DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice for all US Patent Applications filed on or after March 16, 2013
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of the Claims
This communication is in response to communications received on 2/13/26. Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 19, and 20 is/are amended, claim(s) 2, 10, and 18 is/are cancelled, claim(s) none is/are new, and applicant states support can be found at instant specification [0016, 0018, 0023-0024, 0026, 0032, 0037, 0050-0052]. Therefore, Claims 1, 3-8, 9-16, 17, and 19-20 is/are pending and have been addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 2/13/26, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 for claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as far as they apply to the amended 101 rejection(s) below.
Applicant respectfully traversed the rejection on pg. 10-13.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the invention as explained in the remarks dated 2/13/26 and instant specification is not relying on previously unavailable information, using previously known information in an new or unusual manner, a complexity of steps, etc. Instead the invention is merely using previously known information using a known technique.
Thus, the argument(s) are unpersuasive.
Claims Without Prior Art Rejections
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 9-16, 17, and 19-20 do/does not have prior art rejections. The remaining rejections are 101 as noted below.
Closest prior art to the invention include
Rapaport et al. (US 2012/0290950 A1) in view of Levchuk published July 3, 2022 (reference U on the Notice of References Cited)
As noted in the office action dated 11/13/25 with the inclusion of in an interactive machine learning process, the combined arts do not teach
determining, in an interactive machine learning process, for each out-of-network entity of the plurality of out-of-network entities, a probability that the out-of-network entity will join the network based on comparing the corresponding vector representation of the out-of-network entity to a vector that is determined based on the vector representation of each in-network entity in the first cluster.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 9-16, 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as noted below.
The limitation(s) below for representative claim(s) 1, 9, and 17 that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to targeted network invitations.
Step 1: The claim(s) as drafted, is/are a process (claim(s) 3-8 recites a series of steps) and system (claim(s) 9-16, 17, and 19-20 recites a series of components).
Step 2A – Prong 1: The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
Claim 1: clustering, based on electronic records of transactions performed via a software application, a plurality of in-network entities that are members of a network into a first cluster that represents active network users and a second cluster that represents passive network users;
generating, for each in-network entity in the first cluster, a vector representation of the in-network entity based on connections between the in-network entity and one or more other entities;
generating, for each out-of-network entity of a plurality of out-of-network entities that are not members of the network, a corresponding vector representation of the out-of-network entity based on connections between the out-of-network entity and one or more of the plurality of in-network entities;
determining, in an interactive machine learning process, for each out-of-network entity of the plurality of out-of-network entities, a probability that the out-of-network entity will join the network based on comparing the corresponding vector representation of the out-of-network entity to a vector that is determined based on the vector representation of each in-network entity in the first cluster;
selecting an out-of-network entity of the plurality of out-of-network entities to invite to join the network based on the probability that the out-of-network entity will join the network;
sending, to a computing device associated with the out-of-network entity, an invitation to join the network based on the selecting of the out-of-network entity;
receiving feedback from the computing device associated with the out-of-network entity in response to the invitation;
updating, based on the feedback, in the interactive machine learning process, the probability that the out-of-network entity will join the network;
recalculating, in the interactive machine learning process, based on the updated probability that the out-of-network entity will join the network, the probability that each of one or more other out-of-network entities of the plurality of out-of-network entities will join the network;
selecting, in the interactive machine learning process, an additional out-of-network entity of the plurality of out-of-network entities to invite to join the network based on the recalculated probability that each of the one or more other out-of-network entities will join the network; and
sending, to a corresponding computing device associated with the additional out- of-network entity, a corresponding invitation to join the network based on the selecting of the additional out-of-network entity.
Claim(s) 9 and 17: same analysis as claim(s) 1.
Dependent claims 3-8, 10-16, and 19-20 recite the same or similar abstract idea(s) as independent claim(s) 1, 9, and 17 with merely a further narrowing of the abstract idea(s): .
The identified limitations of the independent and dependent claims above fall well-within the groupings of subject matter identified by the courts as being abstract concepts of:
a method of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, or business relations) because the invention is directed to economic and/or business relationships as they are associated with targeted network invitations.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The additional elements unencompassed by the abstract idea include software application, machine learning, computing device, computing device (claim(s) 1, 9, 17) one or more processors, a memory (claim(s) 9), a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and one or more processors of a computing system (claim(s) 17).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 fails to describe:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine – see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using 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 - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 are merely (as additionally noted by instant specification [0081-0084]) invoked as a tool and/or general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 are merely (as additionally noted by instant specification [0081-0084]) invoked as a tool and/or a general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application and thus similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as set forth above (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
Conclusion
When responding to the office action, any new claims and/or limitations should be accompanied by a reference as to where the new claims and/or limitations are supported in the original disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP §706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WEBB whose telephone number is (313)446-6615. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-3.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights