DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice for all US Patent Applications filed on or after March 16, 2013
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 the Claims
This communication is in response to communications received on 6/25/26. Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are amended, claim(s) none is/are cancelled, claim(s) 15-20 is/are new, and applicant states support can be found at instant specification [0022-0024, 0033, 0036, 0038, 0039, 0065]. Therefore, Claims 1-20 is/are pending and have been addressed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
There is no IDS. There was a previously submitted IDS on 12/30/24.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 6/25/26, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 for claim(s) 1-14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as far as they apply to the amended 101 rejection(s) below.
Applicant respectfully traversed the rejection on pg. 8-11.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because while the claims are amended the PTAB decision merely describes that the general intent of the invention was found to be an abstract idea.
While the amendments and new claims do provide further clarity on how analysis and calculating is performed the claims are still directed to the abstract idea of resource sharing of diversified application usage.
Applicant is relying on 2106.05(d) “well understood, routine, and conventional” however Examiner is relying on 2106.05(f) “apply it.” Examiner relied on “apply it” because of item (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process of 2106.05(f).
Thus, the argument(s) are unpersuasive.
Claims Without Prior Art Rejections
Claim(s) 1-20 do/does not have prior art rejections. The remaining rejections are 101 as noted below.
Closest prior art to the invention include
Vitek (US 2010/0114714 A1) in view of Lawson et al. (US 2017/0142263 A1), Zargahi et al. (US 2012/0143694 A1), and Tenforum published March 27, 2016 (reference U on the Notice of References Cited) as applied to claim(s) 1-20.
As noted by Patent Board Decision dated 4/1/24 for application 15/448,048 (for which the instant application is a continuation), the cited art does not teach heart-beat event.
The prior art above are in IDS dated 12/30/24.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as noted below.
The limitation(s) below for representative claim(s) 1 and 9 that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to resource sharing of diversified application usage.
Step 1: The claim(s) as drafted, is/are a process (claim(s) 1-8, 15-17 recites a series of steps) and system (claim(s) 9-14, 18-20 recites a series of components).
Step 2A – Prong 1: The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
Claim 1: executing a revenue distribution system on a server system;
receiving, by the revenue distribution system, usage data and event notifications from a plurality of user computing devices;
dynamically calculating, by the revenue distribution system, revenue allocation based on the received usage data;
executing an application delivery system on each of a plurality of user computing devices;
monitoring, by the application delivery system, a plurality of applications on each user computing device to detect events, the events comprising at least one of a user interaction, an application state change, or a change in network connectivity;
periodically monitoring, by the application delivery system, an operational status of each application and transmitting a corresponding heartbeat signal that corresponds to a heartbeat-active event when the application is running, or a heartbeat-inactive event when the application is idle, to enable determination of whether each application is actively running or idle at periodic intervals;
generating and transmitting, by the application delivery system in real-time, over a network, one or more event notifications comprising additional data related to each detected event, the additional data comprising at least one of a timestamp, an application identifier, or a type of event;
monitoring, by a tracking and reporting system, application usage data and event notifications generated by the application delivery system;
reporting, by the tracking and reporting system, the monitored application usage data and event notifications to the revenue distribution system;
storing, by the revenue distribution system, the received event notifications and associated additional data in a database, categorized by application identifier and event type, to enable searching for predefined combinations of usage events that indicate application usage patterns;
analyzing, by the revenue distribution system, the categorized usage data to search for predefined combinations of usage events that indicate application usage patterns for each application, wherein the application usage patterns vary based on a type of the application to account for behavioral differences in how different application types deliver value to users; and
dynamically calculating and adjusting, by the revenue distribution system, revenue allocation for each of the plurality of applications based on whether the application usage patterns are found in the usage data for each application, to determine that an application delivered value to a user when the corresponding application usage pattern is detected, thereby enabling equalized revenue distribution for different types of applications regardless of usage duration, wherein the one or more usage patterns comprise:
for active applets in the plurality of applications managed by the revenue distribution system, a first usage pattern that comprises any first one of the plurality of events followed by any second one of the plurality of events,
for passive applets in the plurality of applications managed by the revenue distribution system, a second usage pattern that comprises at least two user interactions,
for non-applets in the plurality of applications managed by the revenue distribution system that do not require authorization, a third usage pattern that comprises a combination of an activation followed by any one of the plurality of events and the heartbeat-active event followed by any one of the plurality of events, and,
for non-applets in the plurality of applications managed by the revenue distribution system that require authorization, a fourth usage pattern that comprises a sign-in event followed by any one of the plurality of events.
Claim(s) 9: same analysis as claim(s) 1.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-20 recite the same or similar abstract idea(s) as independent claim(s) 1 and 9 with merely a further narrowing of the abstract idea(s): .
The identified limitations of the independent and dependent claims above fall well-within the groupings of subject matter identified by the courts as being abstract concepts of:
a method of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, or business relations) because the invention is directed to economic and/or business relationships as they are associated with resource sharing of diversified application usage.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The additional elements unencompassed by the abstract idea include a revenue distribution system on a server system, an application delivery system, a plurality of user computing devices, a tracking and reporting system, database (claim(s) 1, 9).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 fails to describe:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine – see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 are merely (as additionally noted by instant specification [0067, 0080]) invoked as a tool and/or general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 are merely (as additionally noted by instant specification [0067, 0080]) invoked as a tool and/or a general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application and thus similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as set forth above (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
Additionally, as noted by Patent Board Decision dated 4/1/24 for application 15/448,048 (for which the instant application is a continuation), and the same analysis applied to the instant application:
“Even if we were to agree, that the claims improve how usage statistics are tracked by accounting for the behavioral differences in how different forms of applications are used, a claim for a useful or beneficial abstract idea is still an abstract idea. See Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2015).”,
“We agree with the Examiner, that the current claims are directed to a problem of defining certain behaviors as usage of certain applications, calculating usage of the defined behaviors, and calculating payment based on the calculated usage. See Ans. 6. We agree with the Examiner that none of these are improvements to a computer as the steps mentioned can be done by a generic computer.”, and
“None of the steps recited in Appellant's claim 1 provide, and nowhere in the Specification can we find, any description or explanation as to how these steps are intended to provide an "unconventional technological solution ... to a technological problem" that "improve[s] the performance of the system itself," as explained in Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1306, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that claim 1 fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and the additional claim limitations do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Accordingly, we sustain the§ 101 rejection of claim 1. We also affirm the rejection of claims 2, 6, 7, 9-12, 20, 22, 24, 28, 29, 34, and 35 for the same reasons.”
Conclusion
When responding to the office action, any new claims and/or limitations should be accompanied by a reference as to where the new claims and/or limitations are supported in the original disclosure.
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WEBB whose telephone number is (313)446-6615. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-3.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/JAMES WEBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights