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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to communications filed 5/26/2025. Claims 12 and 19 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in this action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. In response to Applicants’ arguments that the claims do not recite a mental process, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicants should please note that the claims do not require processing millions of messages, nor are there any limits on how the processing occurs, or time constraints on the processing, or the specific amount of processing to be done. Additionally, the Applicants should please note that hash functions are mathematical algorithms and therefore mathematical calculations. Although the Applicant’ argue that the limitations may reduce the processing time of message classification and/or save computational resources, the limitations merely confine the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (message classification) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. The Applicants should please see the rejection below.
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). For example:
(a) generating a bit vector comprising a plurality of bit values could simply be a user writing on paper with a pen binary numbers;
(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 could simply be a user viewing other numbers in a data set and mentally comparing the binary numbers to the data set;
(c) determining, based on the comparing, whether the message corresponds to a previous message could simply be a user making a mental decision about the information; 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 could simply be a user writing down whether a message is new or an update.
Furthermore, the limitations, as claimed, do not put limits on how the generating, comparing, determining or processing is specifically done, and there is nothing in the claims precluding the steps from being performed mentally by a human.
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. There are no limits placed on how the processing occurs, or time constraints on the processing, or the specific amount of processing to be done. The limitations merely confine the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (message classification) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. The Applicants should please see the rejection below.
Furthermore, 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
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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
Prosecution Insights