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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Request for Continued Examination for filed on 4/29/2026 for the application No. 18/817,983. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-20 have been rejected as follow
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/29/2026 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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of Patent No. 12,165,178. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claims anticipate the claims under examination.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of Patent No. 12,165,178. Although the claim at issue is not identical, it is not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim anticipates the claim under examination.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of Patent 12,165,178. Although the claim at issue is not identical, it is not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim anticipates the claim under examination.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of Patent 12,165,178. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim anticipates the claim under examination.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6 and 7 of Patent 12,165,178. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claims anticipate the claims under examination.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8 and 9 of Patent 12,165,178. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claims anticipate the claims under examination.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of Patent 12,165,178. Although the claims at issue is not identical, it is not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claim anticipates the claim under 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 are not compliant with 101, according with the last “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (2019 PEG), published in the MPEP 2103 through 2106.07(c). Examiner’s analysis is presented below for all the claims.
Claim 11: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a method.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim? Yes. The claim recites the limitations of “for the first subscriber, identifying a first set of subscribers that commonly subscribe to the first content creator, the first set of subscribers corresponding with the first subscriber by virtue of common subscribership to the first content creator, the first set of subscribers including a second subscriber and a third subscriber; identifying a second content creator that the second subscriber subscribes to but the first subscriber does not; identifying a third content creator that the third subscriber subscribes to but the first subscriber does not; determining a first quantity of the subscribers in the first set of subscribers that subscribe to the second content creator; determining a second quantity of the subscribers in the first set of subscribers that subscribe to the third content creator; ranking the second content creator and the third content creator based on the first quantity and the second quantity, respectively; generating recommendation information defining an individualized subscription recommendation for the first subscriber that recommends the second content creator or the third content creator based on the ranking of the second content creator and the third content creator;”The “identifying, determining, ranking, generating” limitations, as drafted, is a process and system that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as certain methods of organizing human activity, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. The method to generate an individualized subscription recommendation. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Also, the claim can be considered a mental process, because limitations “for the first subscriber, identifying a first set of subscribers that commonly subscribe to the first content creator, the first set of subscribers corresponding with the first subscriber by virtue of common subscribership to the first content creator, the first set of subscribers including a second subscriber and a third subscriber; identifying a second content creator that the second subscriber subscribes to but the first subscriber does not; identifying a third content creator that the third subscriber subscribes to but the first subscriber does not; determining a first quantity of the subscribers in the first set of subscribers that subscribe to the second content creator; determining a second quantity of the subscribers in the first set of subscribers that subscribe to the third content creator; ranking the second content creator and the third content creator based on the first quantity and the second quantity, respectively; generating recommendation information defining an individualized subscription recommendation for the first subscriber that recommends the second content creator or the third content creator based on the ranking of the second content creator and the third content creator;” These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic network connection does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process which is an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. The claim recites additional limitations, such as,
“storing subscribership information describing subscribers … who consume content created by content creators of the membership platform, the content creators offering benefit items to the subscribers of the membership platform who subscribe to the content creators, the subscribership information characterizing subscribership of individual ones of the subscribers to individual ones of the content creators, the subscribers including a first subscriber subscribing to a first content creator; …effectuating communication of the recommendation information …to present the individualized subscription recommendation for the first subscriber “. These are limitations toward accessing or storing or receiving data. It is merely gathering data.
The Examiner analyses other supplementary elements in the claim in view of the instant disclosure:
“within a membership platform, a membership platform, establishing a network connection between a server managing the membership platform and a computing platform associated with the first subscriber; from the server to the computing platform to cause the computing platform … within a user interface of the membership platform”;
The limitations comprise generic recited computer elements, software and data.
These supplementary elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea because They merely reflects the use of conventional technology and amounts to only generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h).
The combination of these additional elements can also be considered no more than mere instructions “to apply” the exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The Examiner gives the broadest reasonable interpretation to the above elements. They are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim as a whole does not integrate the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Thus, the claim is ineligible because is directed to the recited judicial exception (abstract idea).
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim,
“within a membership platform, a membership platform, establishing a network connection between a server managing the membership platform and a computing platform associated with the first subscriber; from the server to the computing platform to cause the computing platform … within a user interface of the membership platform”;
amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic hardware, software and data cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B.
Here, the limitations:
“within a membership platform, a membership platform, establishing a network connection between a server managing the membership platform and a computing platform associated with the first subscriber; from the server to the computing platform to cause the computing platform … within a user interface of the membership platform”;
were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Other limitations in the claim, such as:
“storing subscribership information describing subscribers … who consume content created by content creators of the membership platform, the content creators offering benefit items to the subscribers of the membership platform who subscribe to the content creators, the subscribership information characterizing subscribership of individual ones of the subscribers to individual ones of the content creators, the subscribers including a first subscriber subscribing to a first content creator; …effectuating communication of the recommendation information …to present the individualized subscription recommendation for the first subscriber “. These are limitations toward accessing or storing or receiving data (gathering data). Accessing or receiving data is very well understood, routine and conventional computer task activity; It represents insignificant extra solution activity. Mere data-gathering step[s] cannot make an otherwise nonstaturory claim statutory In re Grams,888 F.2d 835, 840 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794 (CCPA 1982)).
