards as the invention. At least one rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, 14-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §112 (b) has been maintained. The other rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112 (b) have been withdrawn based on Applicant’s amendments.
Examiner notes that the amended claim language has also introduced new limitations that are indefinite for failing to particularly and distinctly claim the subject matter which the application regards as the invention. Please see the new rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112 (b) below.
v With respect to the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. §112 (d), Applicant has appropriately amended the claim (canceled it). This rejection has been withdrawn.
v Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, 14-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The rejections of claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, 14-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been maintained accordingly.
Applicant specifically argues that
“First, the amended claims recite specific data constructs and processing: joint feature vectors formed from recipient and content features, such as "a recommended value of a target indicator corresponding to the user based on the historical indicator of information historically distributed by the user and the historical indicator of the category to which the user belongs"; predicted values from a pre-trained model, such as "processing, by the server device, the joint features of the recipient using a pre-trained model to generate a predicted value, the predicted value representing a probability of the recipient providing feedback on the target information"; and, thresholds set and adjusted based on a quantified resource-utilization indicator, such as "in response to the drop information exceeding a preset value and the target indicator not being the recommended value, providing a prompt recommending the recommended value of the target indicator to the user."
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s first argument.
Applicant’s argument is incommensurate with what is actually claimed. The instant claims do not involve constructing or processing joint feature vectors. Nor do they involve processing “content features, such as ‘a recommended value of a target indicator corresponding to the user based on the historical indicator of information historically distributed by the user and the historical indicator of the category to which the user belongs’”. They merely comprise generating joint features of the recipient and features of the target information, and processing these joint features with a “pre-trained model” to generate a predicted value representing a probability of the recipient providing feedback on the target information.
Furthermore, there is simply nothing in the claims involving thresholds that are set or adjusted, let along thresholds that are adjusted “based on a quantified resource-utilization indicator, such as "in response to the drop information exceeding a preset value and the target indicator not being the recommended value, providing a prompt recommending the recommended value of the target indicator to the user”. These arguments do not relate to what is actually claimed, and cannot be persuasive.
“Second, the claims recite technically grounded performance metrics, such as: "the category of the user is determined based on at least one of an industry of the user or a category of the target information to be distributed," and "the drop information at a time is a ratio of resources gained at the time to resources gained at a previous time." This aligns the subject matter with real, measurable system-level costs and effects on the resource environment.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s second argument.
The requirement for the category of the user to be “determined based on at least one of an industry of the user or a category of the target information to be distributed” is an abstract concept that is part of the identified abstract idea. It is not an “additional” element in the claims. It is generally unclear what is meant by the suggestion that this is a “technically grounded performance metric” (it is not). This requirement also does nothing to result in any technical improvement. As for the “drop information”, the claims do not even require displaying the drop information. This is merely one potential option (see “at least one of”) that is not necessarily required. Furthermore, displaying drop information, and/or the requirement for the drop information to be “a ratio of resources gained at the time to resources gained at a previous time” is part of the abstract idea. Calculating and/or displaying this metric does not result in any technical improvement. Nor does it result in any “real measurable system-level costs” or “effects on the resource environment”. It is simply calculating and presenting a performance metric.
“Finally, the claims recite real-time monitoring and responsive reconfiguration: monitored "drop information" triggers a prescribed computer action-prompting the recommended indicator. This concretely alters the behavior of the information distribution system, throttling or redirecting communications to resource-efficient recipients based on live system telemetry.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s third argument.
First, there is no written description support for monitoring drop information where the drop information is a ratio of resources gained at a time to resources gained at a previous time where the resources comprise “network resources, computing resources, storage resources, and interactive resources” (see the rejection below). It therefore follows that the specification fails to describe the claimed invention such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing any of the improvements alleged by Applicant. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Second, monitoring drop information is not an “additional element”. This amounts to data gathering (using some unspecified mechanism) and data processing (abstract idea). Providing a recommendation prompt when the drop information exceeds a preset value is also part of the abstract idea. Furthermore, providing a recommendation prompt does not “concretely alter the behavior of the information distribution system”, not does it “throttle(ing) or redirect(ing)communications to resource-efficient recipients based on live system telemetry”. It is simply a data output step that makes a recommendation to a human operator.
The proposed amendments expressly anchor the claims to a specific improvement in the operation of computer networks and information distribution system, using an empirically derived indicator defined as a ratio of network resources, computing resources, and storage resources, and interactive resources gained/consumed; determining target recipients with a trained model under a threshold associated with the indicator; and providing a real-time, computer-executed feedback loop that monitors "drop information" and dynamically providing a prompt to the user. This is not a mere presentation of information or a business rule. Instead, the recited subject matter is a concrete, computer-implemented control mechanism that changes how and when data is transmitted over the network to conserve network resources, computing resources, and storage resources, and interactive resources while meeting objective performance targets. The amendments show a particularized, technology-centric solution to a specifically identified technological problem-waste of network, compute, and storage resources due to inaccurate information distribution. The recited monitoring mechanisms and responses to real-time measurements provide the type of integrated practical application and improvement to computer- network operation that courts have recognized as patent-eligible. Even at Alice step two, the coordinated use of (i) a defined resource-ratio indicator, (ii)a pre-trained model's predicted values constrained by that indicator, and (iii) a real-time monitoring and prompting yields an unconventional ordered combination that meaningfully limits the claim scope to a specific implementation that improves system performance, which meets the requirements”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s fourth argument.
As discussed above, monitoring drop information is not an “additional element”. This amounts to data gathering (using some unspecified mechanism) and data processing (abstract idea). Providing a recommendation prompt when the drop information exceeds a preset value is also part of the abstract idea. Furthermore, providing a recommendation prompt is simply a data output step that makes a recommendation to a human operator. This “feedback loop” does not “change how and when data is transmitted over the network”, nor does not necessarily “conserve network resources, computing resources, and storage resources, and interactive resources while meeting objective performance targets”. The human user must still decide what to do in response to viewing the recommendation, and they make chose to do nothing. The same is true for recommending the value of the target indicator. The human user is, again, making a choice as to which target indicator they want to input (which may not be the recommended value of the target indicator). Although “determining a more accurate indicator” and “sending target information to target recipients determined by the target indicator” may be advantageous for various business reasons (e.g., increased user engagement/response to an advertisement, increased profit/money), the Examiner has determined that the ordered combination of claim elements (i.e., the claims as a whole) are 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. Applicant suggests that by using a more accurate (e.g., more realistic) target indicator network and computing resources are not wasted (e.g., by sending advertisements to user’s that are not likely to click on an ad or purchased an advertised product). However, it is not clear that identifying target users based on a more accurate target indicator would ultimately save network resources, computing resources, and storage resources. In other words, it is unclear how selecting a more realistic expected/desired ratio of capital resources gained vs consumed ultimately results in saving network resources, computing resources, and storage resources. The only way network resources, computing resources, and storage resources would be saved would be if fewer advertisements than before were always transmitted based on the recipients determined based on the desired target indicator. However, it is not clear that this is always the case. The claims merely suggest that target recipients are determined based on the target indicator input by the user. Per MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. This is not the case. Nothing in the specification shows that the claimed invention always results in less advertisements actually being transmitted. Even if the claims or specification did include the details of how to identify better target recipients (which it does not), “more targeted” advertisements or better targeted recipients (i.e., those that are more likely to purchase a product) does not necessarily mean less advertisements are ultimately transmitted, that “multiple deliveries” are somehow avoided, or that network resources, computing resources, and storage resources would be saved. It is also not clear that computing/resources as a whole would be conserved when implementing the process as a whole (which may require additional unconventional processing and information display steps). The specification explicitly sets forth the alleged improvement, but repeatedly does so in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art). The Examiner therefore determines the claim do not improve technology. Recitation in the claim of “to save network resources, computing resources, and storage resources of the user and the target recipients” amounts to an intended use and merits no patentable weight. In other words, the Examiner is not persuaded that the claims themselves reflect the asserted improvement of “saving network resources, computing resources, and storage resources” (e.g., of either the user or the target recipients), or that “multiple deliveries” are somehow avoided. See In re Mohapatra, 842 F. App’x 635, 638 (Fed. Cir. 2021 - A claim does not “cease to be abstract for section 101 purposes simply because the claim confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment in order to effectuate a real-world benefit.”). The focus of the claim as a whole is directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea.
