DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on April 14, 2026.
Claims 1, 16, and 20 were amended. Claims 1-12 and 15-18, and 20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant amended the claims, thereby overcoming the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection.
2. As per the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, The claims were amended to include at least “a machine learning model trained on the training dataset to identify patterns comprising similarities in topic, content type, or them among the plurality of historical message” and “apply the machine learning model to analyze the message…” Applicant asserts that the claims “reduces platform-side computational latency, thereby improving the performance of the computing system itself,” “the machine learning model does not merely provide a recommendation or classification for user consumption, but instead alters how the system retrieves a processes data, thereby improving efficiency of data access operations. Also, the “device-aware compression constitutes a technical improvement in network connection.”
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The “machine learning model trained” and “apply the machine learning model” are “generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular” filed of use. MPEP 2106.05(h). The “additional element or combination of elements must do ‘more than simply stat[e]the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’”. MPEP 2106.05(f).
The specification states “reduce platform-side computational latency by selectively fetching and cashing those historical message.” However, the claim does not describe the algorithm and/or particulars of the improvement. For example, is the dataset being filtered?
As per the device-aware compression, this is being performed by known mathematical techniques (i.e. transform coding protocol or entropy coding protocol).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error. The specification recites “cashing” instead of “caching” at paragraphs [0017], [0047], and [0057].
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 and 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claims 1-12 and 15 are directed to a system. Claims 16-18 are directed to a method. Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
For example, claim 1 recites an abstract idea of gathering and processing known information. The claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites limitations grouped within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper"). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “method processes” grouping of abstract ideas as they relate to gathering and processing known information. More specifically, the following the bolded claim elements recite additional elements while the other claim elements recite the abstract idea. according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
A platform comprising:
a memory configured to store:
profiles of a plurality of users and a plurality of officials;
a mapping of a profile of each official with profiles of one or more users based on a geographical area associated with each official, wherein the one or more users are citizens of the geographical area; and
a training dataset comprising a plurality of historical messages associated with historical message exchange between the plurality of users and the plurality of officials on the platform; and
a machine learning model trained on the training dataset to identify patterns comprising similarities in topic, content type, or theme among the plurality of historical messages; and
a processor configured to:
obtain a message comprising a poll on a predefined topic from a first official of the plurality of officials;
apply the machine learning model to analyze the message relative to the plurality of historical messages associated with the historical message exchange between the plurality of users and the plurality of officials on the platform to identify one or more historical messages having a similar topic or theme as the message, wherein the identified historical messages define a subset of historical messages used for selective retrieval from the memory;
selectively fetch, from the memory, the subset of historical messages, from the plurality of historical messages, thereby reducing platform-side computational latency by avoiding fetching of larger set of historical messages;
identify, based on the mapping, at least one user, of the plurality of users, who is a citizen of the geographical area associated with the first official; and
obtain information associated with device-specific constraints from a user device associated with the at least one user, wherein the device-specific constraints comprise at least one of: an available memory, a display resolution, or a battery status of the user device;
compress using a transform coding protocol or entropy coding protocol, wherein the compression is adaptively adjusted the message based on the device-specific constraints to minimize network bandwidth consumption associated with a network connecting the platform to the user device; and
transmit, to the user device, the compressed message comprising the poll, and the subset of historical messages for rendering on the user device, wherein the compression reduces network bandwidth consumption and enables efficient transmission over the network.
Independent claims 16 and 20 recite similar language.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as the memory, machine learning model, processor, network, and user device are merely used as tools to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, these additional elements perform the steps or functions of collecting and processing known information. Viewed as a whole, the use of memory, machine learning model, processor, network, and user device as tools to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer or computer networks performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out 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)), 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) and Vanda Memo). 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(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.05), the additional element(s) of the memory, machine learning model, processor, network, and user device to perform the steps amounts to no more than using generic hardware or software to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of collecting and processing known information. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of collecting and processing known information. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims further describe the abstract idea such as obtain personally identifiable information associated with the plurality of users, authenticate the one or more users, and transmit real-time poll results.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JALATEE WORJLOH whose telephone number is (571)272-6714. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:00am-2:00pm.
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, John Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/Jalatee Worjloh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights