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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17 (e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/12/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 08/12/2025 have been fully considered and discussed in the next section. Applicant is reminded that the claims must be given its broadest, reasonable interpretation.
With regard to claims 1-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101:
Applicant argues that “Turning to the "certain methods of organizing human activity" category, this category is primarily directed towards "economic" or "commercial" practices, as well as managing human relationships. Applicant respectfully traverses. As presently claimed, the recited subject matter is directed to performing ML- based contextual mapping between hosted and provided digital content, from which curated digital content can be implemented and communicated over a network via network resources accessible from provided user interfaces (UIs). Applicant submits that this cannot simply be regarded as any of the "fundamental economic practices" nor could a person of ordinary skill in the art construe such computer-based content and UI curation and communication as human activity. These are not economic or commercial practices, but rather technical processes, backed and executed via ML model execution, which cause curation (e.g., generation) of a UI for a modified electronic resource to be provided over a network. Moreover, the pending claims recite specific computerized operations which cannot practically be performed in the human mind - for example, the modification of the structure and content of the electronic resource, the curation of the UI, and caused display of the UI on a device, as specifically claimed. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that such categorization is improper, and Applicant respectfully requests the Examiner review the claims, as amended, and reconsider such rejection (page 1/5)”.
Examiner disagrees. Performing ML- based contextual mapping between hosted and provided digital content, from which curated digital content can be implemented and communicated over a network via network resources accessible from provided user interfaces (UIs) does not change nor effect the actual target language model. The machine learning model still functions in the stands way a machine learning is intended to function.
Thus, there is no change to machine learning model itself or the way in which it is capable of functioning. Any purported improvement in regards to “contextual mapping and correlation that provides an indication of a similarity between the sentiment of the electronic resource and the context of the digital content item utilizing the machine learning model, set are rooted solely in perform the identified abstract idea, that is merely being applied with no more generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101.
As thus, the machine learning, which is used as a generic tool to perform a generic machine learning to new data environments of “ receiving data”, as evident by Applicant’s specification “an LLM is a type of AI system designed to understand and generate human-like text based on the input it receives (paragraph 53). In some embodiments, for resources featuring rich media content, AI/ML models can utilize computer vision techniques to analyze images and videos, extracting contextual information (paragraph 45)”.
The recitation of using a machine learning in the limitations merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed.
Although the additional element “machine learning” limits the identified judicial exceptions “contextual mapping and correlation that provides an indication of a similarity between the sentiment of the electronic resource and the context of the digital content item and / or correlation between content and UI curation” using a machine learning”, however, it merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (neural networks) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements 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).
As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem.
Also, the applicant's argument that the claims overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 1 because the steps of (computerized operations and the modification of the structure and content of the electronic resource, the curation of the UI, and caused display of the UI on a device, as specifically claimed) cannot be performed by a human being is not convincing. The only abstract idea bucket in which performance by a human is required is the "Mental Process" bucket which requires that the steps be capable of being performed in the human mind. The claims of the instant invention have not been identified as a "Mental Process". Instead the claims of the instant invention have been identified as "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities". The Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines indicate that "advertising, marketing or sales related activities" is a subcategory of "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities". There is no requirement that these "advertising, marketing, or sales related activities" be performed by a human being. Therefore, all steps involved in the performance of advertising, marketing or sales related activities are part of the abstract idea itself irrespective of whether they are performed by a computer or performed by a human being. Thus, the applicant's arguments are moot. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
With regard to claims 1-20 rejection under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) / 103, Applicant’s arguments are considered. The claim rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) / 103 is withdrawn.
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 subject matter, specifically an abstract idea. The analysis for this determination is explained below:
Step 1, determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. In this case, Step 1, determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claim(s) 1-8 are directed to a process (i.e. a method); claims 9-14 are directed to a machine (i.e. a system); claim (s) 15-20 are directed to a manufacture (i.e. a non-transitory computer medium).