Further, the instant specification does not provide any indication that the elements
“within a membership platform, a membership platform, establishing a network connection between a server managing the membership platform and a computing platform associated with the first subscriber; from the server to the computing platform to cause the computing platform … within a user interface of the membership platform”;
were are anything other than generic software and hardware, and the OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); and v. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely computer receives and sends information over a network and presenting or displaying information, is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the
“within a membership platform, a membership platform, establishing a network connection between a server managing the membership platform and a computing platform associated with the first subscriber; from the server to the computing platform to cause the computing platform … within a user interface of the membership platform”;
limitations (pointed above) are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. See MPEP 2106.05 (d). The claim is ineligible.
Claim 1: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a system.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim ? Yes. Because the same reasons pointed above. Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No. Because the same reasons pointed above. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20, the claims recite elements such as
“wherein the one or more physical processors are further configured by the machine-readable instructions to: weight the second content creator based on weighting criteria; and rank the second content creator and the third content creator further based on weighting of the second content creator”, etc. These elements do not integrate the system of organizing human activity into a practical application. The claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5-11, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG. Pub. No. 20180285933 (Lee-Chan) in view of US PG. Pub. No. 20190290965 (Oren).
As to claims 11 and 1, Lee-Chan discloses a method to generate [an individualized] subscription recommendation within a membership platform (see Fig. 1 and abstract), the method comprising:
a) storing subscribership information describing subscribers of a membership platform who consume content created by content creators of the membership platform, the content creators offering benefit items to the subscribers of the membership platform who subscribe to the content creators, the subscribership information characterizing subscribership of individual ones of the subscribers to individual ones of the content creators, the subscribers including a first subscriber subscribing to a first content creator;
(“The channel content can be digital content uploaded to the internet-based content platform by a channel curator and/or digital content selected by a channel curator from the content available on the Internet-based content platform. A channel curator can be a professional content provider (e.g., a professional content creator, a professional content distributor, a content rental service, a television (TV) service, etc.) or an amateur. Channel content can include professional content (e.g., movie clips, TV clips, music videos, educational videos) and/or amateur content (e.g., video blogging, short original videos, etc…”, paragraph 25.
“1. A system for facilitating cross-promotion between channels hosted by an Internet based media provider, comprising: a memory that stores computer executable instructions and a data store comprising information identifying the channels and respective subscribers to the channels; …”, claim 1.
See also “[0003] Collaboration and cross-promotion between websites and other online entities is an excellent mechanism for increasing viewership and attracting new viewers, especially when the respective collaborating entities attract similar audiences. However, finding other entities to collaborate with is often difficult. For example, a content creator or business owner must first research other entities to learn which entity has an audience base the creator or business owner would be interested in reaching. After finding a suitable collaboration candidate, the creator or business owner must reach out to the collaboration candidate and persuade the candidate why collaboration and cross-promotion with one another would be beneficial to both entities. This second hurdle is often even more difficult than the first. Sometimes reaching out to other creators or businesses is like shouting into an empty void. Creators and businesses often get too many messages and business inquiries to respond to all of them. They also have no easy way to make decisions on whom to respond to first without investing at least some time into researching the respective inquiring entities.
[0005] FIG. 1 illustrates an example system for identifying and recommending channels for collaboration with one another based on similarity in audiences of the respective channels, in accordance with various aspects and embodiments described herein;
[0007] FIG. 3 presents a user interface that displays channels recommended for collaboration with a creator's channel [Examiner equates content creators ] in accordance with various aspects and embodiments described herein”, paragraphs 3, 5 7 and Figs. 1 and 3.
“…Users, …, can subscribe to one or more channels in which they are interested…”, paragraph 25 and “… Users can also subscribe to a channel to associate themselves with the channel, receive updates regarding the channel (e.g., updates regarding new additions to the channel, updates regarding new comments on the channel, updates regarding popularity of the channel, etc.), interact with other subscribers to the channel, and various additional perks of being a subscriber to the channel…”, paragraph 26);
b) for the first subscriber, identifying a first set of subscribers that commonly subscribe to the first content creator, the first set of subscribers corresponding with the first subscriber by virtue of common subscribership to the first content creator, the first set of subscribers including a second subscriber and a third subscriber;
(“… hardware processor that, when executing the computer executable instructions stored in the memory, is configured to: identify, based on information in the data store, a set of the channels respectively having at least one common subscriber to a first channel of the channels; for each channel in the set of channels, generate a cross-promotion score representative of a degree to which a channel is a match for cross-promotion, wherein the cross-promotion score is based on a number of common subscribers between the channel in the set of channels [Examiner interprets as a first set of subscribers that commonly subscribe to the first content creator] and the first channel and an engagement score which reflects interaction information with the media content associated with the channel; …”, claim 1.
“[0093] FIG. 7 illustrates a flow chart of an example method 700 that facilitates collaboration between entities based on similarity in respective audiences of the entities, in accordance with various aspects and embodiments described herein. At 702 a set of channels having at least one common subscriber to a channel are identified (e.g., via identification component 104)…”, paragraph 93 and Fig. 7.
See also “[0007] FIG. 3 presents a user interface that displays channels recommended for collaboration with a creator's channel in accordance with various aspects and embodiments described herein”, paragraph 7 and Fig. 3.
“…these metrics include similarity in audiences of the entities, and more particularly, a determined amount of shared audience members [common subscribership to the first content creator, the first set of subscribers including a second subscriber and a third subscriber]….”, paragraph 20.
“…he channel content can be digital content uploaded to the internet-based content platform by a channel curator and/or digital content selected by a channel curator from the content available on the Internet-based content platform. A channel curator can be a professional content provider (e.g., a professional content creator, a professional content distributor, a content rental service, a television (TV) service, etc.) or an amateur. Channel content can include professional content (e.g., movie clips, TV clips, music videos, educational videos) and/or amateur content (e.g., video blogging, short original videos, etc.). Users, other than the curator of the channel, can subscribe to one or more channels in which they are interested”, paragraph 25.
“…a first channel can be analyzed to identify other channels that have at least one common subscriber with the first channel. A filtering mechanism can also be applied to identify a subset of the other channels for recommending to the creator or owner (or entity otherwise afforded management rights to the channel) of the first channel for collaboration with the first channel….”, paragraph 27.
“…system further includes a processor that executes various computer executable components stored in the memory, including an identification component configured to identify a set of the channels having at least one common subscriber to a first channel of the channels based on the information in the data store,…”, paragraph 29 );
c) identifying a second content creator that the second subscriber subscribes to but the first subscriber does not;
(“[0097] FIG. 9 illustrates a flow chart of another example method 900 that facilitates collaboration between entities based on similarity in respective audiences of the entities, in accordance with various aspects and embodiments described herein. At 902, a set of entities having at least one common audience member to another entity are identified (e.g., via identification component 104”, paragraph 97 and Fig. 9);
d) identifying a third content creator that the third subscriber subscribes to but the first subscriber does not;
(“[0097] FIG. 9 illustrates a flow chart of another example method 900 that facilitates collaboration between entities based on similarity in respective audiences of the entities, in accordance with various aspects and embodiments described herein. At 902, a set of entities having at least one common audience member to another entity are identified (e.g., via identification component 104). At 904, the respective entities are ranked based on degree of similarity between an audience of the other entity and audiences of the respective entities (e.g., via ranking component 106). At 906, a subset of the respective entities are identified based on the ranking (e.g., via filter component 108). At 908, the subset of the respective entities are recommended to the other entity for entering into a collaboration or cross-promotion agreement (e.g., by recommendation component 110”, paragraph 97 and Fig. 9);
e) determining a first quantity of the subscribers in the first set of subscribers that subscribe to the second content creator;
(“…or example, parameters that can be employed to filter the other channels can include but are not limited to: number of common subscribers between the first channel and the respective other channels, total number of subscribers to the first channel, total numbers of respective subscribers to the other channels, number of common subscribers between the first channel and the other channels that are associated with a specific classification (e.g., top subscribers of the first channel, recent subscribers of the other channels, subscribers associated with different demographics, etc…”, paragraph 27);
f) determining a second quantity of the subscribers in the first set of subscribers that subscribe to the third content creator;
(“…For example, parameters that can be employed to filter the other channels can include but are not limited to: number of common subscribers between the first channel and the respective other channels, total number of subscribers to the first channel, total numbers of respective subscribers to the other channels…”, paragraph 27);
g) ranking the second content creator and the third content creator based on the first quantity and the second quantity, respectively;
(“… a ranking component configured to rank respective channels [Examiner equates content creators ] in the set based on number of common subscribers between the respective channels in the set and the first channel. …”, abstract.
“…a ranking component configured to rank respective channels in the set based on number of common subscribers between the respective channels…”, paragraph 29.
See also
” [0007] FIG. 3 presents a user interface that displays channels recommended for collaboration with a creator's channel [Examiner equates content creators ] in accordance with various aspects and embodiments described herein”, paragraphs 3, 5 7 and Figs. 1 “ranking component 106” and 3.
“…ranking component 106 is configured to rank the respective channels included in the set based on a ranking factor that reflects a degree to which the respective channels are considered good/strong matches for collaboration and/or cross-promotion with the particular channel. Ranking component 106 can apply various algorithms and/or look up tables that relate various ranking factors associated with audience similarity, audience engagement, subscriber size, channel popularity, and/or content similarity, with scores representative of a degree to which a channel is a good or strong match for collaboration and/or cross-promotion with another channel”, paragraph 50);
h) generating recommendation information [defining an individualized subscription recommendation for the first subscriber] that recommends the second content creator or the third content creator based on the ranking of the second content creator and the third content creator;
(“[0034] System 100 can include collaboration recommendation system 102, content provider 118, and client device 120…”, paragraph 34.
“…number of subscribers) are recommended to one another for collaboration/cross-promotion….”, paragraph 64.
“[0076] Cross-promotion component 502 is configured to facilitate connection and communication between entities recommended for collaboration by recommendation component 110. Cross-promotion component 502 can include messaging component 504, report component 506, and automatic cross-promotion component 508. Messaging component 504 is configured to facilitate communication Internet based entities recommended for collaboration/cross-promotion with one another via the mechanisms disclosed herein…”, paragraph 76 and Fig. 5 elements 502, 118 and 120.
See also
“…the processor is further configured to identify a subset of the set of channels based on the ranking of the respective channels, generate a recommendation comprising information identifying … the channels as candidates for cross-promotion with the first channel, and providing the recommendation …”, paragraph 31.
“…generate a recommendation user interface comprising information identifying the subset of channels as candidates for cross-promotion with the first channel from the set of channels and information associated with the cross-promotion score for each of the channels, wherein the recommendation user interface enables communication with entities associated with each of the subset of channels and restricts communication with entities associated with channels other than the subset of channels”, claim 1).
i) establishing a network connection between a server managing the membership platform and a computing platform associated with the first subscriber
(claims 3 and 4. Fig. 11 and associated disclosure);
j) and effectuating communication of the recommendation information from the server to the computing platform to cause the computing platform to present [the individualized subscription] recommendation for the first subscriber within a user interface of the membership platform.
(“…cause the recommendation user interface to be presented to an entity affiliated with management of the first channel”, claims 1-3.
“[0034] System 100 can include collaboration recommendation system 102, content provider 118, and client device 120…”, paragraph 34.
Fig. 5 elements 502, 118 and 120.
See also”[0067] For example, FIG. 3 provides an example user interface 300 that provides a channel creator access to information and management operations pertaining to the creator's channel in accordance with aspects and embodiments disclosed herein. In example user interface 300, the creator's username is Erin…”, paragraph 67 and “[0069] Each of the recommended channels can also be accompanied by a message button 308. Selection of the message button associated with a recommended channel can facilitate communication between Erin and the creator of the selected channel. For example, selection of the message button 308 can generate a collaboration message or post that is provided to a messaging inbox or user profile account for the creator of the recommended channel…”, paragraph 69).
Although, Lee-Chan’s system teaches subscribers who are users that can subscribe to a channel to associate themselves with the channel, receive channel updates and other subscriber perks, paragraph 26.Lee-Chan’s system refers to sources of content that is disseminated to subscribers when he describes a media channel that includes "data content available from a common source or data content having a common topic or them." , paragraph 25.
Lee-Chan does not disclose but Oren discloses
an individualized subscription
(“[0009] One present model for distribution of digital assets is that of the “digital service provider” (“DSP”). The focus of the DSPs is licensing and sub-licensing of digital content owned by the digital content owner(s). They license and aggregate content or digital assets from owner(s) of digital content and distribute this content by sale or license of the digital asset to end-user(s). This may be done, for example, by the licensing of individual digital item(s) or by means of subscription allowing the end-user(s) to have access to pre-determined digital content for a fixed period of time”, paragraph 9 and “ individual subscription”, paragraph 23.
“…. After the content provider 740 creates the media assets 742 (e.g., an album of music), the media assets 742 may be provided to the content host 750. The media assets 742 are now available to users who meet certain access requirements [an individualized subscription] , such as user who own a pre-paid subscription, through the distribution platform 720. The user 702 may use the client application 706 to download or otherwise access the media assets 710 from the distribution platform 720. In some cases, the end user streams the provided content. In other cases, the provided content may be customized in a dynamic and real time or close to real time rendering fashion based on data inputs from an end user exercise apparatus, related in whole or in part to end user's exercise performance”, paragraph 106).
defining an individualized subscription [recommendation for the first subscriber]
“…a fitness instructor can curate unique and exclusive fitness lessons in her/his personally-branded channel and offer it to end users using the embodiment of this novel invention…”, paragraph 40.
“[0098] An embodiment of an operation of a content distribution environment in accordance with one or more embodiments of the present application will now be described with reference to FIG. 7. The content distribution environment includes a distribution platform 720, which may be implemented as a network server as previously disclosed. The distribution platform 720 facilitates the delivery of digital content (such as media assets 742) to a user 702. The user 702 operates an end-user device 704, such as a mobile phone that includes a client application 706 facilitating communication with a merchant application 732 hosted on a merchant server 730 by a merchant. For example, in one embodiment the client application 706 may allow the user 702 to play music and the merchant application 732 may include a store allowing the user to access music files hosted through the distribution platform 720. In another example, the end-user device 704 may be associated with an exercise apparatus (e.g., a stationary bike, a treadmill) and the client application 706 provides an interface for accessing exercise related content through the merchant server 730. The exercise related content may include fully produced content such as a pre-recorded audio and/or video content, and/or may incorporate audio and/or video components that are being customized in real time based on certain data provided by the end user and/or by the exercise apparatus.
[0099] In some embodiments, user-generated content may be added into the service and weaved together with content-owner provided content in any media access and/or select subscription plan. The delivery of digital content into the platform may be facilitated via a plurality of supply-chain platforms which are used to deliver content directly to end-users through the merchant outlet and/or application, paragraph 99. “The content provider 750 manages access to the media assets 754 through the distribution platform 720, which includes a database 722 storing content data 724 and subscription data 726…”, paragraph 100.
Although, Oren does not expressly teach recommendation for the first subscriber, from Oren teaching of “..user-generated content may be added into the service and weaved together with content-owner provided content in any media access and/or select subscription plan…”, paragraph 99 and “…a fitness instructor can curate unique and exclusive fitness lessons in her/his personally-branded channel and offer it to end users using the embodiment of this novel invention…”, paragraph 40; It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Oren’s teaching with the teaching of Lee-Chan. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to generate subscription recommendation for the first subscriber, since Oren states that “Any person with a reason to engage subscribers for a unique subset of media delivery can leverage the present disclosure to improve its monetization of its assets”, Oren paragraph 40, and the results will yield a predictable result.
As to claims 15 and 5, Lee-Chan discloses
obtaining subscription context information, the subscription context information including subscribership criteria required to be satisfied in order for the individualized subscription recommendation to be generated
(“0063] Each potential channel in the set is then evaluated using the criteria/thresholds defined in blocks 206 and 210 to determine whether to include it in a recommendation list for recommending to the creator/owner of the first channel for collaboration/cross-promotion…”, paragraph 63.