Claim Interpretation
Each of the independent claims recite the phrase “in response to receiving an operation on a page displayed on the user device for inputting, receiving by the server device an input target indicator that is inputted by the user at the user device based on the recommended value of the target indicator”. Although the recommended value of the target indicator is provided for display to the user with the intention of aiding the user in selecting a reasonable target indicator (e.g., by referencing this recommended value to get an idea of what would be reasonable to expect), the user may still select whichever target they want (see paras. [0066]-[0070] & [0072] & [0080] & [0097] of Applicant’s published disclosure). The user-input indicator is what is used to determine the target recipients and ultimately dictate the transmission of the information to the target recipients. The input target indicator that is inputted by the user is not necessarily the recommended value of the target indicator.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: --and-- should be deleted preceding “storage resources” in the phrase “wherein the resources comprise network resources, computing resources, ” to ensure the claim language conforms with standard grammatical construction. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities” --configured-- should be inserted to replace “configuring” in the phrase “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium on which a computer program is stored, the program when executed by a processor, configuring the processor to implement an information distribution method comprising” to ensure the claim language conforms with standard grammatical construction. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
v Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9-12, 14-18, and 20 is/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.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, and 9-11 is/are drawn to methods (i.e., a process), claim(s) 12, 14-18 is/are drawn to apparatus (i.e., a machine/manufacture), and claim(s) 20 is/are drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, 14-18, and 20 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Claim 1 (representative of independent claim(s) 12 and 20) recites/describes the following steps;
determining…a historical indicator of information historically distributed by a user, and determining a historical indicator of a category to which the user belongs:
determining…a recommended value of a target indicator corresponding to the user based on the historical indicator of information historically distributed by the user and the historical indicator of the category to which the user belongs, wherein the historical indicator of information historically distributed by the user and the target indicator are determined based on resources gained and consumed through distributed information, wherein the resources comprise network resources, computing resources, and storage resources, and interactive resources and wherein the historical indicator of information historically distributed by the user is a ratio of resources gained to resources consumed over a distribution interval, and wherein the category of the user is determined based on at least one of an industry of the user or a category of the target information to be distributed;
providing…the recommended value of the target indicator for display to the user;
receiving…an input target indicator that is inputted by the user…based on the recommended value of the target indicator;
determining…target recipients of target information to be distributed by the user based on the input target indicator;
sending…the target information…the target recipients, the target information configured to save network resources, computing resources and storage resources of the user and the target recipients, wherein sending the target information comprises displaying, in real time at least one of: the recommended value of the target indicator, drop information, gained resources, consumed resources, or one or more indicators of the target information, wherein the drop information at a time is a ratio of resources gained at the time to resources gained at a previous time;
monitoring the drop information during a distribution process; and
in response to the drop information exceeding a reset value and the target indicator not being the recommended value, providing a prompt recommending the recommended value of the target indicator to the user
wherein the determining the recommended value of the target indicator corresponding to the user based on the historical indicator of the information historically distributed by the user and the historical indicator of the category to which the user belongs comprises: determining a product of the historical indicator of the information historically distributed by the user and a user coefficient as a first value; determining a product of the historical indicator of the category to which the user belongs and a category coefficient as a second value; and determining a maximum of the first value and the second value as the recommended value of the target indicator;
wherein the determining the target recipients of the target information to be distributed by the user based on a target indicator input by the user comprises: for each recipient in a candidate recipient dataset, generating joint features of the recipient based on features of the recipient and features of the target information to be distributed by the user; processing the joint features of the recipient using a pre-trained model to generate a predicted value, the predicted value representing a probability of the recipient providing feedback on the target information; and determining the recipient as a target recipient of the target information in a case where the predicted value meets a preset condition, wherein the preset condition is determined based on the target indicator input by the user
