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 .
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis specific to Claim 1 is being presented below. However, the Applicants should please note that the analysis for both claims 13 and 17 is similar to that of claim 1, and therefore claims 13 and 17 are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 1 recites “1. A method comprising:
(a) generating, by a computing device and based on a message indicating a content item, a bit vector comprising a plurality of bit values;
(b) comparing the plurality of bit values of the bit vector to a plurality of bit values in corresponding positions of a filter data set;
(c) determining, based on the comparing, whether the message corresponds to a previous message; and
(d) processing, based on whether the message corresponds to a previous message, the message as one of a new message or an update message regarding a previous message.
Step 1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. Limitations (a)-(d) are limitations that, as drafted, reasonably constitute processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper (i.e., making mental and/or written notes, calculations and decisions). These limitations, then, are mental processes that fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim recites an additional element of “by a computing device”. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic elements performing generic computer functions. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim is a method generating a bit vector, comparing it to data, making a determination based on the comparing, and classifying a message based on the comparison. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and the claim is not patent-eligible.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., simply adding extra-solution activity or generic computer components does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim is ineligible.
Additionally, the dependent claims recite additional elements that also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, none of the claims are eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US20070124448 to Hu, US20110196932 to Jackson et al., US20190171693 to Dotan-Cohen et al., US20190319906 to Hempton et al., US12506747 to Kennedy et al., US20220171653 to RJ et al., US20190278867 to Nasir, US20200067861 to Leddy et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENEA DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-9524 and whose email address is CHENEA.SMITH@USPTO.GOV. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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.
/CHENEA DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421