“…In an aspect, when a subset includes two or more channels automatic-cross promotion component 508 can apply a filter criteria that selection of one or more channels of the subset of channels at which to automatically include/integrate content associated with the first channel. The filter criteria can be based on the various metrics discussed in association with filter component 108…”, paragraph 82 and Fig. 5);
As to claims 16 and 6, Lee-Chan discloses further comprising: obtaining creator information characterizing the second content creator (Fig. 3 and associated disclosure); determining whether the subscribership criteria is satisfied based on the creator information (paragraph 80); and effectuating presentation of the individualized subscription recommendation based on the creator information satisfying the subscribership criteria.
(“[0067] For example, FIG. 3 provides an example user interface 300 that provides a channel creator access to information and management operations pertaining to the creator's channel in accordance with aspects and embodiments disclosed herein. In example user interface 300, the creator's username is Erin. Erin has signed into her channel account at a website (or other type of Network accessible platform) established by a media provider that hosts Erin's channel. Interface 300 can include several menu options that relate to various information and management functions regarding Erin's channel. For example, menu 302 includes several options or features to access, including a dashboard feature, a video manager feature, a community feature, a channel settings feature, an analytics feature, an inbox feature, and creation tools feature. Erin has selected the community option which has several menu subcategories including fans, insights and collaborations”, paragraph 67.
“[0080] Report component 506 is configured to generate data identifying why two channels are considered a suitable collaboration/cross-promotion match. This information can further be provided to the respective channel creators to facilitate evaluating whether to enter into a collaboration and/or cross-promotion agreement…”, paragraph 80).
As to claims 17 and 7, Lee-Chan discloses
wherein the subscribership criteria include age-appropriateness.
(“[0046] In another aspect, identification component 104 can be configured to identify a set of other channels having common subscribers with a particular channel that are associated with a particular attribute, characteristic or class. For example, the particular attribute, characteristic or class can relate to a particular user demographic (e.g., age, gender, location, language), a particular user preference or interest (e.g., a music type, a video genera, preferred actor, etc….”, paragraph 46).
As to claims 18 and 8, Lee-Chan discloses
obtaining subscriber information characterizing the first subscriber; (“…particular user demographic (e.g., age, gender, location, language,..”, paragraph 46);
determining the subscribership criteria based on the subscriber information for the first subscriber.(“…For example, identification component 104 can identify a subset of subscribers associated with the particular channel that have the specific attribute of interest (e.g., that are female, that are classified as top fans, that are between the ages of 10-18, that are a fan of a particular actor, etc….”, paragraph 46).
As to claims 19 and 9, Lee-Chan discloses
wherein the subscribership criteria include preferences of the first subscriber.
(“[0046] In another aspect, identification component 104 can be configured to identify a set of other channels having common subscribers with a particular channel that are associated with a particular attribute, characteristic or class. For example, the particular attribute, characteristic or class can relate to a particular user demographic (e.g., age, gender, location, language), a particular user preference or interest (e.g., a music type, a video genera, preferred actor, etc…”, paragraph 46).
As to claims 20 and 10, Lee-Chan discloses
wherein individualized subscription recommendation includes a link to a creator page of the second content creator, wherein selection of the link causes the computing platform to present the creator page within the user interface
(“…For example, a user interface employed by the media sharing system that provides the creator of the first channel access to information and management functions for the first channel can include a collaboration section that lists the recommended channels. Each of the recommended channels can be associated with a link to …”, paragraph 28.
“…For example, selection of the message button 308 can generate a collaboration message or post that is provided to a messaging inbox or user profile account for the creator of the recommended channel….”, paragraph 69).
Claims 2-4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG. Pub. No. 20180285933 (Lee-Chan) in view of US PG. Pub. No. 20190290965 (Oren) in view of US Patent No. 11838591 (Karlin).
As to claims 12 and 2, Lee-Chan discloses further comprising:wherein the ranking the second content creator and the third content creator is further based on ….[criteria] (“[0061] At 202, a set of potential channels is identified that have one or more common subscribers with a first channel. In an aspect, the set of potential channels can be initially identified based on a more restrictive initial filter criteria….”, paragraph 61).
Lee-Chan does not disclose but Karlin discloses
weighting the second content creator based on weighting criteria;
the weighting of the second content creator.
(Karlin that is in the business of content creation teaches “…whereby independent content creators and content consumers can interact with one another directly...”, 1:25-26.
“…The weighting and source of the data along with various higher level composite attributes of customers could be created, modified or improved based on interactions between customers and providers, along with stated preferences…”, 17:5-11, Fig. 5 and associated disclosure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Karlin’s teaching with the teaching of Lee-Chan. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to allow a user to enter various criteria for what he/she would like to be recommended and weighting the criteria (see abstract and 16:59-67) .
As to claims 13 and 3, Lee-Chan discloses further comprising:wherein the… criteria include one or more of subscribership size, benefit item type, recommendation history, or pledge amount.
(“…For example, the media provider can include (e.g., in memory 112) or have access to a data store that stores information regarding respective channels hosted by the media provider, including the subscribers to the respective channels and various information about the respective subscribers such as information regarding their interaction with the media provider (e.g., engagement, media watch/play history, media watch/play patterns) and other personal information about the respective subscribers (e.g., their preferences, demographics, classifications, etc…”, paragraph 44
“total number of subscribers to the first channel”, paragraph 64).