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth determining a recommended value of a target indicator corresponding to a user based on historical information (e.g., including determining a product of the historical indicator of the information historically distributed by the user and a user coefficient as a first value; determining a product of the historical indicator of the category to which the user belongs and a category coefficient as a second value; and determining a maximum of the first value and the second value as the recommended value of the target indicator), recommending the recommended value to the user, determining target recipients of target information (i.e., advertisements) to be distributed by the user based on a target indicator specified by the user (e.g., for each recipient in a candidate recipient dataset, generating joint features of the recipient based on features of the recipient and features of the target information to be distributed by the user; processing the joint features of the recipient using a pre-trained model to generate a predicted value, the predicted value representing a probability of the recipient providing feedback on the target information; and determining the recipient as a target recipient of the target information in a case where the predicted value meets a preset condition), sending the target information to the target recipients, displaying information associated with the target information to the user, monitoring drop information, and providing a recommended value of the target indicator when the drop information exceeds a preset threshold, which amounts to a commercial or legal interactions (specifically, an advertising, marketing or sales activity or behavior;). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” 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) 12 and 20 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Each of the depending claims likewise recite/describe these steps (by incorporation - and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Any element(s) recited in a dependent claim that are not specifically identified/addressed by the Examiner under step 2A (prong two) or step 2B of this analysis shall be understood to be an additional part of the abstract idea recited by that particular claim. The same reasoning is similarly applicable to the limitations in the remaining dependent claims, and their respective limitations are not reproduced here for the sake of brevity.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of
“by a server device…by the server device…from the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…” (claim 1)
“an information distribution apparatus implemented by a server device, comprising a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to, based on instructions stored in the memory…by the server device…by the server device…from the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…” (claim 12)
“a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium on which a computer program is stored, the program when executed by a processor, configuring the processor to……by a server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…” (claim 20)
“to a user device of the user…on a page displayed on the user device for inputting…at the user device……to terminals of the target recipients” (claims 1, 12, and 20)
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions “by a server device…by the server device…from the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…” (claim 1) or using “an information distribution apparatus implemented by a server device, comprising a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to, based on instructions stored in the memory…by the server device…by the server device…from the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…” (claim 12) or “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium on which a computer program is stored, the program when executed by a processor, configuring the processor to……by a server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…” (claim 20) 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. Applicant’s published specification explains as much in paragraphs [0112]-[0117] of the published disclosure (e.g., “general purpose computer”). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recited additional element(s) of “to a user device of the user…on a page displayed on the user device for inputting…at the user device……to terminals of the target recipients” (claims 1, 12, and 20) serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to computing environments, such as distributed computing environments and/or the internet, where information is represented digitally, exchanged between computers (e.g., “terminals”) over a network, and presented using graphical user interfaces (e.g., via webpages). This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The recited element(s) of “sending the target information to terminals of the target recipients”, even treated as an “additional element” for the purpose of the eligibility analysis, would simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). The term “extra-solution activity” is understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The recited additional element(s) do are deemed “extra-solution” because transmitting of a result (e.g., the advertisement to the target recipients) and/or tangentially-related post-solution transmission of data have long been held to be insignificant post-solution activity. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). It is noted that the phrase “the target information usable by the user and the target recipients to save network resources, computing resources, and storage resources of the user and the target recipients” is neither part of the abstract idea, nor is it an “additional” element. As discussed in the Claim Interpretation section of this action, this phrase merits no patentable weight. Examiner notes that it is also vague and indefinite, as discussed in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) below.