The claimed invention is directed to at least one judicial exception (i.e a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea:
Claim 1, as exemplary, recites the abstract idea of : utilizing ML for contextual mapping that provides an indication of a similarity between the sentiment of the electronic resource and the context of the curated digital content item. Claim 1 recites the limitations of: “ receiving, a request from a user, the request identifying resource, the resource comprising information corresponding to a sentiment of content of the resource; identifying, based at least one the resource, a digital content item, the digital content item comprising information corresponding to a context of content of the digital content item; analyzing, the information related to the resource and the information related to the digital content item; determining, based on the ML model analysis, a correlation between the electronic resource and the digital content item, the correlation providing an indication of a similarity between the sentiment of the electronic resource and the context of the digital content item; modifying a structure and content of the electronic resource based on parameters associated with the digital content item and parameters associated with the device, the parameters of the digital content item corresponding to formatting of the digital content item, the parameters of the device corresponding to the display capabilities for rendering the electronic resource; curating, based on the determined correlation and the modified structure and content of the electronic resource, a user interface (UI) for the electronic resource; and communicating the curated UI of the electronic resource, the communication causing display of the curated UI on a display of the device, such that the electronic resource is displayed within the curated UI in accordance with the modified structure and content ”.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of “a network, device , electronic resource, machine learning (ML) model, display, user interface” . The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) 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).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes). When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “a network, device , electronic resource, machine learning (ML) model, display and a user interface” to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computers communicating over a general purpose network (as evidenced from paragraph 21).
Therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations are considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, storing and/or transmitting data:
receiving, over a network, a request from a device of a user, the request identifying an electronic resource, the electronic resource comprising information corresponding to a sentiment of content of the electronic resource;
communicating, over the network, the curated UI of the electronic resource, the communication causing display of the curated UI on a display of the device, such that the electronic resource is displayed within the curated UI in accordance with the modified structure and content;
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible. Same analysis is applied here to independent claims 9 and 15.
Dependent claims 3-7, 11-15, 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims merely add further details that narrow that abstract idea of, without significantly more. The dependent claims 3-7, 11-15, 19-25 appears to merely further limit the abstract idea of Certain methods of organizing Human Activity” as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), by adding the additional steps of analyzing data and metadata related to the electronic resource and attributes related to the content of the electronic resource; and extracting, based on the determined attributes, the information from the electronic resource (claim 2); determining, via the LLM, the sentiment of the content of the electronic content; and storing the determined sentiment in a profile, wherein the analysis, via the ML model, is based on a retrieval of the stored sentiment from the profile (claims 3, 10, 16); determined correlation comprises an indication that similarity between the sentiment and the context does not satisfy a similarity threshold (claims 4, 11, 17) and wherein curation of the UI comprises a rendering of the electronic resource with the digital content item, wherein the curation comprises modifying the electronic resource to include the digital content item (claims 7, 14, 20); identifying another digital content item; and performing the determination of correlation for the other digital content item (claims 5, 12, 18) ; rendering of the electronic resource without the digital content item (claims 6, 13 and 19); searching a content repository based on a query defined at least by the sentiment of the content of the electronic resource; and identifying, based on the search, the digital content item (claim 8).
Thus, the dependent claims further narrows the abstract idea and/or recite additional elements previously rejected in the independent 1,9 and 15.
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 /103
The Examiner is unable to find a prior art that teaches the limitations of : determining, based on the ML model analysis, a correlation between the electronic resource and the digital content item, the correlation providing an indication of a similarity between the sentiment of the electronic resource and the context of the digital content item; modifying a structure and content of the electronic resource based on parameters associated with the digital content item and parameters associated with the device, the parameters of the digital content item corresponding to formatting of the digital content item, the parameters of the device corresponding to the display capabilities for rendering the electronic resource; curating, based on the determined correlation and the modified structure and content of the electronic resource, a user interface (UI) for the electronic resource; and communicating the curated UI of the electronic resource, the communication causing display of the curated UI on a display of the device, such that the electronic resource is displayed within the curated UI in accordance with the modified structure and content.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 recite subject matter that would be allowable over the prior art if the Applicant were to be able to overcome the claim rejection under 35 USC § 101 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Manico et al, US Pub No: 2017/0351417 A1, teaches system and method for predictive curation and personal assistant.
Nachman et al, US Pub No: 2017/0091628 A1, teaches technologies for automated context aware curation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Affaf Ahmed whose telephone number is 571-270-1835. The examiner can normally be reached on [M- R 8-6 pm ].
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AFAF OSMAN BILAL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622