DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action is a Final Rejection. This action is in response to the amendment and response filed on November 13, 2025.
Claims 1-6, 13, 15-20, 27, and 29 have been amended.
Claims 1-29 are pending and rejected.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 13, 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant argues “that the Claims do not recite any abstract ideas.” Remarks at 10. However, the claims do more than merely involve an abstract idea. The claims recite receiving and displaying comment data related to content such as a video game and redacting comments that include spoilers. This is an abstract idea, as explained in the rejection.
Applicant further argues that “the additional elements of Claim 15 of causing display, on a display screen of the device, multiple tabs including a tab with the defined relationship type, providing display of the user comments from the users having the defined relationship type to the user of the device…recite a specific manner of displaying comments based on a defined relation type to the user of the device.” Remarks at 11. Applicant asserts that the claims provide “an improved display of comments based on a defined relation type to the user of the device. Id. However, even if Applicant is improving the display of comments, Applicant is not improving the technology that is being used. Instead, Applicant is using existing technology to display comments in a useful manner.
Applicant further argues that, similar to Example 37, “[t]he practical application of an improved display of comments based on a defined relation type to the user of the device likewise provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices.” Remarks at 12. Applicant points to where the Specification states that the claimed invention provides “a better social experience.” Id. Claim 1 of Example 37 provided a technological improvement. In this example, “the additional elements recite[d] a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage which provide[d] a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices.” The instant claims do not provide a comparable technological improvement. Rather than improving user interfaces, the Applicant is using existing user interfaces to improve an abstract idea.
As such the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments. The particular combination of limitations in the independent claims was not found in the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category? (see MPEP 2106.03)
Yes, with respect to claims 1-14, which recite a method and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of process.
Yes, with respect to claims 15-28, which recite a system and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of machine or manufacture.
Yes, with respect to claim 29, which recites a non-transitory computer readable medium and, therefore, is directed to the statutory class of manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited? (see MPEP 2106.04(a))
The following claims (claims 15-28 are representative) identify the limitations that recite the abstract idea in regular text and that recite additional elements in bold:
15. A system comprising:
a processor;
a memory coupled to the processor;
non-transitory instructions embodied in the memory that when executed by the processor cause the processor to carry out the method comprising:
a) generate a feature page comprising a feature of an application with application data on a device associated with a user;
b) update the feature page to further comprise feature information about the feature;
c) receive user comment data and updating the feature page with the user comment data, the user comment data comprising user comments from one or more users having a defined relation type to the user of the device, the defined relation type being one of a plurality of defined relation types; and
d) cause display, on a display screen of the device, the feature page including the feature information and multiple tabs including a tab associated with the defined relation type providing display of the user comment data comprising the user comments from the one or more users having the defined relation type to the user of the device.
16. The system of claim 15 wherein b) further comprises:
determine, using application data, one or more progression points of the user in the application;
determine one or more feature information that contains a spoiler based on the one or more progression points and scanning the feature information with a spoilers module; and
redact the one or more feature information that contains a spoiler from the feature information.
17. The system of claim 15 wherein c) further comprises:
determine, using application data, one or more progression points of the user in the application;
determine one or more user comment data that contains a spoiler based on the one or more progression points and scanning the user comment data with a spoilers module and
redact the user comment data that contains a spoiler from the user comment data.
18. The system of claim 15 wherein the d) further comprises displaying a feature page having at least one of redacted feature information and redacted user comment data, wherein at least one of the feature information and user comment information are scanned for spoilers by a spoilers module.
19. The system of claim 18 wherein the spoilers module includes a neural network trained with a machine learning algorithm to detect words and phrases associated with a progression point in the application data not yet achieved by the user.
20. The system of claim 18 wherein the feature information tracks progression points not achieved by the user and further comprising searching the comment data for key words associated with the progression points not yet achieved by the user.
21. The system of claim 18 wherein the application data tracks progression points not achieved by the user and further comprising searching for key words in at least one of the comment data and the feature information associated with the progression points not yet achieved by the user.
22. The system of claim 15 wherein updating the feature page with feature information includes receiving one or more videos associated with the feature information.
23. The system of claim 15 wherein updating the feature page with feature information includes requesting the feature information from a feature information database.
24. The system of claim 23 wherein the feature information database is a remote feature information database server.
25. The system of claim 23 wherein the feature information database is stored in the memory.
26. The system of claim 15 wherein receiving user comment data and updating the feature page with the user comment data includes receiving at least one of video and images associated with the feature of the application.
27. The system of claim 15 wherein the plurality of defined relation types includes friends, social group members, and experts.
28. The system of claim 15 wherein the user comment data is stored in the memory after being received.
Yes. But for the recited additional elements as shown above in bold, the remaining limitations of the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims are directed to receiving and displaying comment data related to content such as a video game and redacting comments that include spoilers. This type of method of organizing human activity is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because it includes social activities and following rules or instructions. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application? (see MPEP 2106.04(d))
No. The claims as a whole merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The computing components (i.e., additional elements that are in bold above) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to implement the steps. For example, only a programmed general purpose computing device (i.e., claimed processor) is needed to implement the claimed process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? (see MPEP 2106.05)
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the additional elements in the claims, both individually and in combination, amount to no more than tools to perform the abstract idea. Merely performing the abstract idea using a computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims do not provide an inventive concept.
As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
Relevant Prior Art
The following references are relevant to Applicant’s invention:
Guo et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2024/0033626 A1. This reference teaches interactions in games that include avoiding game plot spoilers.
“Tabbed Interfaces” https://inclusive-components.design/tabbed-interfaces/ (Oct. 05, 2017). This reference teaches tabbed interfaces.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH H ROSEN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1850 and email address is elizabeth.rosen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 AM ET - 7 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Anderson, can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/ELIZABETH H ROSEN/Primary Examiner, 3693