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
Applicant’s “Response to Amendment and Reconsideration” filed on 4/28/2026 has been considered.
Claims 4, 7, 9 are cancelled. Claims 21-23 are added. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-23 are pending in this application and an action on the merits follows.
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 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-23, under Step 2A claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-23 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites a method for automatically identifying and creating a product catalog, comprising:
receiving, by one or more servers of a service provider and from an instance of an application executing on a computing device of a first entity, a communication associated with a platform associated with the service provider, wherein the application is provided by the service provider; based at least in part on the communication, determining, by the one or more servers, an identity of the first entity and a type of the communication of a plurality of types of communication; based at least in part on at least one of the communication or the identity of the first entity, determining, by the one or more servers, one or more second entities as intended recipients for the communication; determining, by the one or more servers, based on the identity of the first entity, that the first entity qualifies for membership in an entity group of a plurality of entity groups associated with the platform; and based at least in part on qualifying and one or more rules associated with the entity group; activating, by the one or more servers, one or more communication services between the first entity and the entity group, wherein the one or more communication services enable near real-time communications between the first entity and at least one other entity in the entity group; and causing presentation, by the one or more servers, of the communication to computing devices of the intended recipients.
These limitations recite organizing, filtering and distributing communications among entities based on identify, group membership and rules, which fall under organizing human activity and managing information. This represents the performance of a marketing and/or sales activity, which is a commercial interaction and falls under organizing human activity. Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Courts have consistently held that collecting, analyzing and distributing information including communications are directed to abstract idea, (See EPP, Intellectual Ventures v Capital One, Free Stream Media . Alphonso).
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The recited steps control the flow of information. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 does recite additional elements such as servers, service provider, application, computing device, servers, communication services, near real-time communications.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
The limitation of “activating..one or more communication services…” does not appear to specify HOW the near-real-time communication is technologically achieved. Instead, the communication service is activated because the entity satisfies the claimed membership/rules determination. The technology is used as a tool for implementing the concept.
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The steps of determining identity, type, qualification, recipients and presentation are well-known, routing and conventional information processing steps. The ordered combination merely automates a known manual process of message screening and distribution.
Returning to representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claim 1 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding dependent claims 2-3, 5-6, 8, 21-23 recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself, and at least inherit the abstract idea of claim 1. These limitations represent routine data manipulation and result-based functional language and do not add any unconventional technical features sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. For example claim 21, adds training machine learning model which automates the determination of whether an entity is similar to an entity group[ to qualify for membership which remains analyzing information about an entity and determining group qualification based on that information. Merely reciting “data model trained via machine learning algorithm” does not establish an improvement to machine learning technology. ML is used as a tool to perform the membership determination. Claim 22 has parameters with rules defining what service members of a particular group may use. The claims do not specify a technological mechanism for enabling restricting for a particular network configuration or other technical implementation. Claim 23, collects information, analyzes similarities, selects the most appropriate entity without specifying a particular technical meaning or implementation of “provisioning a direct communication channel”. The claim does not specify HOW the channel technically provisioned or identify a technical problem in establishing the channel. As such, claims 2-3, 5-6, 8, 21-23 are understood to recite an abstract idea under step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-3, 5-6, 8, 21-23 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. This is because claims 2-3, 5-6, 8, 21-23 rely on at least similar additional elements as recited in claim 1. That is, the limitations are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Lastly, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-3, 5-6, 8, 21-23 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 21-23 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 10-16 (system), 17-20 (CRM) recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claims 1-9 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, the mere recitation of generic computing components such as computing device, memory do not remedy the deficiencies because similar logic applied under Step 2A (prong 2) and Step 2B is applicable. As such, claims 9-20 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-20, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abhyanker et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,863,245), in view of Ertmann et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0351385) and further in view of Traversat et. al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0184310)
Regarding claims 1, 10, 17, Abhyanker teaches receiving, by one or more servers of a service provider a communication associated with a platform associated with the service provider; (The announce module 714 (Fig. 7) may distribute a message in a specified range of distance away from the registered users when a registered user purchases a message to communicate to certain ones of the registered users surrounding a geographic vicinity adjacent to the particular registered user originating the message, Col.35 ln 59-67; The chat widget 816 may provide people to chat online, which is a way of communicating by broadcasting messages to people on the same site in real time. The group announcement widget 818 may communicate with a group and/or community may be by Usenet, Mailing list, calling and/or E-mail message sent to notify subscribers, Col. 37 ln 31-40),
based at least in part on the communication, determining, by the one or more servers, an identity of the first entity, (the people database 716 may keep records of the visitor/users, Col.35 ln 63-67; the verify module 706 may validate the data profiles and email addresses received from various registered users, Col. 35 ln 48-59),
based at least in part on at least one of the communication or the identity of the first entity, determining, by the one or more servers, one or more second entities as intended recipients for the communication; (the brief profiles of those registered users may be ensured who are more than Nmax degrees of separation away from the verified registered user, Col. 55 ln 14-20);
determining, by the one or more servers, based on the identity of the first entity, that the first entity qualifies for membership in an entity group of a plurality of entity groups associated with the platform; (A message is distributed to neighboring users that are verified to live withing a neighborhood boundary of the residence, abstract)
wherein the one or more communication services enable near real-time communications between the first entity and at least one other entity in the entity group; Abhyanker teaches the chat widget 816 may provide people to chat online, which is a way of communicating by broadcasting messages to people on the same site in real time, live chat, VoiP, Col.37 ln 31-45.
causing presentation, by the one or more servers, of the communication to computing devices of the intended recipients, (distribute a message in a specified range of distance away from the registered users when a registered user purchases a message to communicate to certain ones of the registered users surrounding a geographic vicinity adjacent to the particular registered user originating the message, Col.35 ln 59-67.
Abhyanker substantially discloses the claimed invention, however, does not explicitly disclose an instance of an application executing on a computing device of a first entity, application provided by service provider; a type of the communication of a plurality of types of communication. However, Ertmann teaches a client application displaying a messaging interface 100, [41], messaging systems may support a variety of different types of messages, [42],
The message threading component 530 creates threads and assigns messages to threads, [88-90].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Ertmann’s client-side messaging application and message type handling into Abhyanker neighborhood-based communications platform in order to improve the organization and handling of communications within verified entity groups, [1].
Abhyanker substantially discloses the claimed invention, however, does not explicitly disclose based at least in part on qualifying and one or more rules associated with the entity group activating, by the one or more servers, one or more communication services between the first entity and the entity group. Abhyanker’s rules governing access…verified residence determines whether a person has access to the private neighbourhodd and its communications..restricted to users verified to live within the boundary, Col.21-22.
However, Traversat teaches a peer that initiates a peer group may set a membership policy that determines which peers qualify for membership in the group, [28], Peers that have access to the advertisement may respond by sending the querying peer a response message including the peer group advertisement, [29], peer may join a peer group by sending an application message and receiving an acknowledgement message indicating that the peer is qualified to apply for membership in the peer group, [30], see also claim 80-81.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Traversat’s membership policy service activation into Abhyanker’s private neighborhood-based communications platform because both references address restricting network or group functionality to qualified member of a defined group and in order to provide secure communication channels and trusted fellow members, [28].
Regarding claims 2, 11, 18, Abhyanker teaches the plurality of types of communication comprise at least one of a direct message to another entity associated with the platform, a post to a message board associated with the entity group, or a message in a group chat with other entities in the entity group, (The community marketplace module 1010 may provide a forum in which the registered users can trade and/or announce messages of trading events with at least each other, Col.40 ln 14-22). Ertmann teaches a one-to-one message is a message exchanged between two entities, so that only the two entities can see and participate in the conversation, [42].
Regarding claims 3, 12, 19, Abhyanker does not explicitly teach the type of the communication comprises (1) a post to a message board that initiates a thread or (2) a subsequent message in the thread. However, Ertmann teaches the system may associate the message with the existing thread. For example, the message may be assigned a thread ID that corresponds to the existing thread, [119].
Regarding claims 13, 20, Abhyanker teaches content of the communication comprises a recommendation, an announcement, a question, or an advertisement, (a recommendation and an event suggestion to neighboring users, claim 6, announce messages, Col.40 ln 17-18, advertisement is placed on a domain name of nextdoor, claim 2). Ertmann teaches messages of the conversation including replies that initiate new topics (question), [129].
Regarding claims 5, 14, Abhyanker does not explicitly teach determining the identity of the first entity is further based at least in part on metadata associated with an entity identifier or a computing device address of the computing device associated with the first entity. However, Ertmann teaches network interface 522 may transmit…to a messaging server 526..the messaging server 526 may receive, store and forward messages (device metadata), [85-88].
Regarding claims 6, 15, Abhyanker teaches qualifying for membership is based at least in part on a role or status of the first entity or an agent of the first entity, wherein the agent is operating the instance of the application, (designated a user as a trusted party in the neighborhood..based on a level of information the user contributes in attaining higher status, Col.8 ln 7-20.
Regarding claim 8, Abhyanker teaches the instance of the application is a first instance, the computing device is a first computing device, the communication is a first communication, the intended recipients are first intended recipients, and the method further comprising: receiving, by the one or more servers from a second instance of the application executing on a second computing device of a third entity, a second communication associated with the platform; based at least in part on the second communication, determining, by the one or more servers, an identity of the third entity and a type of the second communication of the plurality of types of communication; based at least in part on at least one of the second communication or the identity of the third entity, determining, by the one or more servers, one or more fourth entities as second intended recipients for the second communication; determining, by the one or more servers, that the third entity does not qualify for membership in the entity group; and based at least in part on not qualifying, refraining, by the one or more servers, to cause presentation of the second communication to computing devices of the second intended recipients. (verifies that a user lives at a residence associated with a residential address claimed by the user of an online neighborhood social network is claimed. The method restricts access to a particular neighborhood to the user and to neighboring users living within the neighborhood boundary of the residence, abstract).
Regarding claims 16, Abhyanker teaches the intended recipients are a subset of the plurality of entity groups, (distribute a message to the neighborhood associated with the particular registered user originating the message, Col.35 ln 59-67.
Regarding claim 22, Abhyanker teaches the one or more rules associated with the entity group comprise parameters set by the one or more servers that define which of the one or more communication services are available to the entity group, wherein the parameters enable a first communication service for the entity group and restrict a second communication service for the entity group, restricted to users verified to live within the boundary, Col.21-22.
Claim 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abhyanker, Ertmann, Traversat and further in view of Chandra (U.S. Patent No. 10,783,568).
Regarding claim 21, the combination does not explicitly disclose, however, Chandra teaches determining that the first entity qualifies for membership in the entity group comprises: utilizing, by the one or more servers, a data model trained via a machine learning algorithm to output a similarity score representative of a similarity between the first entity and the entity group based on one or more characteristics of the first entity, wherein the one or more characteristics comprise at least one of a type of the first entity, a transaction volume associated with the first entity, or items offered by the first entity; and determining that the similarity score satisfies a threshold, (The system can apply machine learning and data mining to evolve and improve the system over time, Match functions can be learned and improved by adjusting the weights given to the different genes when applied to the matching algorithms between two genomes. For example, where weights w.sub.1 . . . w.sub.n represent the original set of weights used while matching a producer genome to a consumer genome, the system would iteratively learn a new set of weights Applying the new set of weights to the match function will then result in a higher number of transactions between matched users, New ways to match users to other users and items can also be identified by mining existing data in order to discover new genes that can be used to grow the genome. For example, the system could learn over time that users who attend the same type of virtual shopping parties have similar tastes and are likely to buy and sell from each other. The system would then start feeding this characteristic into the producer and consumer genomes, Col.7 ln 40-67, Matching can be based on a minimum threshold of compatibility score, or can be based on a predefined number having the highest relative compatibility, Col.5 ln 55-65).
Regarding claim 23, the combination does not explicitly disclose, however, Chandra teaches the communication comprises an inquiry, and the method further comprises: accessing, by the one or more servers, information associated with the first entity and a plurality of other entities associated with the entity group; utilizing a data model to analyze the information and to output similarity scores representative of similarities between the first entity and individuals of the plurality of other entities; identifying, based on the similarity scores, a recommended entity of the plurality of other entities to respond to the inquiry; and provisioning, by the one or more servers, a direct communication channel between the first entity and the recommended entity, (making one or more friend recommendations to the user from the plurality of users based on the compatibility score and the affinity, claims 11).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Chandra’s similarity method into the combination in order to improve social networking interactions between shoppers, Col.1 ln 50-56.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are patent eligible because the ordered combination of determining that a first entity qualifies for membership in an entity group and activating communication services for near real time communication provides a specific technological solution.
Examiner does not agree. Under step 2A, Prong the claim does not recite a particular technical mechanism for determining qualification, activating service, or improving operation of the communication system, rather the claim provides communication functionality based on whether an entity satisfies group membership rules.
Applicant’ s reliance on Examples 40 and 42 is not persuasive. Example 42 recites specific technical operations involving processing and transmitting medical record information, while Example 40 involved modifying network monitoring behavior based on technical network conditions. In contrast, amended claim 1 shows variations of communication availability based on criteria like identity, membership qualifications, group rules and not a technical condition of the computer or network. Applicant also references BASCOM. The present claims do not recite a nonconventional technological arrangement comparable to the specific filtering architecture in BASCOM. DDR involved specific solution to a problem from internet operation generating a hybrid webpage having multiple sources. Claim 1 does not modify internet or communication technology but it controls access to conventional communication functionality based on group qualification. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Chandra reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 MILENA RACIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5933. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm EST.
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, Florian (Ryan) Zeender can be reached at (571)272-6790. 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.
/MILENA RACIC/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights