DETAILED ACTION
A. This action is in response to the following communications: Request for Continued Examination filed 01/22/2026.
B. Claims 21-40 remains pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/22/2026 has been entered.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 21 recites obtaining, via a user interface on a display of a device of a user of a messaging system, a request to create a custom action for addition to a message publisher.
The limitation obtaining, via the user interface, a custom action definition configuring the custom action, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a user interface,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a user interface” language, “obtaining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually defining an arbitrary custom action.
Similarly, the limitation of adding, to the message publisher, the custom action as configured by the custom action definition, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “by a user interface” language, “obtaining/adding” in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking that what the custom action is.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a processor display a text area to complete the steps. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 using a processor to perform both the obtaining, adding and displaying steps 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 claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 22-40 do not include elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and are also rejected under the same rational.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
8. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-40 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gordon, Michael M. et al. (US Pub. 2012/0278725 A1), herein referred to as “Gordon” in view of Zigoris, Philip Anastasios et al. (US Pub. 2015/0312292 A1), herein referred to as “Zigoris”.
As for claims 21, 28 and 34, Gordon teaches. A system and corresponding computer implemented method of claim 28 and computer program product of claim 34 comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium (par. 155 storage medium) storing computer-readable program code capable of being executed by one or more processors, the program code comprising instructions configurable to cause:
a database system implemented using a server system, the database (par. 11 database) system configurable to cause (FIG. 3, a block diagram of an embodiment of an aggregation system 108 is shown. There are various stores of information that may be in a database, file system and/or memory data structure, specifically, Service feed items 308, aggregate feed items 328, selective feed items 332, service credentials 314, and feed filters 324):
obtaining, via a user interface on a display of a device of a user of a messaging system, a request to create a custom action for addition to a message publisher (par. 40 user will use the user interface to configure and personalize service feeds that the aggregation system 108 passes to the Internet service 126 of the service feed 206 to be aggregated, enabling that Internet service 126 to configure and return, or otherwise send, a service feed 206 customized for, or attributable in whole or in part to, that specific user 116; the custom action of aggregation specific feed content to be delivered to the user);
obtaining, via the user interface, a custom action definition configuring the custom action (par. 32 user configures which internet service feeds will be aggregated as the basis for selective feeds; also note par. 30-31);
adding, to the message publisher, the custom action as configured by the custom action definition (par. 32 user configuration; par. 53 first stage filter added and specified by the user is applied to service feeds before applied to aggregate feed); and
displaying, via the user interface, the message publisher including a text input area for creating a message and an element to select the custom action (par. 53 The user 116 periodically will access the aggregation system 108 to view the selective feed 220 through the user interface 312 or the device 112; fig. 8a depicts user interface for displaying aggregated feeds; par. 98 describes further).
Gordon does not specifically in detail teach what a custom action definition is comprised of; however in the same field of endeavor Zigoris teaches obtaining, via the user interface, a custom action definition configuring the custom action to at least interact with a data object, the custom action definition based on custom action instructions defining or identifying: the data object, one or more interactions to perform with the data object, and attributes of the custom action (fig. 6, par. 73-74; FIG. 6 depicts an example of sponsor GUI 601. Sponsor GUI 601 is a simple user interface for allowing a sponsoring user to promote particular stories generated on an object. Once the desired node, object, or object instance is selected, the sponsor target 603 appears in sponsor GUI 601. The sponsor GUI 601 allows a sponsoring user to select between sponsored stories, generated by user actions on sponsor target 603, and static social networking ads, which are generated by the sponsor itself. The sponsor GUI 601 may provide the most commonly used action types, such as page like stories, sponsored page posts, and “likes” on page posts. Paragraph 75 presents selectable buttons for the selection of different actions for promoting a story (object); paragraph 76 gives further customization options for defining custom action of the sponsor GUI for promoting story; without further limitations limiting what a custom action is an arbitrary action such as shown within 73-76 suffices).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zigoris into Gordan because Zigoris suggests in paragraphs 17-19 creating a web of connections among the users of social networking website. These connections among the users can be leveraged by the website to offer more relevant information to each user in view of the users' own stated interests in their connections. Various pieces of content may be aggregated into a single news feed. Thus aggregated feeds with posed various additional features not mentioned in Gordon would have been obvious addition since Gordon is also concerned with aggregating feeds.
