DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This communication is a non-final action on the merits in response to the arguments filed on April 21, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 21, 2026 has been entered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,675,860 and U.S. Patent No. 12,026,212. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 1 is generic to all that is recited in Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,675,860 and U.S. Patent No. 12,026,212. That is, Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,675,860 and U.S. Patent No. 12,026,212 falls entirely within the scope of Claim 1 or, in other words, Claim 1 is anticipated by Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,675,860 and U.S. Patent No. 12,026,212.
Claim 1 of the instant application and Claim 1 of the Patents are exemplary. The subject matter of Claims 2-10 and 12-20 of the instant application is similarly disclosed by Claims 2-9 and 11-18 of the U.S. Patent No. 11,675,860 and Claims 2-10 and 12-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,212.
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.
Step 1
Claims 1-10 are directed to a machine. Claims 11-20 are directed to a process. As such, each claim is directed to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1
The examiner has identified independent Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent Claim 11.
Independent Claim 1 recites the following abstract ideas: “generate creator page recommendations for content creators obtain creator information for content creators , the content creators offering benefit items made accessible to consumers , the content creators including a first content creator and a second content creator, the first content creator being associated with a first creator page; classify the first content creator in a first modality class by providing the creator information of the first content creator as input to output classification of the content creators in modality classes, individual modality classes characterizing how the consumers consume the benefit items and/or how the content creators produce the benefit items, ; classify the second content creator in the first modality class; generate a creator page recommendation based on commonality of the first content creator and the second content creator in the first modality class, the creator page recommendation including a recommended configuration of a second creator page of the second content creator; and effectuate presentation of the creator page recommendation associated with the second content creator.”
The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, relates to managing personal behavior or interactions between people including social activities (i.e., generate creator page recommendations for content creators: obtain creator information for content creators, the content creators offering benefit items made accessible to consumers, the content creators including a first content creator and a second content creator, the first content creator being associated with a first creator page; classify the first content creator in a first modality class by providing the creator information of the first content creator as input to output classification of the content creators in modality classes, individual modality classes characterizing how the consumers consume the benefit items and/or how the content creators produce the benefit items; classify the second content creator in the first modality class; generate a creator page recommendation based on commonality of the first content creator and the second content creator in the first modality class, the creator page recommendation including a recommended configuration of a second creator page of the second content creator; and effectuate presentation of the creator page recommendation associated with the second content creator), but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., a system comprising one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions, an online platform, a computing platform, a machine learning model configured based on input/output training information pairs). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, relates to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Additionally, the limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind, or via pen and paper (i.e., generate creator page recommendations for content creators: obtain creator information for content creators, the content creators offering benefit items made accessible to consumers, the content creators including a first content creator and a second content creator, the first content creator being associated with a first creator page; classify the first content creator in a first modality class by providing the creator information of the first content creator as input to output classification of the content creators in modality classes, individual modality classes characterizing how the consumers consume the benefit items and/or how the content creators produce the benefit items; classify the second content creator in the first modality class; generate a creator page recommendation based on commonality of the first content creator and the second content creator in the first modality class, the creator page recommendation including a recommended configuration of a second creator page of the second content creator; and effectuate presentation of the creator page recommendation associated with the second content creator), but for the recitation of generic computer components. 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.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding 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 (MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a system comprising one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions, an online platform, a computing platform, a machine learning model configured based on input/output training information pairs. The computer hardware is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., generic computers and online platforms receiving, transmitting, and presenting information, and generic machine learning model trained with training data to output information) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since they do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The additional elements of using computer hardware (a system comprising one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions, an online platform, a computing platform, a machine learning model configured based on input/output training information pairs) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent-eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 do not include any additional elements beyond those identified above. They further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. As such, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor are they sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Singh teaches training a machine learning model, as well as supplying recommendations to a content creator for content likely to perform well with their audience based on other creators and their content. However, Singh does not teach that the input includes existing creator information nor that the output includes modality class for the existing creator. Rather, it is based on the creator’s content and the audience information, and it is used to predict the proportion of audience engagement by demographics. Singh also does not teach training a model whose output is used to determine a modality class. Chow also fails to teach the above limitations.
