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 .
Claims 14-33 are active in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/31/2024, 01/07/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 14-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, regarding claims 14, 24, and 33, the claimed invention is directed to Judicial Exceptions without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because,
Step 2A: Prong One: yes, invention directed to judicial exception of abstract idea.
In claims 1, 24, and 33, limitation reciting the abstract idea are as follows:
“determining …”, “adjusting...”, is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper, either through observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and applied in a computing environment. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (concluding that claims drawn to collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected set, and storing the recognized data were patent ineligible, noting that “humans have always performed these functions”).
The limitations are a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components or generic tools. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the limitation recites an abstract mental process because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, the it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A prong two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements “receiving…”, the limitations are a mere generic function which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) that does not confer patent eligibility. See, e.g., Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that “selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes”); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012), aff'g 771 F. Supp. 2d 1054, 1065 (E.D. Mo. 2011) (explaining that “[s]toring, retrieving, and providing data... are inconsequential data gathering and insignificant post solution activity”).
The at least one processor unit and memory in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality ((i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, 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. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than abstract idea. Aside from the abstract idea, the additional elements are conventional and well known (MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Additionally, dependent claims incorporate the features of the corresponding independent claims. Dependent claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Examiner's Note
The Examiner respectfully requests of the Applicants in preparing responses, to fully consider the entirety of the references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention.
It is noted, REFERENCES ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN. "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including non-preferred embodiments (see MPEP 2123).
The Examiner has cited particular locations in the reference(s) as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicants. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, typically other passages and figures will apply as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jain (US 2023/0017196).
Regarding claims 14, 24 and 33, Jain discloses a method , an electronic device, comprising at least one processing unit and at least one memory, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, for providing content in an application (Figure 1, and [0086]-[0087]), comprising:
receiving a first-type interaction event between a user of an application and content provided in the application ([0081], a “user” or “patient” refers to an individual that uses a mobile application and one or more customized modules, [0086], [0104], “The mobile application 142 can obtain updates to the module 136 from the publishing system 130 in real-time, e.g., in the background while the user is interacting with the module. The application 142 may incorporate updates to the customized module 136 so that the module 136 and the interface shown at the user device 150 are updated without requiring the user to re-login into the mobile application 142. Similarly, updates may occur without any update to the mobile application 142 from the app store 140. For example, in some instances, the customized module 136 can be locally stored on the user device 150. The user may have the application 142 open and in use, showing the interface of the module 136. While user is interacting with the interface, the application 142 may request an update from the publishing system 130, or the publishing system 130 may push an update to the application 142. When an update is received, the interface and interactivity of the module 136 may be updated, even by changing aspects of the current view shown to the user” and [0114], “Modules may define a set of user experiences, such as interaction flows or dialogs for a user, or forms, surveys, games, or other interactions…”);
determining, based on the first-type interaction event and an event model, a prediction of whether the user performs a second-type interaction event associated with the content, the event model describing an association relationship between the first-type interaction event performed by the user and the second-type interaction event performed by the user ([0218], “alternate configurations of a rule that is focused on improving user interaction can be compared based on predicting a likelihood that each rule configuration will result in the user providing a positive user input on the application 732. In this example, historical user input information obtained from the real-time reports 716b can be used to estimate the impact of the alternative rule comparisons on subsequent user activity on the application 732”, [0409]-[0411], “The engagement action repository 1822b includes a list of prior communications that were provided to the user in a prior engagement adjustment operation. For instance, the engagement action repository 1822b can specify a prior context associated with the user 1802, the respective responsiveness scores predicted for the user 1802 given the prior context, and the selected communication that was provided to the user 1802. In this regard, during a subsequent engagement adjustment operation, the data included within the engagement action repository 1822b can be used to provide a user 1802 with a similar communication if the user's present context is determined to be similar to a prior context that is associated with a previously submitted communication” and [0418]-[0419]); and
adjusting a provision action of providing the content in the application based on the prediction ([0123], [0126], adjust settings related to the display of content within the health management modules, [0164], monitor the ongoing activity of users and adjust the triggers and conditions of the set of rules to provide content that is directed to increasing the likelihood that users will complete the program or achieve a desired outcome, [0168]-[0170], adjust content provided, [0246], [0257], [0409], [0418]).
Regarding claims 15 and 25, Jain discloses obtaining a first-type reference interaction event between a reference user of the application and reference content provided in the application ([0081], [0086], [0104]); obtaining a second-type reference interaction event performed by the reference user and associated with the reference content ([0081], [0086], [0104]); and generating the event model based on the first-type reference interaction event and the second-type reference interaction event ([0214]-[0215], [0231] and [0405]).
Regarding claims 16 and 26, Jain discloses wherein the content is the content provided in a first version of the application, and the reference content is the content provided in a second version of the application, and the first version of the application and the second version of the application run in a first operating system and a second operating system, respectively ([0086]).
Regarding claims 17 and 27, Jain discloses wherein obtaining the second-type reference interaction event comprises: obtaining, by a service provider specified in the reference content, the second- type reference interaction event after obtaining the first-type reference interaction event ([0086],[0132], [0214]-[0215], [0231] and [0405]).
Regarding claims 18 and 28, Jain discloses wherein determining the prediction comprises: obtaining the prediction within a first time period after the first-type interaction event occurs ([0218], [0409]-[0411], and [0418]-[0419]), and the method further comprises: obtaining, within a second time period after the first time period, by a service provider specified in the content, feedback associated with the second-type interaction event ([0218], [0409]-[0411], and [0418]-[0419]); and updating the prediction based on the feedback ([0218], [0409]-[0411], and [0418]-[0419]).
Regarding claims 19 and 29, Jain discloses wherein adjusting the provision action based on the prediction comprises: obtaining a provision target and a resource allocation associated with the content, the provision target representing a target of a second-type interaction event obtained by provision of the content in the application, and the resource allocation representing a resource allocated to enable the content provided in the application to meet the provision target ([0209], [0218], [0289]); determining, based on the prediction, an interaction event metric of the second-type interaction event generated by the provision of the content in the application and a resource metric of the resource consumed in the provision of the content in the application ([0123], [0126], [0218], [0246], [0257], [0409], [0418]); and adjusting the provision action based on a comparison between the interaction event metric, the provision target, the resource metric, and the resource allocation ([0123], [0126], [0218], [0246], [0257], [0435]).
Regarding claims 20 and 30, Jain discloses wherein adjusting the provision action based on the comparison comprises: updating, based on the comparison, a resource consumption coefficient associated with the provision action, the resource consumption coefficient configured to control a resource consumed in the provision action ([0246], [0257], [0435]); and adjusting the provision action based on the updated resource consumption coefficient ([0257], [0435], [0489]).
Regarding claims 21 and 31, Jain discloses wherein updating the resource consumption coefficient comprises at least one of: determining a first difference between the interaction event metric and the provision target and a second difference between the resource metric and the resource allocation, respectively ([0257], [0435], [0489]); or adjusting the resource consumption coefficient based on the first difference and the second difference ([0257], [0435], [0489]).
Regarding claims 22 and 32, Jain discloses wherein the first-type interaction event comprises at least one of: browsing of the user for the content; interaction of the user with a content item in the content; navigation of the user to a further application outside the application with the content item in the content; a comment of the user for the content in the application; publication of the user of a creation associated with the content in the application; following of the user for a publisher of the content; browsing of the user for other content published by a publisher of the content; or a comment of the user for other content published by a publisher of the content. Please see [0061], [0487], [0145].
Regarding claim 23, Jain discloses wherein the second-type interaction event is an interaction event in a further application outside the application and comprises at least one of: the user downloading, subscribing to, paying for, or registering for the content ([0086], [0106], [0130], [0232], [0364]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hoffberg (US 7,813,822) discloses intelligent electronic appliance system and method.
Lahav (US 2015/0278837) discloses online behavioral predictor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MERILYN P NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-272-4026. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached on (571) 272-8352. 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.
/MERILYN P NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153
January 9, 2026