As for claims 22, 29 and 35, Gordon teaches. The system of claim 21, wherein the custom action configures a task or a process for a computing system (par. 53 filters specified by the user to filter selective feed into aggregate feeds).
As for claims 23, 30 and 36, Gordon teaches. The system of claim 21, wherein the custom action updates a customer relationship management (CRM) record on a computing system (par. 141 such implementations, the operator of the aggregation system 108 or other service operator can provide and periodically update one or more datasets, data records, data elements, or other input information thereby enabling the user interface 312, user device 112, or other requesting and reporting servers or services to make multiple requests by accessing the datasets, data records, data elements, or other inputs multiple times between communications with the operator of the aggregation system 108).
As for claims 24, 31 and 37, Gordon teaches. The system of claim 21, wherein the custom action generates an interface usable to configure change notifications for a record stored on a computing system (par. 109 Synchronization of icons 830 and/or tiled icons 830-6, 830-7 can be maintained across heterogeneous view carousels 870, so that regardless of the particular view carousel in use on a given device 112 or interface 312 or in a given mode of operation, the icons 830 and/or tiled icons 830-6, 830-7 update appropriately in the context of each view carousel 870. As the icons 830 and/or tiled icons 830-6, 830-7 are updated, the Feed Items associated with the icons 830 and/or tiled icons 830-6, 830-7 will typically be similarly updated, subject to any further, over-riding rules or policies, on the other devices 112 or interfaces 312 used by the user 116).
As for claims 25, 32 and 38, Gordon teaches. The system of claim 24, wherein the configuring of change notifications includes determining how often the computing system is queried for changes to the record (par. 124 handling of notification from a plurality of internet sources to update the user interface for each aggregated feed).
As for claims 26, 33 and 39, Gordon teaches. The system of claim 21, wherein the message publisher is associated with a channel (par. 62 example of publisher content is displayed in the channel rendered on the user interface).
As for claims 27 and 40, Gordon teaches. The system of claim 21, wherein the custom action launches, from the message publisher, an application interface displayable by the messaging system (par. 62 from the channel rendered on the user interface the user can activate an application such as a video playback window which was embedded application using application programing interface; par. 45 , accessing an Application Programming Interface (API) or other interface mechanism to provide feed items, associated content, metadata, extracts or highlights, and any other information related to the service feed 206 or to individual Service feed items 308 in the service feed 206).
(Note:) It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
Response to Arguments
With respect to the 35 USC 102 rejection the Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-40 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With respect to 35 USC 101 rejection the applicant re-iterates arguments in view of amendments. Examiner notes the response below.
A1. Applicant argues
Applicant disputes under Prong One of the USPTO Step 2A analysis that independent claim 21 recites a law of nature, natural phenomenon or abstract idea. For instance, independent claim 21 does not recite subject matter which can be categorized as mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes.
That even if independent claim 21 could be categorized as “reciting” a judicial exception, Prong Two of the USPTO Step 2A analysis provide that if additional limitations of the claim reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to another technology or technical field, the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application and thus imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Separately, under the USPTO Step 2B analysis, one or more combinations of features in some implementations of independent claim 21, by way of example, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as characterized by the Office Action.
R1. Examiner does not agree,
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitations to not go further than the mental processes have writing down a “custom action” within a generic computing environment which consists of a processor, display and user interface. This organization of human activity through mental process does not provide an improvement when the use of generic computing environment carries it out mental process. Additional clarification limitations would be needed to overcome this step. The current claim amendment only adds further mental steps based upon identifying properties of a custom action which does not add significantly more to the abstract idea.
There is not significantly more than the generic computer environment to allow for the mental process to organize human activity. The claim limitations in the broadest interpretation suggests generic computer environment consisting of database, user interface, display and processor to take human activity and organize by means of the term “custom action” which in of itself is arbitrary. Additional claim limitations are required to overcome this rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Inquires
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to NICHOLAS AUGUSTINE at telephone number (571)270-1056.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
208
559
media_image1.png
Greyscale
/NICHOLAS AUGUSTINE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178 March 24, 2026