DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This communication is the final action on the merits in response to the arguments filed on December 18, 2025. 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 .
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:
The Rejection Fails Under Prong One Because The Office Action Fails To Show The Claims “Recite” An Abstract Idea: The rejection of the claims under § 101 constitutes legal error and should be withdrawn at least because the Office Action fails to clearly show under Step 2A, Prong One of the USPTO framework for administering the Alice/Mayo test that the claims "recite" (set forth or describe) an abstract idea. For example, the analysis under Step 2A, Prong One of the Alice/Mayo test is erroneous because (a) the Office Action does not identify or define a coherent idea which is supposedly abstract and present in the claims, (b) the Office Action's reliance on Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas is erroneous because the Office Action does not demonstrate any claim features manage human behavior, manage interactions between people, and/or include social activities, and/or (c) the reliance on Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas (asserted via the recent interview only) is erroneous because the Office Action does not provide any supporting reasoning and/or rationale.
The Office Action Does Not Identify A Coherent Abstract Idea To Which The Claims Are Allegedly Directed: While reliance on claim language as a statement of the abstract idea is not inherently improper, the specific claim excerpts identified in the Office Action are unreasonable for this purpose. The quoted language does not present a single coherent, grammatically correct, or semantically unified concept. Instead, the manner in which the claim language has been selected and combined results in an unintelligible statement that does not meaningfully articulate any coherent idea, let alone an "abstract" idea which can serve as a basis for maintaining the rejection. The alleged abstract idea identified by the Office Action is a compilation of claim language, strung together, where selected words and phrases are omitted by strikethrough. [Office Action, p. 4-5]. The resulting statement (e.g., bold language only) exceeds 150 words and does not form a coherent, grammatically correct, or semantically sound sentence capable of conveying a single concept. The absence of a clearly articulate and coherent concept to which the claims are allegedly directed is a failure by the Office Action to show that the claims "recite" (set forth or describe) an abstract idea. This alone is a basis upon which the rejection should be withdrawn.
The Office Action’s Reliance On “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” Is Erroneous: As remarked above, the Office Action relies on "managing personal behavior" and "managing interactions between people" including "social activities" under the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. [Office Action, p. 5]. However, the Office Action does not even identify or define the particular behavior, interaction, and/or social activity allegedly being managed. The assertion is conclusory as no supportive reasoning and/or rationale is provided, and Applicant is left with no meaningful avenue for response other than to note that the Office Action does not satisfy its burden to "explain why a claim or claims are ineligible for patenting clearly and specifically." [MPEP 2106.07, emphasis added]. Merely identifying subgroupings and then using that identification alone as the basis for a legal conclusion of ineligibility, is improper and cannot establish a prima facie case. These deficiencies in articulating the patent-eligibility rejection warrant withdrawal of the rejection.
The Office Action’s Reliance On “Mental Processes” Is Erroneous: The Office Action's reliance on "mental processes" grouping, done solely through the interview, is erroneous and cannot sustain the rejection. Again, merely identifying grouping, without providing any supportive reasoning and/or rationale, is improper analysis and cannot sustain the rejection. These deficiencies in articulating the patent-eligibility rejection cannot sustain the rejection.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As stated in the 101 rejection above, the following claim limitations all recite an abstract idea: “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 Office Action clearly shows the exact limitations that recite an abstract idea, and does identify a “coherent” abstract idea. The claim falls within the CMO subgrouping of managing personal behavior and interactions between people, as a person can obtain creator information for content creators, classify a first content creator in a first modality class by analyzing the creator’s information, classify a second content creator in the first modality class, generate a creator page recommendation based on commonality of the first and second content creators in the first modality class, and present the recommendation to the second content creator. These are steps that clearly recite managing personal behavior and interactions between people. Further, the claims also fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas, as the steps can be performed by an individual with their mind and using pen and paper. The Mental Processes grouping has been added to the 101 rejection in the Office Action.
For clarification, under the 101 rejection in the Office Action, the abstract idea was restated with the additional elements completely removed, to show that the quoted language is coherent and grammatically correct.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art, is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
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 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