Furthermore, although the claims recite a specific sequence of computer-implemented functions, and although the specification suggests certain functions may be advantageous for various reasons (e.g., business reasons), the Examiner has determined that the ordered combination of claim elements (i.e., the claims as a whole) are 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. For Example, Applicant’s published disclosure explains that the claimed process for determining a recommended target indicator, identifying target recipients using the target indicator, and transmitting target information (e.g., advertisements) to the target recipients is advantageous because doing so can help to increase revenue/profit (monetary resources gained), and can increase recipient engagement or probability of acceptance of the targeted content (see, for example, paragraphs [0003], [0075], [0080], and [0095] of the published disclosure). These are subjective business improvements/advantaged. At most, such improvements amount to an improvement to an abstract idea itself (e.g., more realistic targeting parameters, more accurate content targeting, greater revenue). Furthermore, there is no written description support for “determining…a recommended value of a target indicator corresponding to the user based on the historical indicator of information historically distributed by the user and the historical indicator of the category to which the user belongs, wherein the historical indicator of information historically distributed by the user and the target indicator are determined based on resources gained and consumed through distributed information, wherein the resources comprise network resources, computing resources, and storage resources, and interactive resources and wherein the historical indicator of information historically distributed by the user is a ratio of resources gained to resources consumed over a distribution interval” or “the target information configured to save network resources, computing resources and storage resources of the user and the target recipients” (see the rejection below). It therefore follows that the specification fails to describe the claimed invention such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing any of the improvements alleged by Applicant’s specification or as recited explicitly by the claims. As such, the Examiner is not persuaded that the claims result in and/or are directed to a technical improvement, even though Applicant’s disclosure and claims states that they are.
Dependent claims 3-7, 9-11 and 14-18 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims 3-7, 9-11 and 14-18 is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). For example, claim 3 recites “wherein the user coefficient is not greater than 3, and the category coefficient is between 0.7 and 0.9.”. This is an abstract limitation which further sets forth the abstract idea encompassed by claim 3. This limitation is not an “additional element”, and therefore it is not subject to further analysis under Step 2A- Prong Two or Step 2B. The same logic applies to the limitations of each of the other dependent claims identified above, which is not being reproduced here for the sake of clarity and brevity.
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:
In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966)
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions “by a server device…by the server device…from the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…” (claim 1) or using “an information distribution apparatus implemented by a server device, comprising a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to, based on instructions stored in the memory…by the server device…by the server device…from the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…” (claim 12) or “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium on which a computer program is stored, the program when executed by a processor, configuring the processor to……by a server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…by the server device…” (claim 20) 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)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of “to a user device of the user…on a page displayed on the user device for inputting…at the user device……to terminals of the target recipients” (claims 1, 12, and 20) 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)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited element(s) of “sending the target information to terminals of the target recipients”, even treated as an “additional element”, simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). These additional element(s), taken individually or in combination, additionally amount to well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, appended to the judicial exception. These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, are well-understood, routine and conventional to those in the field of advertising. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more”. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).This conclusion is based on a factual determination. The determination that receiving data/messages over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional is supported by Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which note the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of receiving data/messages over a network. Furthermore, Examiner takes Official Notice that these steps were well-understood, routine, and conventional at the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Furthermore, the lack of technical detail/description in Applicant’s own specification provides implicit evidence that these steps were well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., post-solution activity), and appended with well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Dependent claims 3-7, 9-11 and 14-18 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims 3-7, 9-11 and 14-18 is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea identified by the Examiner to which each respective claim is directed).
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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
v Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The requirement for an adequate disclosure ensures that the public receives something in return for the exclusionary rights that are granted to the inventor by a patent, and sets forth the minimum requirements for the quality and quantity of information that must be contained in the patent to justify the grant.
v Claims 1, 12, and 20 recite the phrase “determining…a recommended value of a target indicator corresponding to the user based on the historical indicator of information historically distributed by the user and the historical indicator of the category to which the user belongs, wherein the historical indicator of information historically distributed by the user and the target indicator are determined based on resources gained and consumed through distributed information, wherein the resources comprise network resources, computing resources, and storage resources, and interactive resources and wherein the historical indicator of information historically distributed by the user is a ratio of resources gained to resources consumed over a distribution interval”. The claims have also been amended to recite “wherein sending the target information comprises displaying, in real time at least one of: the recommended value of the target indicator, drop information, gained resources, consumed resources…wherein the drop information at a time is a ratio of resources gained at the time to resources gained at a previous time; monitoring the drop information during a distribution process; and in response to the drop information exceeding a reset value and the target indicator not being the recommended value, providing a prompt recommending the recommended value of the target indicator to the user”. These limitations contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant’s published disclose explains in paragraphs [0063]-[0065] that “the resources
comprise time resources, capital resources, interactive resources such as click-through rate and
page views, and may also be network resources, computing resources, or storage resources…the
historical indicator is an average of the indicator over a historic period. In some embodiments,
the indicator is ratio of resources gained to resources consumed by information distribution,
which is a measure of the user’s return due to information distribution. In some embodiments a
product of the historical indicator of information historically distributed by the user and a user
coefficient is determined as a first value; a product of the historical indicator of the category to
which the user belongs and a category coefficient is determined as a second value; and a
maximum of the first value and the second value is determined as the recommended value of the
target indicator.” Paragraphs [0082]-[0087] describe how to determine the user coefficient,
which is dependent on “a number of pieces of information each having an actual indicator not
lower than a preset target indicator after information distribution”. Paragraph [0092] relatedly suggests that “In some embodiments, in a process of sending the target information to the target
recipients, at least one of the recommended values of the target indicator, drop information,
gained resources, consumed resources or indicator( s) of the target information are displayed in
real time by information visualization, wherein the drop information corresponding to each time
is a ratio of resources gained at the time to resources gained at a previous time.” Paragraph
[0094] suggests that “the drop information corresponding to each time is a ratio of resources
gained at the time to resources gained at a previous time”. Paragraph [0108] suggests that “the
information distribution apparatus 30 further comprises: a monitoring module 370 for, in a
process of sending the target information to the target recipients, monitoring drop information of
the target information, wherein the drop information corresponding to each time is a ratio of
resources gained at the time to resources gained at a previous time.”
As explained in the portions of Applicant’s disclosure cited above, determination of the recommended value requires determination of historical indicators, user coefficients, and category coefficients. Determining the historical indicators, user coefficients, and category coefficients requires a determination of resources gained and resources consumed by distributing information to recipients. As such, determination of the recommended value of the target indicator requires determinations of resources gained and resources consumed by distributing information to recipients. Per the claim language (which defines the resources as comprising network resources, computing resources, and storage resources) this requires determinations of network/computing/storage resources gained and network/computing/storage resources consumed by distributing information to recipients. However, Applicant’s disclosure fails to provide any indication (i.e. fails to provide the necessary algorithm, description of steps, flowcharts, etc.) of how to determine resources gained and resources consumed by distributing information to recipients, let alone network/computing/storage resources. For example, how does Applicant’s system determine “storage resources” that are gained and consumed when distributing information to recipients? How does Applicant’s system determine computing/network resources that are gained and consumed when distributing information to recipients? There is simply no disclosure of such determinations. Examiner notes that such determinations were not well-understood, routine, or conventional at the effective filing date of the claimed invention. While a PHOSITA may be able to envision how to determine resources gained by distributing information in an embodiment where resources are engagements (e.g., click-through rate), it is unclear how one would determine resources consumed by distributing information in this embodiment (e.g., how do you consume click-though rate by distributing information?). The Examiner is unsure whether a PHOSITA would even be able to envision how to determine network/computing/storage resources gained and consumed by distributing information to recipients. The new claim limitation “wherein sending the target information comprises displaying, in real time at least one of: the recommended value of the target indicator, drop information, gained resources, consumed resources…wherein the drop information at a time is a ratio of resources gained at the time to resources gained at a previous time; monitoring the drop information during a distribution process; and in response to the drop information exceeding a reset value and the target indicator not being the recommended value, providing a prompt recommending the recommended value of the target indicator to the user” explicitly requires monitoring network/computing/storage resources gained and consumed by distributing information to recipients. This limitation therefore suffers from the same lack of support.
One of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize, in light of the above-cited pertinent sections o