The closest NPL, Tu et al. “Feedback Shaping: A Modeling Approach to Nurture Content Creation,” teaches an approach to predict how consumer feedback incentivizes content creators, and using it to improve content creation without compromising the consumers’ experience. However, it does not teach training a machine learning model to classify creators into modality classes, or generating creator page recommendations based on commonality with other creators.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 35 USC 101 Rejection of Claims 1-20:
Step 2A, Prong One Analysis:
The Identification of The Block Of Claim Text is Procedurally Deficient for Lack of Clarity and Specificity:
The Office Action's identification of the block of claim text as an alleged abstract idea fails to meet the burden of providing a "clear and specific" explanation for a Section 101 rejection. According to MPEP § 2106.07(a), the Office Action "must provide an explanation as to why each claim is unpatentable, which must be sufficiently clear and specific to provide applicant sufficient notice of the reasons for ineligibility and enable the applicant to effectively respond." The current rejection falls short of this standard at least because the block of claim text is not parsable for a definitive, identifiable meaning.
The Office Action improperly identifies an alleged abstract idea by merely reproducing a substantial block of claim text—spanning over 160 words and representing nearly the entirety of the independent claim's processor operations—without distilling the block into a concise, identifiable meaning. By characterizing this entire expansive block of technical features - which includes multiple processing steps - as a single abstract idea, the Office Action fails to "identify the abstract idea as it is recited… in the claim" as required by the MPEP. [MPEP § 2106.07(a)].
Instead of providing a "clear and specific" explanation, the Office Action has presented a sprawling collection of claim text without a granular explanation of how these 160+ words of technical steps constitute a clear exception. A rejection that requires the Applicant to parse for meaning among such a collection of claim text to identify the alleged abstract idea is procedurally deficient and fails to provide the "sufficient notice" required for the Applicant to effectively respond. This lack of specificity leaves the Applicant to guess what the block of text is intended to mean in the context of the rejection. Indeed, the Office Action does not provide an individual clear meaning of the block of claim text suitable for eligibility analysis.
By identify the claim in nearly its entirety as the exception, the Office Action improperly conflates the specific technical implementation of the claim with an abstract idea itself, effectively precluding any claim—no matter how technical—from eligibility if it can be reproduced in a rejection block. This lack of specificity violates the requirement in MPEP § 2106.07(a) to provide sufficient notice, as the Applicant is left to guess what the block of text means in the context of this rejection.
The Office Action Does Not Establish That The Block Of Claim Text is An Abstract Idea:
The reasoning provided in the Office Action fails to establish that the collective text in the 160+ word block is an abstract idea. The Office Action fails to establish a prima facie case of ineligibility because it relies on conclusory statements and boilerplate MPEP language for the abstract idea groupings.
For example, the Office Action alleges the entire block of claim text "relates to managing personal behavior or interactions between people including social activities" within the grouping of "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity." [Office Action, p. 5]. There is no reasoning provided for this assertion. The Office Action has merely identified these subgroupings, and does so with alternative "or" transitions which is even more unclear and unspecific. These are merely conclusory statements; they do not contain a reasoned explanation of why the technical processes recited in the block of text constitute a "personal behavior" being managed, "interactions" between people, or "social activities." No arguments are provided to tie the specific technical features in the block of text back to these broad (and alternatively recited) legal categories.
Regarding "Mental Processes," the Office Action's only reasoning is the assertion that "the steps can be performed by an individual with their mind and using pen and paper." [Office Action, p. 13]. Again, there is no reasoning. The Office Action has merely identified the boilerplate "pen and paper" language and asserted that the claims "can" fit this classification. No arguments are provided to tie the specific technical features in the block of text to the "pen and paper" analogy. The Office Action fails to explain how a human using pen and paper could manually perform entirety of the steps recited together within the block of claim text. Consequently, the Office Action fails to explain how these technical limitations could possibly be performed "in the mind."
The Office Action's approach is fundamentally flawed. It fails to analyze the block of claim text as a cohesive whole and offers no actual reasoning for its conclusions. Because the Office Action relies on boilerplate labels rather than a clearly articulated analysis of the claimed technical solution, it fails to meet the burden of proof required by MPEP § 2106.07(a).
Step 2A, Prong Two Analysis:
Claims 10/20 Provide a Specific Application Analogous to Diamond v. Diehr: In Diamond V. Diehr, the Supreme Court found claims eligible because they sufficiently limited the use of a mathematical equation to the practical application of molding rubber products. [MPEP 2106.05(e); 450 U.S. 175, 184 (1981)]. Similarly, Claim 10 (and 20) does not attempt to monopolize the steps recited together in the block of claim text in a vacuum. Instead, it limits the technology to the specific, tangible method of onboarding and account creation for online platforms. This is a concrete technological environment that imposes a "meaningful limit" on the alleged exception, transforming it into a specific tool for a particular task: real-time profile configuration based on physiological response.
Claims 10/20 Move from “Abstract Principle” to “Specific Application” per Classen: Similar to Classen, which moved a mental analysis step into a specific and tangible method of treatment, the onboarding feature in Claim 10 moves the features recited together in the block of claim text into a specific and tangible method of system personalization. [659 F.3d at 1066-68]. The "onboarding process" is a critical, data-poor window in the lifecycle of an online platform. By applying the steps recited together in the block of claim text to the creation of an account, Claim 10 provides a targeted technical solution to the problem of "cold-start" user profiling, thereby integrating the exception into a practical application.
The Onboarding Limitation is Not a Generic “Field of Use”: Unlike the claims in Alice, which merely linked an abstract idea to "implementation via computers," Claim 10 recites a specific interaction between the user and the system. [573 U.S. 208, 225-26 (2014)]. The onboarding process requires a unique sequence unique to online platforms. This is more than a drafting effort to monopolize an exception; it is a meaningful limitation that ensures the alleged judicial exception is used to optimize the initial technical configuration of a new user account.
The Ordered Combination Recites an Inventive Concept: Even if the individual hardware elements were considered generic (which Applicant does not concede), the ordered combination of (a) carrying out a specific onboarding event, (b) characterizing a modality class via ML, and (c) utilizing that characterization to finalize account creation, provides a non-conventional technical solution to user profile initialization. Per BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, this new combination of steps renders the claim eligible because it provides a "meaningful limitation" that was not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the specific context of automated account creation. [827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016)].
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Step 2A, Prong One Analysis:
The rejection does very clearly and specifically identify the entire recited abstract idea, with the additional elements removed, which provides more clarity. The rejection further clearly identifies the groupings and subgroupings of abstract ideas that it falls under. As stated, the identified bolded steps are all part of the abstract idea, and it falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (CMO) as well as Mental Processes. Though it is not necessary to “parse” the abstract idea, to break it down into simple terms, a person can obtain creator information for content creators, and this is managing personal behavior. Content creators offering benefit items made accessible to consumers is managing interactions between people. The person can further classify a first content creator in a modality class using the creator information of the first content creator, which is managing personal behavior. The person can further classify a second content creator in the modality class, which is also managing personal behavior. The person can then generate a creator page recommendation based on commonality of the first content creator and the second content creator in the modality class, and this is managing personal behavior. The person can then present the recommendation to the second content creator, and this is an interaction between people. These steps can also be done in this person’s mind and using a pen and paper, as the person can read/analyze creator information, classify a creator into a category using their mind, and generate a recommendation using their mind and pen and paper.
The bolded block of claim text is the full recitation of the abstract idea, with the additional elements removed. The length of the block of claim text spanning over 160 words is not relevant to the validity of the rejection, and if anything, it demonstrates that the majority of the claim does recite an abstract idea. Further, it is not required to “distill the block into a concise, identifiable meaning.”
Step 2A, Prong Two Analysis:
Claims 10 and 20 are not analogous to Diamond v. Diehr. Onboarding and account creation is part of the abstract idea, and the online platform is recited in a generic manner, generally linking the use of the abstract idea to this technological environment.
Claims 10 and 20 are not analogous to Classen. The onboarding process is part of the abstract idea. Regarding the argument of moving the features into “a specific and tangible method of system personalization,” it is unclear what is meant by system personalization. This is not recited in the claim; personalization can be interpreted as part of the abstract idea. Regarding the argument that Claim 10 “provides a targeted technical solution to the problem of "cold-start" user profiling,” this is a recitation of an idea of a solution, and the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Thus, it does not provide a technical improvement. Further, the specification does not provide any details of how the claimed invention provides any technical improvement to the functioning of a computer or online platform or any other technology.
The system of the claims comprises processors, an online platform, a computing platform, and a machine learning model. Though the user is interacting with the system, the processors, platforms, and machine learning model are all recited in a generic manner, as mere tools to implement the abstract idea. Regarding the onboarding process requiring “a unique sequence unique to online platforms,” this is not recited or reflected in the claims nor in the specification.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the creator page recommendation is presented on the computing platform associated with the second content creator during an onboarding process of the second content creator creating an account with the online platform.” The onboarding process is recited in a very broad and generic manner. A user creates an account, gets onboarded, and is provided with a recommendation. This is also part of the abstract idea, and its occurrence on a computer and platform is using the computer and platform as mere tools to implement the abstract idea. Regarding characterizing a modality class via ML, the characterizing of a modality class is part of the abstract idea, and the machine learning model is recited at a high level of generality, as a mere tool to implement the abstract idea. This does not provide a non-conventional arrangement or a technical solution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARMA EL-CHANTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3404. The examiner can normally be reached T-Sa 10am-6pm ET.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571)270-1833. 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.
/KARMA A EL-CHANTI/Examiner, Art Unit 3629 /SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights