DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 3/19/2024.
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 .
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claims Status
Claims 21-40 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claims 21 and 31 are independent.
Claims 1-20 are canceled.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 22 recites “wherein the analyzing is performed at at least one node of a node system”. Although the meaning of the phrase is relatively clear, it should be made clearer by removing the double preposition “at at”. The repetition is jarring to the reader and disrupts the flow of the claim language, making it difficult to parse the intended meaning at a glance. A suggested correction is “wherein the analyzing is performed at [[at]] one or more nodes of a node system”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims include(s) no explicit recitation of any hardware component, nor do the claims include any component which must be interpreted solely as hardware. The word "system" is not necessarily hardware. It is a broad term that refers to any collection of interconnected components, which can include not only physical parts (hardware) but also software, data, processes, and even people, all working together to achieve a common goal. The word "automatically" doesn't imply hardware because it describes a process that occurs without human intervention, which can be achieved through either physical mechanisms (hardware) or sets of instructions (software).
Furthermore, Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
The representative claim 21 recites a system for optimizing a data composition, the system being configured to: provide a plurality of data subsets, combine the data subsets to combined data, and analyze the combined data by variations of at least one data subset. This is reflective of a mental process of gathering, combining, and analyzing data using general computing steps, which could be performed with "pencil and paper" or conventional computer methods.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because while, in the context of data gathering, combining, and analyzing, specifying that a process is performed "automatically" strongly implies performance by a computer or a computer-controlled system, if so it is reflective of mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f), or of generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Neither one of these are indicative of integration into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the mention of "system" and "automatically" does not provide the necessary "significantly more" to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. These terms do not introduce a specific, inventive concept, such as a new computer technology or a specific, non-generic technological improvement.
Therefore claim 21 is ineligible for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 31 is directed to a method for performing the functions of claim 21 and is ineligible for similar reasons.
Claims 22-26, 28, 32-36 and 38 also recite the performing of one or more of the function/steps at one or more nodes in a node system, which is highly implicit of a performance at a computer system. Still, even assuming arguing to that the system is a computer system, this is also reflective of mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f), or of generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). Neither one of these are indicative of integration into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, these claims are also not eligible under 101 for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 27, 29-31, 37 and 39-40 are also directed to abstract steps of analyzing, or further limit of data analyzed. This is also reflective of generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which is ineffective to indicate a practical application or to show significantly more than the abstract idea. A such, these claims are also not eligible under 101 for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or 112(2nd)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 21-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 21 and 31 are rejected as being incomplete for omitting essential steps/functions, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps/functions. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps/functions are: steps/functions reflective of how the combined data is “optimized”. The preamble of claims 21 and 31 and in the claim is unclear because its broad claim of "automatically optimizing data composition" is not reflected in the specific steps provided, which merely describe combining data subsets and then analyzing them by variations. For example, the Instant Specification describes that “the combined data is optimized by training on the basis of user analytics of the sub datasets and any combination(s) thereof”, ¶ 1. However, to amendment to these claims should reflect the step(s)/function(s) involved in this training, or include step(s)/function(s) otherwise result in optimizing the combination.
Claims 22-30 and 32-40 are also rejected as they depend on claim(s) above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21-28 and 31-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Silvalingam; Crishanth et al. (hereinafter Silvalingam – US 20170255949 A1).
Independent Claim 21:
Silvalingam teaches:
A system for automatically optimizing a data composition, the system being configured to: (e.g., systems 10 or 700 and other components in fig. 8, ¶¶ 47 and 111 and figs. 1 and 8, which perform the steps of figs. 9, ¶ 112. Although mapped to mainly to embodiments of fig. 9, the disclosure of Silvalingam envisioned all possible combination of elements of any of the embodiments, ¶ 122)
provide a plurality of data subsets; (receives real-time data feeds [plurality of data subsets], ¶ 112 and fig. 9)
combine the data subsets to combined data; (aggregating real-time transaction data feeds with daily data feeds to generate an aggregated transaction data feed [plurality of data subsets], ¶ 112 and fig. 9)
and analyze the combined data by variations of at least one data subset. (using the aggregated transaction data feed, “At 904, system 400 detects patterns [analyze the combination data variations] in the data feeds using event rules” ¶ 112 and fig. 9. The using a set of event rules to detect patterns within the input data feeds [at least one data subset] in order to generate an intermediate data stream indicates that variations in data are analyzed because detecting specific patterns inherently involves looking for deviations from expected norms or identifying specific arrangements and relationships within the data, which are forms of variations.)
Claim 22:
The rejection of claim 21 is incorporated. Silvalingam further teaches:
comprising a plurality of nodes, wherein the analyzing is performed at at least one node of a node system. (devices [nodes] such as insight system 700 and user device 702, in the system of fig. 8, wherein the patterns are extracted [analyzing is performed] by insight system 700, fig. 8 and ¶ 111)
Claim 23:
The rejection of claim 21 is incorporated. Silvalingam further teaches:
wherein the analyzing is performed at a plurality of nodes of a node system. (devices [nodes] such as insight system 700 and user device 702, in the system of fig. 8, wherein the patterns are extracted [analyzing is performed] by insight system 700, fig. 8 and ¶ 111. This insight system includes one or more computing devices [plurality of nodes], ¶ 125.)
Claim 24:
The rejection of claim 23 is incorporated. Silvalingam further teaches:
wherein the analyzing is performed by user activity at one or more nodes. (events generated by the web platform, which includes one or more computing devices [plurality of nodes], ¶ 125, are analyzed to identify patterns liked to users, ¶ 108 and fig. 5)
Claim 25:
The rejection of claim 21 is incorporated. Silvalingam further teaches:
wherein the system is further configured to provide the combined data to a plurality of nodes. (a web platform (140) designed to offer marketers and enterprise users advanced capabilities for understanding consumer psychology and behavior, ¶¶ 49-50 and fig. 1. This indicates that insight information is received by computer devices because the web platform, defined as including computers [see ¶ 125], processes data from games and interfaces to generate insights for marketers or consumers. Furthermore, because insights are derived from the aggregated data, see ¶¶ 111-112, these insights themselves also interpreted as aggregated data, because they are the result of combining multiple data sources and represent a unified view. When analyzing this blended dataset, the resulting insights are also a product of that combination, creating a new layer of derived, aggregated information)
Claim 26:
The rejection of claim 25 is incorporated. Silvalingam further teaches:
wherein the combined data provided to the plurality of nodes comprises at least one different data composition with at least one different data subset. (the collection of data distributed among multiple computing nodes is not uniform, as it includes various combinations and selections of data subsets across those nodes, which contain information specific to different customers, e.g., customer identifier, and customer specific information, ¶¶ 7 and 107)
Claim 27:
The rejection of claim 26 is incorporated. Silvalingam further teaches:
wherein the analyzing is performed on the basis of measuring user-related behavior data. (performing analysis to generate insight rules about customer decision-making behavior, e.g., Abstract and ¶ 89)
Claim 28:
The rejection of claim 27 is incorporated. Silvalingam further teaches:
wherein the user-related behavior data comprises at least one of remaining time of the combined data on the node of the user, interaction with the combined data or data subsets by the user, qualified interaction, or weighted interaction. ("feedback" is used to dynamically “drive changes” in the "weight for relevancy", ¶ 121, this weight inherently originates from actual user actions, such as, “recent large spending activities” and action related to other “social media, purchasing interactions, financial interactions” and “customer channel interactions”, ¶¶ 108. These actions inherently include qualified interactions, and weighted interactions)
Independent Claim 31:
Claim(s) 31 is directed to a method performed by the system of claim 21, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Furthermore, compared to claim 21, instead of being directed to analyzing variations of at least one data subset, claim 31 is directed to analyzing variations in at least two data subsets. However, Silvalingam also teaches this, as reflected at least in ¶ 24. This paragraph involves analyzing combined data by variations of at least two data subsets because it involves aggregating "real-time transaction data feeds" and "daily data feeds," [at least two data subsets] and then evaluating these combined inputs against both a "set of event rules" and "insight rules" to derive meaningful patterns [variations] and a "chain of events" for decision making).
Claim 32:
The rejection of claim 31 is incorporated. Claim(s) 32 is directed to a method performed by the system of claim 22, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 33:
The rejection of claim 31 is incorporated. Claim(s) 33 is directed to a method performed by the system of claim 23, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 34:
The rejection of claim 33 is incorporated. Claim(s) 34 is directed to a method performed by the system of claim 24, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 35:
The rejection of claim 31 is incorporated. Claim(s) 35 is directed to a method performed by the system of claim 25, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 36:
The rejection of claim 35 is incorporated. Claim(s) 36 is directed to a method performed by the system of claim 26, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 37:
The rejection of claim 36 is incorporated. Claim(s) 37 is directed to a method performed by the system of claim 27, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 38:
The rejection of claim 37 is incorporated. Claim(s) 38 is directed to a method performed by the system of claim 28, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 29-30 and 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silvalingam (US 20170255949 A1) as applied to claims 21 and 31 above, and further in view of Henrichsen; Christopher J. et al. (hereinafter Henrichsen – US 20150026105 A1).
Claim 29:
The rejection of claim 21 is incorporated. Silvalingam further indirectly points to data comprises one or more pages of an internet platform because it describes data acquisition from "enterprise or consumer interfaces of web platform 140" and mentions the role of "web platform 140 or server 130" in capturing and processing this data, suggesting an origin within a networked, page-based environment, ¶ 63.
However, assuming arguendo, Silvalingam does not appear to expressly teach, but Henrichsen teaches:
wherein the data composition comprises one or more pages of an internet platform (interactions between "web pages," "social media posts," and "domains" (such as "P1, P2, P3, P4 is hosted by a separate domain D1, D2, D3, D4"), indicating real-world internet data used to model an influence graph, ¶¶ 25-26).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Silvalingam to include wherein the data composition comprises one or more pages of an internet platform, as taught by Christensen.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the scalability of the method to type of web platform information collected, see Silvalingam ¶ 63, and insights obtained from the same, e.g., to allow advertisers to accurately predict which advertising impressions being offered are most likely to lead to conversions, Henrichsen ¶ 7.
Claim 30:
The rejection of claim 29 is incorporated. Henrichsen further teaches:
where a plurality of pages are ranked based on the analyzing. (Page ranking in ¶ 39. The text does reflect that a plurality of pages are ranked, as it describes a system calculating "influence scores" for entities (pages) and contrasts it with "conventional page rank algorithms" that produce "page rankings".)
Claim 39:
The rejection of claim 31 is incorporated. Claim(s) 39 is directed to a method performed by the system of claim 29, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 40:
The rejection of claim 39 is incorporated. Claim(s) 40 is directed to a method performed by the system of claim 30, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Below is a list of these references, including why they are pertinent:
Johnson; Jayne F. et al. US 20140013354 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing media stream and content stream transmitted to a home client and the production of a blended information data stream targeted to the home client user, ¶ 10 and fig. 2.
Williams; Graham et al. US 20200401277 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing plugins 604, 616 display received information including, for example, advertisements, news, weather, or the user's biometric data and is blended by means of a user profile to target information to the use, ¶ 83 and fig. 6.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MERCADO whose telephone number is (408)918-7537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (Eastern Time).
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at (571) 272-4057. 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.
/Gabriel Mercado/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171