Lee-Chan does not disclose but Karlin discloses
weighting criteria;
(Karlin that is in the business of content creation teaches “…whereby independent content creators and content consumers can interact with one another directly...”, 1:25-26.
“…The weighting and source of the data along with various higher level composite attributes of customers could be created, modified or improved based on interactions between customers and providers, along with stated preferences…”, 17:5-11, Fig. 5 and associated disclosure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Karlin’s teaching with the teaching of Lee-Chan. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to allow a user to enter various criteria for what he/she would like to be recommended and weighting the criteria (see abstract and 16:59-67) .
As to claims 14 and 4, Lee-Chan discloses
wherein the … criteria include the recommendation history, the recommendation history including a number of times the second content creator has been recommended in the past, or a success rate of gaining new subscribers based on past recommendation.
(“[0071] Inference component 402 is configured to provide for or aid in various inferences or determinations associated with aspects of collaboration recommendation system 102. For example inference component 402 can facilitate identification component 104 and filter component 108 with identifying a set or subset, respectively, of entities (e.g., channels) for potential collaboration and/or cross-promotion with another entity (e.g., channel) [Examiner interprets as …times the … content creator has been recommended in the past]. In another example, inference component 402 can facilitate ranking component 106 with determining a ranking for a channel that reflects a degree to which the respective channels are considered a good match for collaboration and/or cross-promotion with the first channel. According to this example, inference component 402 can infer a ranking for a channel based on audience similarity, audience engagement, subscriber size, channel popularity, and/or content similarity. Inference component 402 can further infer a ranking based on historical data regarding previous collaborations between two channels and previous channel collaboration recommendations that were provided to the respective channels and disregarded by the respective channels…”, paragraph 71).
weighting criteria;
(Karlin that is in the business of content creation teaches “…whereby independent content creators and content consumers can interact with one another directly...”, 1:25-26.
“…The weighting and source of the data along with various higher level composite attributes of customers could be created, modified or improved based on interactions between customers and providers, along with stated preferences…”, 17:5-11, Fig. 5 and associated disclosure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Karlin’s teaching with the teaching of Lee-Chan. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to allow a user to enter various criteria for what he/she would like to be recommended and weighting the criteria (see abstract and 16:59-67) .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of 4/29/2026 have been very carefully considered but are not persuasive.
Rejection of claims under Double Patenting is maintained because applicant has not filed a Terminal Disclaimer.
Rejection of claims under 101 is maintained because claims are directed to a judicial exception.
Applicant argues (remarks 15-16)
B. The Office Action's Interpretation of Lee-Chan is Technically Erroneous.
In an attempt to refute Applicant's traversal of the application of Lee-Chan, the
Office Action points to Lee-Chan paragraphs 34 and 64 to suggest Lee-Chan teaches
recommendations for a "user or subscriber." [Office Action, p. 32]. This interpretation is
unsupported by the cited text.
Paragraph 64 of Lee-Chan explicitly discusses threshold criteria to ensure that
"channels of like size ... are recommended to one another for collaboration/cross promotion."
[Lee-Chan, ,T64]. This is a partner-matching algorithm for business entities
to find "collaboration candidates" [Lee-Chan, ,T3], not a discovery algorithm for an
individual subscriber to find new content. The fact that Lee-Chan mentions a generic
"client device 120" [Lee-Chan, ,T34] does not change the recipient or purpose of the
recommendation in Lee-Chan. A creator accessing their management dashboard on a
client device to see collaboration partners is not the same as a subscriber receiving an
individualized recommendation to subscribe to a new creator. The Office Action's
failure to recognize this technical distinction results in an erroneous finding of
anticipation.
In response the Examiner asserts that applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. The arguments regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C 102 are moot in light of the above new grounds of rejection. All the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 above.
Applicant argues (remarks 9-15)
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Claims 1-20 currently stand rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly
being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Applicant disagrees. The
claims as originally filed are distinguished from any judicial exception, and/or the Office
Action fails to provide a reasoned conclusion otherwise.
The Office Action maintains the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 without
engaging the substance of Applicant's technical and procedural traversals from the
Response filed December 15, 2025 ("December 2025 Response"). This failure to
respond is a basis upon which the rejection should be withdrawn. Accordingly, the
arguments presented in the December 2025 Response remain unrefuted, and are
repeated and realleged as if presented verbatim herein. [See, e.g., December 2025
Response, pp. 9-13].
In particular, the Office Action fails to meet the procedural requirements set forth
in MPEP § 707.07(f), which states:
Where the applicant traverses any rejection, the examiner
should, if they repeat the rejection, take note of the applicant's
argument and answer the substance of it.
[MPEP § 707.07(f), emphasis added].
In response the Examiner asserts that, applicant did not amend the claims to try to overcome 101 rejection. Instead, decided to argue. The Examiner considered all the arguments presented by the applicant and found the arguments not to be persuasive and therefore them do not put the claims in condition for allowance or at least eligible for 101 protection.
The facially analysis above to establish a prima facie of unpatentability uses the standard 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (2019 PEG), published in the MPEP 2103 through 2106.07(c). Step 2A-prong 1, of the 2019 PGE, concluded that the instant claims are directed to an abstract idea, certain methods of organizing human activity, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. The method to generate an individualized subscription recommendation. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea that is a judicial exception.
The instant claims encompass an abstract idea and because Examiner applied the standard two-part Alice framework (2019 PEG) , the conclusion is that the instant claims do not comprise “significantly more” limitations or elements to elevate the claims into a practical application (step-2A- prong 2).
A The Rejection Fails Under Prong One Because The Office Action Fails To
Show The Claims "Recite" An Abstract Idea.
Applicant previously provided specific traversals regarding the 1) Office Action's
failure to articulate a coherent concept, and 2) the Office Action's failure to justify the
selected grouping of "organizing human activity." [December 2025 Response, pp. 12-
13]. The Office Action has failed to provide a substantive response to these traversals
as required by MPEP § 707.0?(f). Instead, the Office Action relies on a circular
assertion of "facially sufficient" to bypass its procedural burden. [Office Action, p. 29].
Because the Office has failed to "answer the substance" of Applicant's
arguments regarding the unintelligibility of the alleged abstract idea and its erroneous
categorization, the rejection has not been properly maintained. This procedural and
substantive failure is further illustrated in the subsections below.
In response the Examiner asserts that, the Examiner has not failed to apply and show that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The facially sufficient analysis above is very detailed to elaborate a prima facie of unpatentability in this case. The categorization of the instant claims: certain methods of organizing human activity, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. The method to generate an individualized subscription recommendation. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea that is a judicial exception; the claim analysis is not in error.
These arguments do not successfully persuade the Examiner, the rejection is not withdrawn . The rejection is maintained. Again, the Examiner is not persuaded. The Examiner advices to adopt an approach such as to amend the claims to include more technical detail con sufficient specificity to tie the idea to a specific machine, or focus on how the invention produces a concrete technical improvement to software or hardware. The instant claims do not include the mentioned approach to overcome 101 rejection.
The Office Action Does Not Identify A Clear And Specific Abstract
Idea To Which The Claims Are Allegedly Directed.
In the December 2025 Response, Applicant argued that the Office Action's
identification of the alleged abstract idea-a nearly 200-word block of claim language was
"unintelligible" and failed to convey a "single, semantically unified concept."
[December 2025 Response, p. 12]. Applicant specifically noted that such a compilation
of text fails to satisfy the burden of being clear and specific. [Id; See MPEP 2106.0?(a)].
Here, the Office Action fails to respond to the substance of this traversal.
Instead, the Office Action asserts that the previous analysis was "facially sufficient" and
that the Office Action "looked at both the instant claims and the specification to
elaborate." [Office Action, p. 29]. Moreover, the Office Action suggests that Applicant
"needs to be familiar with the last '2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance."' [Id].
This response is procedurally and substantively deficient because a) the Office
Action fails to answer the substance of the argument and/orb) a compilation of steps in
a block of claim text is not a clear and specific singular idea.
Again, the Examiner asserts that the Examiner has not failed to apply and to show that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The facially sufficient analysis above is very detailed to elaborate a prima facie of unpatentability in this case. The Examiner uses the standard 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (2019 PEG), published in the MPEP 2103 through 2106.07(c). Step 2A-prong 1, of the 2019 PGE, concluded that the instant claims are directed to an abstract idea.
a. The Office Action Fails to Answer the Substance of the
Argument.
The Office Action's assertion of "facial sufficiency" is entirely non-responsive to
Applicant's argument. [Office Action, p. 29]. Applicant did not argue that the Office
Action failed to provide an identification; rather, Applicant argued that the content of that
identification was unintelligible and failed to meet the burden of providing a clear and
specific articulation of a concept to which the claims are allegedly directed. By merely
repeating the same 200-word block of text (Office Action, pp. 5-6) and labeling it
"sufficient," the Office Action has failed to "answer the substance" of Applicant's
challenge. [MPEP § 707.0?(f)].
A procedural requirement to answer an argument is not satisfied by a conclusory
statement that the challenged analysis was adequate. The rejection is procedurally
defective and cannot be sustained in light of the Office Action's failure to provide a
substantive response to Applicant's traversal.
b. A Block Of Text Is Not A Clear And Specific Idea.
As a general instruction for formulating a rejection, "the rejection should identify
the abstract idea as it is recited (e.g., set forth or described) in the claim and explain
why it is an abstract idea." [MPEP § 2106.0?(a), emphasis added]. When formulating
and supporting rejections for lack of subject matter eligibility, "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." [Id.].
Here, the Office Action defines the "abstract idea" as the performance of nearly
every technical step in the claim. [Office Action, p. 6]. Treating a compilation of
technical system operations as a single idea is the antithesis of the requirement to
explain ineligibility clearly and specifically. [MPEP § 2106.0?(a)]. If the entire
operational flow of a claimed system is considered an "abstract idea," then the
exception would swallow all of patent law.
The§ 101 rejection should be withdrawn as the Office Action has ignored the
substance of Applicant's traversal and failed to provide a clear and specific idea as the
basis for the rejection.
In response the Examiner asserts that, the Examiner considered the limitations in the instant claims individually and as a whole. The Office instructed Examiners to apply the two-part Alice/Mayo Framework using the standard 2019 PEG test. The prima facie of unpatentability established in this case is not in error.
The Examiner states, that the Office also instructed the Examiners that under U.S. patent law, the claims define the metes and bounds of an invention. (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG) . Again, the 2019 PEG dictates that Examiners must analyze the entire claim as a whole to evaluate § 101 subject matter eligibility. The claims are exclusively used for this analysis because they dictate the scope of the invention's physical or functional limitations. In this case, the instant claims are not eligible for patent protection because the prima facie of unpatentability established above. The prima facie herein, is a strong bar against patent protection eligibility.
