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 .
This office action is in response to communication filed on 4/2/2026.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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.
Step 1: Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). (MPEP 2106.03)
Claims 1-7 recite a series of steps, thus falling within one of the four statutory classes; i.e., process. Claims 8-14 recite computer readable tangible medium, thus falling within one of the four statutory classes; i.e., manufacture. Claims 15-20 recite tangible system components, thus falling within one of the four statutory classes; i.e., machine.
2Step 2A, Prong One: Evaluating whether the claim(s) recite(s) a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. (MPEP 2106.04).
Taking claim 1 as a representative:
generating, by a community generator in a first tier of a tiered framework, a community in a second tier of the tiered framework, wherein: the community comprises a service in the framework to store and display interactions among community members, the first tier has downstream access to computing resources in the second tier, and the second tier has no upstream access to resources in the first tier; responsive to generating the community, provisioning, by the first tier, to perform some actions outside the community at the first tier and other actions in the community at the second tier; responsive to provisioning in the community; monitoring, interactions between community members in the community; providing data access to identify a sentiment trend in the interactions, wherein: the composing a post comprising at least text generated from a semantic analysis of the interactions, wherein: a tone of the text corresponds to the sentiment trend, and the semantic analysis includes determining meaning and context of the interactions in view of the data accessible; and automatically publishing the post in the community.
The above limitations recite concepts of information/permission management by providing access to content based on permissions to the different tiers. The claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and fall within the “Certain Methods of organizing Human activity” grouping of abstract ideas, under Prong One of Step 2A.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, returning to representative claim 1, the claim recites software, network, bot engine, AI model and artificial intelligence (AI) model for identifying sentiment trend in member’s interactions. These limitations are generic, computer component and amounts to not more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claim 1 does not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Next, under Step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05.
The claims do 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 elements of software, network, bot engine, AI model and artificial intelligence (AI) model for identifying sentiment trend in member’s interactions, alone and in combination amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding the limitations of a software, network, bot engine, AI model and artificial intelligence (AI) model for identifying sentiment trend in member’s interactions, it is noted that sending information over a network has been recognized in the courts as being Well Understood Routine and Conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) - i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Therefore, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception and cannot provide an inventive concept. (MPEP 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity).
Dependent claims 2-7 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend. There’re no additional elements that transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further abstract limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, independent medium claim 8 and apparatus claim 15 are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as claims above. Claim 8 further recites a processor and claim 15 recites a processing circuitry and memory at a high-level of generality (i.e. generic) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Dependent claims 9-14 and 16-20 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to the claims from which they depend. There’re no additional elements that transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further abstract limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 allowable over the prior art of record.
The closest prior art of record Bolla (2019/0130463) teaches: the bot uses one or more machine learning algorithms to perform any analysis, thereby integrating the machine learning algorithm with the bot. The bot may use one or more machine learning algorithms to understand a context of the online and any follow-up posts generated by the poster, and to generate proper responses to the poster. The bot in Bolla is integrated with an inquiry module that performs various analysis. In contrast, the claim’s software bot is separate from the AI model and allowing faster operation of the bot. In addition, Bolla doesn’t disclose the tiered software network: the first tier having access to all data in the tiered software framework, and the second tier having no access to the data in the first tier” as shown in Figure 4.
Champaneria (2019/0019160) teaches on paragraph 0236, separate instances of the AI BOT may have access to certain communications channels, such that, for example, parallel instances of an AI BOT function on each communication channel or on sets of communications channels, all linked to the same database (or group of databases) and to the same NLP engine. (Different databases or even different NLP engines may also be contemplated, particularly for the system as a whole; for example, in an exemplary embodiment, a first AI BOT may be used to manage recruitment operations in California and a second AI BOT may be used to manage recruitment operations in China, with the second AI BOT having appropriate natural language processing functionalities for processing Chinese languages that the first AI BOT does not have. Nevertheless, Champaneria doesn’t disclose software bot is separate from an AI model and allowing faster operation of the bot. In addition, Champaneria doesn’t disclose the tiered software network: the first tier having access to all data in the tiered software framework, and the second tier having no access to the data in the first tier” as shown in Figure 4.
Buchanan (2025/0298988) teaches the system uses a chatbot integrated with an AI model trained to detect the tone of conversations and respond accordingly. The chatbot interface is hosted within a software application. The chatbot interacts with users via a chat window, providing a platform for exchanging messages. The primary function of the chatbot is to engage in conversations with users, where it receives user inputs as queries and generates responses. An AI model residing within the host platform is crucial in developing initial chatbot responses. Buchanan doesn’t disclose the tiered software network: software bot is separate from the AI model and the first tier having access to all data in the tiered software framework, and the second tier having no access to the data in the first tier”
JP 2003522342 A2 teaches client tier software component that is integrated into each of the data management services available to the user and provides a unified interface. JP 2003522342 A2 doesn’t teach software bot is separate from the AI model and the first tier having access to all data in the tiered software framework, and the second tier having no access to the data in the first tier.
Article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia titled “Psychographic” teaches psychographic profiles that are used in market segmentation as well as in advertising. Some categories of psychographic factors used in market segmentation include: activity, interest, opinion (AIOs), attitudes, and lifestyles.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The Examiner disagrees with Applicant because the crux of the tier based system appears to simply be information/permission management. The specification as filed, on paragraphs 0040-0043, discloses that there isn’t really a technological basis for the different tiers, but instead an access to content basis for tiers and their permissions and solving a permission/,information management problem and therefore fall under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human activity”, under prong one of step 2A.
The additional elements of software framework, bot engine, artificial intelligence, AI model, computing resources are generic computer implementation, to carry out the abstract idea and therefore not significantly more, under prong two of step 2A.
The claims as a whole do not recite improvement to the functioning of a computer, the additional elements are generic computer implementation and do not amount to significantly more, under 2B.
Point of contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6715. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays thru Thursdays 8:30-6:30.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. 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.
/RAQUEL ALVAREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights