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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the Amendment filed on February 25, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 04/07/2026 has been acknowledged.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of Patent No 12,154,126. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the same subject matter, perform similar steps and functions, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be free to practice one of the claimed inventions without infringing upon the other inventions. The limitations found in the claims of the present application are anticipated by the ‘126 Patent. Table 1 is provided below to highlight the equivalent limitations found in the claim sets.
Table 1
18819082
‘126
Claim 1:
Claim 1:
one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions to:
receiving a service request for a user interface from a one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions to:
monitor, by a server, consumer activity within an online membership platform, the consumer activity characterizing engagement by consumers with offerings provided by a content creator hosted by the online membership platform, wherein the consumers engage with the offerings through a content creator page associated with the content creator, and the consumers access the content creator page through instances of a user interface of the online membership platform presented via remotely located client computing platforms associated with the consumers;
monitor, by the server, consumer activity within the online membership platform, the consumer activity characterizing engagement by the consumers with offerings, wherein the consumers engage with the offerings through a content creator page associated with the content creator, and the consumers access the content creator page through a user interface of the online membership platform presented via remotely located client computing platforms associated with the consumers;
manage, by the server, information associated with the content creator, the information characterizing consumption of the offerings by the consumers for individual ones of the intervals of time in relation to the consumer activity;
manage, by a server, information associated with a content creator of an online membership platform, the content creator providing offerings to consumers at periodic intervals of time, the information characterizing consumption of the offerings by the consumers for individual ones of the intervals of time;
train, by the server, a machine learning model based on historical consumer activity to generate a trained machine learning model, the trained machine learning model being configured to provide output conveying impact of different consumer activity that lead to different likelihoods of continued engagement;
train, by the server, a machine learning model based on input/output training information pairs to generate a trained machine learning model, the trained machine learning model being configured to determine impact of different behaviors of the consumers that lead to different likelihoods of continued engagement, the input/output training information pairs including training input information and training output information, the training input information for an individual pair including the values of the behavior attribute for an individual consumer over time, the training output information for the individual pair including indications of whether the individual consumer has engaged with one or more of the offerings;
determine, based on the output of the trained machine learning model, weights that should be applied to the different consumer activity when generating values of a behavior attribute for the consumers characterizing likelihood of continued engagement by the consumers with the offerings provided by the content creator;
determine, based on output of the trained machine learning model comprising determinations of the impact of the different behaviors of the consumers that lead to the different likelihoods of continued engagement, weights that should be applied to the different behaviors when generating the values of the behavior attribute for the consumers;
determine, by the server and based on the information associated with the content creator and the weights, a first value of a behavior attribute for a first consumer representing a first likelihood of continued engagement during a first interval of time, and a second value of the behavior attribute for the first consumer representing a second likelihood of continued engagement during a second interval of time;
determine, by the server and based on the information associated with the content creator, values of a behavior attribute characterizing likelihood of continued engagement by the consumers with the offerings provided by the content creator, an individual value being determined for an individual interval of time, such that a first value of the behavior attribute is determined for a first consumer that represents the likelihood of continued engagement during a first interval of time, and a second value of the behavior attribute is determined for the first consumer that represents the likelihood of continued engagement during a second interval of time;
effectuate presentation of an account management user interface of the online membership platform on a remotely located client computing platform associated with the content creator, the account management user interface being configured to display a first visual representation of the first likelihood of continued engagement by the first consumer during the first interval of time as represented by the first value, and a second visual representation of the second likelihood of continued engagement by the first consumer during the second interval of time as represented by the second value and
effectuate presentation of an account management user interface of the online membership platform on a remotely located client computing platform associated with the content creator, wherein the content creator accesses and manages an account within the online membership platform through the account management user interface, the account management user interface being configured to display, based on the values of the behavior attribute, visual representations of the likelihood of continued engagement by the consumers, such that the account management user interface displays a first visual representation of the likelihood of continued engagement by the first consumer during the first interval of time as represented by the first value, and a second visual representation of the likelihood of continued engagement by the first consumer during the second interval of time as represented by the second value;
update the trained machine learning model over time based on ongoing consumer activity within the online membership platform, such that the trained machine learning model is adapted to other consumer activities to improve the output conveying the impact of the different consumer activity that lead to the different likelihoods of continued engagement.
continuously update the trained machine learning model over time based on ongoing consumer activity within the online membership platform, such that the trained machine learning model is continuously adapted to different consumer activities to improve the determinations of the impact of the different behaviors of the consumers that lead to the different likelihoods of continued engagement.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, claims 1-20 are directed toward at least one judicial exception without significantly more. In accordance with the MPEP 2106, the rationale for this determination is explained below:
Representative independent claim 1 is directed towards a system, claim 11 is directed towards a method, which are statutory categories of invention.
Although, claim 1 is directed towards a statutory category of invention, the claim, however, is directed towards an abstract idea. The limitations that set forth the abstract idea recite: monitor, consumer activity, the consumer activity characterizing engagement by consumers with offerings provided by a content creator, wherein the consumers engage with the offerings associated with the content creator, and the consumers access the content creator page through instances of a user interface associated with the consumers; manage, information associated with the content creator, the information characterizing consumption of the offerings by the consumers for individual ones of the intervals of time in relation to the consumer activity; based on historical consumer activity provide output conveying impact of different consumer activity that lead to different likelihoods of continued engagement; determine, based on the output of, weights that should be applied to the different consumer activity when generating values of a behavior attribute for the consumers characterizing likelihood of continued engagement by the consumers with the offerings provided by the content creator; determine, and based on the information associated with the content creator and the weights, a first value of a behavior attribute for a first consumer representing a first likelihood of continued engagement during a first interval of time, and a second value of the behavior attribute for the first consumer representing a second likelihood of continued engagement during a second interval of time; effectuate presentation associated with the content creator, a first visual representation of the first likelihood of continued engagement by the first consumer during the first interval of time as represented by the first value, and a second visual representation of the second likelihood of continued engagement by the first consumer during the second interval of time as represented by the second value; and update over time based on ongoing consumer activity adapted to other consumer activities to improve the output conveying the impact of the different consumer activity that lead to the different likelihoods of continued engagement. These limitations comprise commercial interactions including legal obligations; marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; as well as managing personal behavior or interactions between people including following rules or instructions; and are thus, directed towards the abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed as a whole under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements provided by the claim amount to the mere use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. In particular the claim recites the additional elements of: one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions to; by a server, within an online membership platform, hosted by the online membership platform, through a content creator page, of the online membership platform presented via remotely located client computing platforms; by the server; train, by the server, a machine learning model, to generate a trained machine learning model, the trained machine learning model being configured to; the trained machine learning model; by the server; of an account management user interface of the online membership platform on a remotely located client computing platform, the account management user interface being configured to display the trained machine learning model, within the online membership platform, such that the trained machine learning model is, which are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely the use of the computer as a tool to apply the abstract idea and/or instructions to implement the abstract idea on the computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Simply adding applying the abstract idea by generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites additional limitations that merely uses a computer as a tool to apply the abstract idea. Viewing the limitations individually, the limitations generically, referring to a server, an online membership platform, a content creator page, remotely located client computing platforms, a machine learning model, an account management user interface do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment1. Viewing these limitations as a combination, the claims merely instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with a high level of generality, using generic computer system in executing a mathematical algorithm. See at least, TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea”). Therefore, the limitations of the claim as a whole, when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
A review of dependent claims 2-10, likewise, do not recite any limitations that would remedy the deficiencies outlined above as they do not add any elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more. For instance, claims 2-10 only add to the abstract idea. Thus, while they may slightly narrow the abstract idea by further describing it, they do not make it less abstract and are rejected accordingly. Further still, claims 11-20 suffer from substantially the same deficiencies as outlined with respect to claims 1-10 and are also rejected accordingly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive.
A. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection Applicant argues that the Office Action fails to show the claims recite an abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order to establish a prima facie case of ineligibility “Examiners should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas listed above;” and if “the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One.” See MPEP 2106.04(a). Because the independent claim comprises over 300 words does not make all or some of the claim eligible. The claim language that sets forth the abstract idea is identified, separated from those that are additional elements.
The claim is directed to an abstract concept grouped under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity with no additional elements that integrate the abstract concept into a practical application or significantly more. The claim provides concepts to monitor consumer engagement with offers from a content creator (marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; managing personal behavior or interactions between people);
manage content creator, information characterizing consumption of the offerings by the consumers for individual ones of the intervals of time in relation to the consumer activity (marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; managing personal behavior or interactions between people);
based on historical consumer activity provide output conveying impact of different consumer activity that lead to different likelihoods of continued engagement (marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; managing personal behavior or interactions between people);
determine, based on the output of, weights that should be applied to the different consumer activity when generating values of a behavior attribute for the consumers characterizing likelihood of continued engagement by the consumers with the offerings provided by the content creator (marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; managing personal behavior);
determine, and based on the information associated with the content creator and the weights, a first value of a behavior attribute for a first consumer representing a first likelihood of continued engagement during a first interval of time, and a second value of the behavior attribute for the first consumer representing a second likelihood of continued engagement during a second interval of time (marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; managing personal behavior or interactions between people);
effectuate presentation associated with the content creator, a first visual representation of the first likelihood of continued engagement by the first consumer during the first interval of time as represented by the first value, and a second visual representation of the second likelihood of continued engagement by the first consumer during the second interval of time as represented by the second value(marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; managing personal behavior or interactions between people);
and update over time based on ongoing consumer activity adapted to other consumer activities to improve the output conveying the impact of the different consumer activity that lead to the different likelihoods of continued engagement (marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; managing personal behavior or interactions between people). These limitations set forth commercial interactions including legal obligations (consideration at periodic intervals of time; “subscribers receive content (also referred to as “benefit items”) in exchange for consideration” Applicant’s specification [0003]); marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations (paid membership); as well as managing personal behavior or interactions between people (behavior of consumer with respect to content creator) including social activities and following rules or instructions (activity on online membership platform). .
Based on the foregoing, the claims as a whole, in view of Alice, do not connote an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Errol CARVALHO whose telephone number is (571)272-9987. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30-7:00 Alt Fri.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571- 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E CARVALHO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
1 See, Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2360 (2014) (noting that none of the hardware recited “offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,’ that is, implementation via computers” (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010))).
Prosecution Insights