DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to application 18/801,882 filed 8/13/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending. This action is non-final.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: There is no period at the end of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21-26 of U.S. Patent No. 12,118,577 in view of Fleming (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0282596). Claims 7 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21-26 of U.S. Patent No. 12,118,577 in view of Fleming (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0282596).
Application 18/801,882
Patent 12,118,577
(Claims 1, 8, and 15) ... receiving, by a processor, a plurality of digital content items ... over a network;
(Claim 21) receiving, by a processor, a plurality of digital content items over a network or from a database;
(Claims 1, 8, and 15) ... through an Application Programming Interface (API) wherein the API enables secure reception of digital content and other information ...
Obvious over patent 12,118,577 in view of secondary reference Fleming (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0282596); See [0033] Fleming teaches its system utilizing an application programming interface for securely transmitting data.
(Claims 1, 8, and 15) for each received content item: defining, by the processor, a valuation function for determining a market value of the received content item, wherein the market value determined by the valuation function is based on a plurality of attributes
(Claim 21) for each received content item: defining, by the processor, a valuation function for determining a market value of the received content item, wherein the market value determined by the valuation function is based on a plurality of attributes
(Claims 1, 8, and 15) and defining the valuation function comprises: finding and ranking one or more previously processed content items having a plurality of attributes with closest similarity to the plurality of attributes of the received content item; and performing averaging of valuation functions associated with the nearest one or more of the previously processed and ranked content items;
(Claim 21) and defining the valuation function comprises: finding and ranking one or more previously processed content items having a plurality of attributes with closest similarity to the plurality of attributes of the received content item; and performing averaging of valuation functions associated with the nearest one or more of the previously processed and ranked content items;
(Claims 1, 8, and 15) determining, by the processor, a market response reflecting behavior of one or more consumers;
(Claim 21) determining, by the processor, a market response reflecting behavior of one or more consumers;
(Claims 1, 8, and 15) adapting, by the processor, the defined valuation function according to the determined market response for continually correcting the market values of the plurality of digital content items by learning from the determined market response
(Claim 21) adapting, by the processor, the defined valuation function according to the determined market response for continually correcting the market values of the plurality of digital content items by learning from the determined market response
(Claims 1, 8, and 15) wherein the market values are dynamically varying based on the continual correction and are streamed along with the plurality of digital content items in real-time to the one or more consumers over the network;
(Claim 21) wherein the market values are dynamically varying based on the continual correction and are streamed along with the plurality of digital content items in real-time to the one or more consumers over the network;
(Claims 1, 8, and 15) streaming continually, by the processor, the market values of the plurality of digital content items with dynamically varying market values ...
(Claim 21) streaming continually, by the processor, the market values of the plurality of digital content items ... with dynamically varying market values
(Claims 2, 9, and 16) The method of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of digital content items comprises metadata and data including one or more from a group of text, audio, video, and images.
(Claim 22) The method of claim 21, wherein each of the plurality of digital content items comprises metadata and data including one or more from a group of text, audio, video, and images.
(Claims 3, 10, and 17) The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of attributes is used to express a class or domain of the received content item.
(Claim 23) The method of claim 21, wherein the plurality of attributes is used to express a class or domain of the received content item.
(Claims 4, 11, and 18) The method of claim 1, further comprising forming, by the processor, similarity models for each of the plurality of digital content items to enable identifying and ranking similar of the plurality of digital content items.
(Claim 24) The method of claim 21, further comprising forming, by the processor, similarity models for each of the plurality of digital content items to enable identifying and ranking similar of the plurality of digital content items. For Claim 18, it is obvious over claim 21 in view of claims 23 and 24.
(Claims 5, 12, and 19) The method of claim 1, further comprising: formulating, by an application on a device of a consumer, a code snippet based on content distribution requirements of a content distributor provided to the application, wherein the code snippet is custom crafted for a website of the content distributor in accordance with the content distribution requirements and maintained by the processor in a library, and wherein the code snippet is for placement on the website of the content distributor for distribution to one or more browsers of the one or more devices of the one or more consumers; and securely supporting and delivering, by the processor, the code snippet to external applications running on the one or more devices of the one or more consumers, wherein the external applications are executed by the one or more consumers by using network browsing programs on the one or more devices for performing one or more activities.
(Claim 25) The method of claim 21, further comprising: formulating, by an application on a device of a consumer, a code snippet based on content distribution requirements of a content distributor provided to the application, wherein the code snippet is custom crafted for a website of the content distributor in accordance with the content distribution requirements and maintained by the processor in a library, and wherein the code snippet is for placement on the website of the content distributor for distribution to one or more browsers of the one or more devices of the one or more consumers; and securely supporting and delivering, by the processor, the code snippet to external applications running on the one or more devices of the one or more consumers, wherein the external applications are executed by the one or more consumers by using network browsing programs on the one or more devices for performing one or more activities. For Claim 19, it is obvious over claim 21 in view of claims 23, 24, and 25.
(Claims 6, 13, and 20) The method of claim 5, wherein the one or more activities include at least an activity related to an online registration, an activity related to a purchase of credit, an activity related to authoring of digital content items for adding to a content database, or an activity related to a purchase of access to one of the plurality of digital content items by using the purchased credit.
(Claim 26) The method of claim 25, wherein the one or more activities include at least an activity related to an online registration, an activity related to a purchase of credit, an activity related to authoring of digital content items for adding to a content database, or an activity related to a purchase of access to one of the plurality of digital content items by using the purchased credit. For Claim 20, it is obvious over claim 21 in view of claims 23, 24, 25, and 26.
(Claims 7 and 14) The method of claim 6, wherein securely supporting and delivering the code snippet to external applications running on the one or more devices using a software development kit (SDK).
Obvious over patent 12,118,577 in view of secondary reference Ranft (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0232546); See [0188] Ranft teaches utilizing a software development kit (SDK) to assist in the manipulation of code.
As shown in the table above, almost all of the elements of application 18/801,882 claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are to be found in patent 12,118,577 except for one element of claims 1, 8, and 15 which is not found in patent 12,118,577 and is instead found in Fleming (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0282596). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine the claims of patent 12,118,577 with the disclosure of Fleming. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the API of Fleming for the network of patent 12,118,577. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
As shown in the table above, almost all the elements of the application 18/801,882 claims 7 and 14 are to be found in patent 12,118,577 except for one element of claims 7 and 14 which is not found in patent 12,118,577 and is instead found in Ranft (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0232546). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine the claims of patent 12,118,577 with the disclosure of Ranft. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the software development kit (SDK) of Ranft for the generic method of securely supporting and delivering a code snippet of the patent 12,118,577. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
A complete reply to this Office Action must contain a substantive response (by way of amendment to overcome the rejection, specific arguments explaining why the rejection was made in error, or by filing a Terminal Disclaimer). See MPEP 804(I)(B)(1). The rejection will not be held in abeyance and incomplete replies will be treated as not fully responsive under MPEP 714.03.
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 1-4, 8-11, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. (Examiner’s Note: Claims 5-7, 12-14, and 19-20 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. Specifically, claims 5, 12, and 19 recite formulating and delivering custom code snippets to websites for placement on the websites.)
Step 1: Claims 1, 8, and 15 each recite a method, a system, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium, respectively, for receiving, by a processor, a plurality of digital content items through an Application Programming Interface (API) wherein the API enables secure reception of digital content and other information over a network; for each received content item: defining, by the processor, a valuation function for determining a market value of the received content item, wherein the market value determined by the valuation function is based on a plurality of attributes, and defining the valuation function comprises: finding and ranking one or more previously processed content items having a plurality of attributes with closest similarity to the plurality of attributes of the received content item; and performing averaging of valuation functions associated with the nearest one or more of the previously processed and ranked content items; determining, by the processor, a market response reflecting behavior of one or more consumers; adapting, by the processor, the defined valuation function according to the determined market response for continually correcting the market values of the plurality of digital content items by learning from the determined market response, wherein the market values are dynamically varying based on the continual correction and are streamed along with the plurality of digital content items in real-time to the one or more consumers over the network; and streaming continually, by the processor, the market values of the plurality of digital content items with dynamically varying market values through the Application Programming Interface (API). Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15 are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention: a method, a machine, and an article of manufacture, respectively.
Step 2A – Prong One: The limitations receiving ... a plurality of ... content items ... wherein ... enables secure reception of ... content and other information ... for each received content item: defining ... a valuation function for determining a market value of the received content item, wherein the market value determined by the valuation function is based on a plurality of attributes, and defining the valuation function comprises: finding and ranking one or more previously processed content items having a plurality of attributes with closest similarity to the plurality of attributes of the received content item; and performing averaging of valuation functions associated with the nearest one or more of the previously processed and ranked content items; determining ... a market response reflecting behavior of one or more consumers; adapting ... the defined valuation function according to the determined market response for continually correcting the market values of the plurality of digital content items by learning from the determined market response, wherein the market values are dynamically varying based on the continual correction and are streamed along with the plurality of ... content items in real-time to the one or more consumers ... and streaming continually ... the market values of the plurality of digital content items with dynamically varying market values ... as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, only covers concepts of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – sales activities or behaviors). That is, nothing in the claim elements disclose anything outside the groupings of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – sales activities or behaviors). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 8, and 15 merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of the aforementioned abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements of claims 1, 8, and 15, a system (claim 8), a non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 15), a processor (claims 1, 8, and 15), digital (claims 1, 8, and 15), an Application Programming Interface (claims 1, 8, and 15), and a network (claims 1, 8, and 15), are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, the additional elements of claims 1, 8, and 15 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims as a whole merely describe the abstract idea generally “applied” to a generic computer environment. The additional elements of claims 1, 8, and 15, a system (described in spec. para. [0032]), a non-transitory computer-readable medium (described in spec. para. [0095]), a processor (described in spec. para. [0094]), digital (described in spec. para. [0003]), an Application Programming Interface (described in spec. para. [0033]), and a network (described in spec. para. [0032]), are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer components upon which the abstract idea is “applied.” The high level of generality in which this additional element is described indicates that the additional element is sufficiently known such that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional element to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-4, 9-11, and 16-18 have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the limitations both individually and in combination. Claims 2-4, 9-11, and 16-18 when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The limitations of the dependent claims fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” a method of the aforementioned abstract idea. Claims 2-4, 9-11, and 16-18 do not recite additional elements not previously recited in the independent claims. Therefore, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned abstract idea in a generic computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Performing the further narrowed abstract ideas of the dependent claims on the additional elements of the independent claim, individually or in combination, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas and amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similarly, the recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 2-4, 9-11, and 16-18 do not recite additional elements not previously recited in the independent claims. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Reasons for Novelty
Claims -1-20 are considered novel over the prior art. Examiner has determined that the combination of claim elements is unanticipated by prior art and that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have arrived at the claimed invention. Examiner considers the following references the closest prior art to the claimed invention: Ramer (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0238255), Eglen (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0241491), and Fleming (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0282596). However, Examiner has determined that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these references or other prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, the independent and dependent claims are all considered novel over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS GOMEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-0926. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM – 4:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SHANNON CAMPBELL can be reached at (571) 272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CHRISTOPHER GOMEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3628