DETAILED ACTION
This is in reference to communication received 14 April 2026. Claims 1 – 20 are pending for examination. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 – 20 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.
Claim 1, representative of claims 19 and 20 is directed towards a method, which is a statutory category of invention. Although, claim 1 is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim appears to be directed toward a judicial exception namely an abstract idea. Claim 1 recites invention directed to receiving the zero-party dataset including the seller-determined criteria dataset and the nomination dataset; creating a zero-layer dataset based on the zero party dataset; communicating a nomination request for at least one nominated peer of the plurality of peers a communication asking for an acceptance of the nomination request to be included in a first layer dataset representing the nuclear network of the seller; receiving the acceptance of the nomination request by the at least one nominated peer of the plurality of peers; creating the first layer dataset including at least one accepted peer; analyzing the zero-layer dataset to provide an analyzed zero-layer dataset; analyzing the first layer dataset to provide an analyzed first layer dataset and determine a value system alignment between the seller and the plurality of peers; generating an anonymized search criteria dataset and a value list dataset of the seller, and selecting 0the at least one accepted peer of the plurality of peers in the first layer dataset that meet a predetermined alignment threshold for the seller; creating an authorized programmatic product, the authorized programmatic product representing a packaged audience reach that is enriched through a selection of the at least one accepted peer of the plurality of peers that meets the predetermined alignment threshold for the buyer; permitting the seller to at least one of authorize, amend, and add terms of messages and forms of communication to be specified in the authorized programmatic product; receiving the authorized programmatic product order; and transmitting to the buyer device the authorized programmatic product order, whereby the buyer is provided with the authorized programmatic product representing the nuclear network of the seller and limited according to the terms of the messages and the forms of communication specified by the seller, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of organizing certain methods of human activity related to advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors but for the recitation of generic computer components. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea;
In addition, claimed invention defines that the seller will control the the seller-determined criteria dataset representing the value system of the seller, the nomination dataset representing the plurality of peers proposed by the seller as forming the nuclear network of the seller will include information such as at least one of descriptions and biographies associated with each of the plurality of peers, and it will be selected by the seller, and the seller is permitted to control at least one of authorize, amend, and add terms of messages and forms of communication to be specified in the authorized programmatic product, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of organizing certain methods of human activity related to advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors but for the recitation of generic computer components. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea;.
Next, the aforementioned claims recite additional functional elements that are associated with the judicial exception, including: creating a multi-layer relationship representations of the buyer with the seller(s), wherein buyer performs the activity of identifying the sellers who they would work with for promoting their brand on social media, enabling the creation of agreement between the buyer and the seller, which, pursuant to MPEP 2106.04, is aptly categorized as a method of organizing human activity (i.e. advertising). Therefore, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Represented claims 19 and 20, which do recite statutory categories (machine, product of manufacture, for example), the same analysis as above applies to these claims since the method steps are the same. However, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. These claims add the generic computer components (additional elements) of a system comprising one or more hardware processors and a memory (claim 19), and a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions that when executed by a processor of a machine cause the machine to perform the method addressed above (claim 20).
The processor, memory, and non-transitory machine-readable medium are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the processor, memory, and non-transitory machine-readable medium amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
When taken as an ordered combination, nothing is added that is not already present when the elements are taken individually. When viewed as a whole, the marketing activities amount to instructions applied using generic computer components.
As for dependent claims 2 – 18, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of disclosing limitations that further limit the abstract idea with details regarding descriptions of various data, utilization of layered-promotion-model, using reach of cohort (e.g. influencers) who will be associated with the seller at layer-2, using social-media as a platform of implementing the multi-layer marketing, and selling of audience-reach list to buyer of the list, defining who are included in the list of peers, using a specific commercially available technology (Saaty analytical hierarchy process), training software modules in a supervised-AI-process, or unsupervised-AI-process, defining budget, defining search criteria, etc. Thus, the dependent claims merely provide additional non-structural (and predominantly non-functional) details that fail to meaningfully limit the claims or the abstract idea(s).
Therefore, claims 1 – 20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter, as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument that pending claimed amended invention is eligible for patent under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is self-evident as eligible subject matter, and amount to significantly more than an abstract idea is acknowledged and considered.
However, upon further review that the claimed invention is not eligible for patent under 35 USC 101 the claimed invention as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of organizing certain methods of human activity related to advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors but for the recitation of generic computer components. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Applicant's argument that pending claimed amended invention is eligible for patent because cited prior art does not teach amended invention as currently claimed is acknowledged, considered and accepted.
Rejection under 35 USC 101 is not cited in this office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Khandelwal et al. US Publication 2017/0249609 teaches system and method for advancing payment to an affiliate based on company electronic link activity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Naresh Vig whose telephone number is (571)272-6810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 06:30a - 04:00p.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571.270.7537. 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.
/NARESH VIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
September 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights