DETAILED ACTION
The following FINAL Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Response filed on 02/17/2026.
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 . 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-25 were previously pending and subject to a non-final Office Action mailed 11/19/2025. Claims 1, 13, and 25 were amended. Claims 1-25 are currently pending and are subject to the final Office Action below.
Response to Arguments
35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-12, filed 02/17/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of Claims 1-25 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s Prong 1 arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although limitations directed to “training a machine learning model used in detecting underperformance in data connections…” do not set forth or describe a mathematical relationship/calculation using words or symbols (see paragraph 40 of the specification training using a loss function). The limitations are still directed to organizing human activity as the first post data is analyzed to determine whether it is underperforming and if so, a second post replaces the first post and a user is notified of the rating score and the replacement of the posts.
This conclusion is supported by paragraph 3 of Applicant’s specification “Organizational entities, such as companies, academic institutions, non-profit organizations, and governmental institutions, often launch and conduct online content connection efforts by posting content to various interactive media platforms. Sometimes, these organizations will employ third-party agencies to help conduct the content connection efforts. The organization orchestrates content postings according to the content connection’s strategies. The interactive media platforms generate various interaction values associated with the content posts, indicating user interest and engagement with the organization’s content data (e.g., posts, image data, video data, text data). For each interactive media platform, administrators of the organization’s media platform accounts can access and review the report containing the interaction values for that particular interactive media platform. Based on the interaction values, the administrators of the organization’s accounts may adjust or continue the content posts that are planned for the organization’s interactive content media data feeds, as aligned with the content connection strategies.”
Regarding Applicant’s Prong 2 arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Para. 6 of the specification states, “Problems with this distributed approach to analyzing and responding to interaction values reports include disaggregated administration over content connection postings, disparate interaction values, and lack of access to certain interaction values available to other sub-organizations, among others” and para. 7 states, “a software-based tool (sometimes referred to as a “social media management tool” or “social media configuration tool”) for managing software programs, configurations, and other content connection data of content connections in which an organization transmits, uploads, or otherwise posts content data to media data feeds for the organization’s media platform accounts, hosted on corresponding interactive media servers of interactive media platforms”.
The claims are directed to organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and commercial or legal interactions and following rules or instructions) because a user (perhaps, a member of a marketing team at an organization) is performing social media management for their organization using the claimed invention as the social media management tool (as a service).
The organization’s account may adjust/continue content posts based on the interaction values derived by the service (para. 3 and 74 of the specification) which provides an improvement where underperforming content is replaced by higher-value content (page 11 of Applicant’s arguments). Such an improvement is an improvement in the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”
Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of Claims 1-25 are maintained.
35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see page 13 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 02/17/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been withdrawn. See “Closest Prior Art” section below.
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 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-12 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); Claims 13-24 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); and Claim 25 is directed to non-transitory, computer-readable medium (i.e., a machine). Therefore, Claims 1-25 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claims 1, 13 and 25, substantially recites
… to generate connection rating scores for posts from interaction values associated with the posts and identify underperforming post connections based on a generated rating score;
transmitting … a first post … , the first post comprising connection data configured for presentation … ;
obtaining … a plurality of interaction values associated with the first post…;
selecting … a set of interaction values from the plurality of interaction values according to one or more configurations, wherein the set of interaction values includes a first type of interaction value obtained … and a second type of interaction value obtained …;
… generate a rating score for the first post by applying one or more configuration parameters on the set of interaction values, the one or more configuration parameters indicating a set of one or more weighting values assigned to the set of interaction values and to determine whether the first post is underperforming relative to a connection rating threshold indicated by the one or more configurations;
in response to determining that the first post is underperforming relative to the connection rating threshold, selecting, … , a second post comprising connection data configured for presentation …;
transmitting, … , the second post … to replace the first post … to satisfy a connection score; and
updating, … , … to include the rating score for display … to indicate that the first post has been replaced with the second post
The limitations stated above are processes/ functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and commercial or legal interactions and following rules or instructions) in light of paragraph 7 of Applicant’s specification “What is needed is a means for gathering and analyzing interaction values data from disparate interactive media platforms indicating the performance of an organization’s posts to the data media feeds. In particular, what is needed is a means for reconciling and normalizing disparate interaction values data and generating interaction values or scores that are contextually relevant to the intended purpose of a given content connection effort. Embodiments described herein include hardware and software components for a computing system that hosts, executes, or otherwise implements a software-based tool (sometimes referred to as a “social media management tool” or “social media configuration tool”) for managing software programs, configurations, and other content connection data of content connections in which an organization transmits, uploads, or otherwise posts content data to media data feeds for the organization’s media platform accounts, hosted on corresponding interactive media servers of interactive media platforms. The data feed management tool includes a user interface that presents various types of information associated with prior or ongoing content connection efforts, such as interaction value data obtained from interactive media platforms or generated by the content management tool for content and data feed management”. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The independent claims recite the additional elements of a computer, at least one processor, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, a user interface, and a user device which are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claims also recite “a plurality of interactive media nodes hosting a plurality of online data feeds”, “presentation at each online data feed”, “a first interactive media node”, “a second interactive media node”, “presentation via one or more network connections at each online data feed”, and “each online data feed of each interactive media node” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The limitations are specifying that the abstract idea of organizing human activity relates to activities that are executed in a computer/social media environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer/social media field. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claims also recite the limitation of “training, by a computer, a machine-learning model based on training input data comprising interaction values associated with a plurality of posts and labels indicating positive or negative performance of respective content connection configurations to generate a trained machine- learning model” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The limitations merely confine the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims.