2. The Office Action's Reliance On "Certain Methods Of Organizing
Human Activity" Is Erroneous.
In the December 2025 Response, Applicant argued that the Office Action failed
to demonstrate how the technical, network-based limitations of the claims involve
"advertising," "marketing or sales activities or behaviors." [December 2025 Response,
pp. 12-13]. Applicant specifically noted that the rejection was inherently unclear
because it relied on a series of alternatives linked by "or" clauses-claiming the method
was "advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors"-without identifying the
specific behavior being organized. [Id.].
Here, the Office Action fails to respond to the substance of this traversal.
Instead, the Office Action again asserts that the previous analysis was "facially
sufficient." [Office Action, p. 29].
This response is procedurally and substantively deficient because a) the Office
Action fails to answer the substance of the argument regarding the ambiguity of the
cited subgroup, and/orb) the Office Action fails to show that the claimed network-based
analysis falls within the asserted category.
a. The Office Action Fails to Resolve the Ambiguity of the
Alleged Subgroup.
The Office Action provides no response to Applicant's argument that the rejection
is inherently unclear due to its reliance on a list of alternative subgroups. Identifying a
judicial exception requires the Office Action to identify the specific abstract idea; it is not
sufficient to provide a "menu" of potential categories and leave the Applicant to guess
which one applies. [MPEP § 2106.0?(a)].
By merely citing the 2019 PEG and asserting "facial sufficiency," the Office
Action has bypassed its duty to provide a clear and specific rejection. Because the
Office Action failed to "answer the substance" of Applicant's challenge to this ambiguity,
the rejection is procedurally defective under MPEP § 707.0 (f).
In response the Examiner asserts that, this case has not only been classified an invention under certain methods of organizing human activity, but also it has been classified a mental process. Because the limitations pointed above in step 2A-prong 1, as drafted, the limitations conform a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. Both classifications are a judicial exception. Applicant’s arguments have not been successful against this rejection.
No, the instant claims or the arguments have highlighted the specific technological improvements in the claims. The claims do not demonstrate how the invention results in an improvement to the functioning of a computer or specific technical field, rather than just using a generic computer and a network connection to do a task such as to generate an individualized subscription recommendation.
b. Network-Based Data Analysis is Not a Method of Organizing
Human Activity.
The Office Action fails to explain how the technical steps of the claims identifying
"related" subscribers based on common subscribership and ranking creators
based on shared connection density-constitute a method of organizing human activity.
The Office Action's assertion that the claims represent "marketing or sales activities" is
a conclusory label that ignores the actual technical limitations of the claims. [Office
Action, p. 6].
The claimed process is a network-based data analysis used to identify
relationships within a complex dataset (subscribership networks). Identifying density in
shared connections within a digital network is a technical function rooted in data
processing and network science, not a fundamental business practice or a method of
organizing human behavior. The Office Action's attempt to relabel this technical
network logic as "marketing" without a reasoned explanation fails to meet the Office's
burden to provide a "clear and specific" explanation of ineligibility. [MPEP §
2106.0?(a)].
At least for these reasons, the§ 101 rejection should be withdrawn.
In response the Examiner asserts that 101 rejection has been maintained because, again, the prima facie of unpatentability established in this case. The instant claims
have not only been classified an invention under certain methods of organizing human activity, but also it has been classified a mental process. Because the limitations pointed above in step 2A-prong 1, as drafted, the limitations conform a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. Both classifications are a judicial exception. Applicant’s arguments have not been successful against this rejection.
B. Step 2A, Prong Two Analysis.
Applicant's right to further argue grounds for traversal of the rejection based on
Prong Two analysis are hereby preserved. Applicant's election not to provide
substantive remarks under Prong Two in this paper should not be considered a waiver
of any rights.
C. Step 28 Analysis.
Applicant's right to further argue grounds for traversal of the rejection based on
Step 2B analysis are hereby preserved. Applicant's election not to provide substantive
remarks under Step 2B in this paper should not be considered a waiver of any rights.
A prima facie of unpatentability has been established. The Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant has not provided persuasive rebuttal arguments to overcome the prima facie case.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Best offer recommendation service”. IEEE. 2016. This article discloses “There are multiple online offer aggregators, which can aggregate deals, coupons and offers from multiple parties. However, these aggregators generally cannot determine the best deal/s available among the existing deals. Many deals or coupons specify the percentage of discount or cashback on purchase of the item using the user's credit card, where the percentage varies between different cards. This makes it difficult to determine the best offer for a given credit card. In this paper we propose a service which can determine which offers would be relevant for a user with a given profile and/or online payment mechanism. The cloud server stores relevant data about available offers using crawlers and publicly available APIs, and given a desired product determines the best set of coupons or offers available given a user profile and payment mechanism such as credit card. This enables the service to recommend the best deals to the user. We have implemented a simple proof of concept for our service using a cloud server component and a component that is part of the web browser application on a device. We also discuss a revenue sharing model for our service”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA VICTORIA VANDERHORST whose telephone number is (571)270-3604. The examiner can normally be reached on business hours from Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ashraf Waseem can be reached on 571-270-3948. 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.
/MARIA V VANDERHORST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621 5/16/2026
Prosecution Insights