“Training” is specifying that the abstract idea (“generate connection rating scores for posts from interaction values associated with the posts and identify underperforming post connections based on a generated rating score” and “generate a rating score for the first post…”) was to be implemented using a machine-learning model.
Accordingly, these additional elements when viewed as a whole/ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components and field of use do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of an abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the abstract limitations amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Additionally, the limitations of “a plurality of interactive media nodes hosting a plurality of online data feeds”, “presentation at each online data feed”, “a first interactive media node”, “a second interactive media node”, “presentation via one or more network connections at each online data feed”, and “each online data feed of each interactive media node” amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The limitations are specifying that the abstract idea of organizing human activity relates to activities that are executed in a computer/social media environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer/social media field.
The limitation of “training, by a computer, a machine-learning model based on training input data comprising interaction values associated with a plurality of posts and labels indicating positive or negative performance of respective content connection configurations to generate a trained machine- learning model” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The limitations merely confine the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. “Training” is specifying that the abstract idea (“generate connection rating scores for posts from interaction values associated with the posts and identify underperforming post connections based on a generated rating score” and “generate a rating score for the first post…”) was to be implemented using a machine-learning model.
Mere instructions to apply the exception and field of us cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
None of the steps/functions of Claims 1, 13, and 25 when evaluated individually or viewed as a whole/ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements are merely used to perform the limitations directed to organizing methods of human activity, mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components, and/or field of use, thus, the analysis does not change when considered as an ordered combination. The additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to “apply it” and field of use, thus, the additional elements do not meaningfully limit the claim. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented. Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea (e.g., using computers to communicate data). The dependent claims add the elements “database” and “configuration user interface”, which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it”. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself. The dependent claims add the elements “database” and “configuration user interface” are recited at a high-level of generality; therefore, they do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the dependent claims are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Closest Prior Art
Examiner noting that the claims are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of closest prior art: available prior art, alone or in combination, fail to disclose every element of the independent claims.
Examiner noting the limitations of “training, by a computer, a machine-learning model based on training input data comprising interaction values associated with a plurality of posts and labels indicating positive or negative performance of respective content connection configurations to generate a trained machine- learning model configured to generate connection rating scores for posts from interaction values associated with the posts and identify underperforming post connections based on a generated rating score … executing, by the computer, the trained machine-learning model to generate a rating score for the first post by applying one or more configuration parameters on the set of interaction values, the one or more configuration parameters indicating a set of one or more weighting values assigned to the set of interaction values and to determine whether the first post is underperforming relative to a connection rating threshold indicated by the one or more configurations” as the specific limitations not disclosed by available prior art.
The following are the closest prior art:
Varghese (US20130325550A1) suggests the limitations of “obtaining”, “selecting”, “generating a rating score”, and “updating” in paragraphs 60-63 and 77 brand monitoring platform computes weighted average of audience score and engagement score to generate an aggregate score. Varghese does not teach training the machine learning model or the machine learning model used to “generate a rating score”.
Ferreira (US 2018/0174190 A1) suggests the limitations of “in response to” and “transmitting” as the system compares a user engagement score to a threshold and further, replacing the scheduling of a lower ranked digital content item with a higher ranked digital content item. Ferreira does teach a machine learning model, but does not teach the specific way to train the ML model.
Albert (US2021/0248687) teaches generating a machine learning model that learns from social media posts to determine if they will gain traction. Specifically, assigning positive/negative weight to each variable to correspond how much the variable contributes to actual engagement.
Sarace et al. (US2022/0198779) teaches using a neural network to generate a performance score for each image/video, calculating a target audience benchmark, and comparing the performance score to the benchmark.
Saha et al. (US2022/0207484) teaches generating training data to capture entity to entity affinities and specifically, generating positive and negative labels for the training instances.
Intrator et al. (US2024/0242033) teaches image data for image posted on social media, using a machine learning model to analyze the image to determine a sentiment score and comparing it to a threshold to initiate an action.
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 Lisa Ma whose telephone number is (571)272-2495. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7 AM - 5 PM.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571)272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights