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 .
Detailed Action
This Office Action is made in reply to Application 19/305,717 filed 20 August 2025. As originally filed, Claims 1 – 20 are presented for examination.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3 – 11 and 13 – 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,423,729. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the independent claims 1, 11 and 19 are anticipated by reference claims 1, 10 and 17 as presented in the table below.
US Pub. 19/305,717
US Patent 12,423,729
1. A computer system comprising:
a computer device configured to communicate via a communication network to a plurality of user computer devices including a particular target user computer device of a target user; and
a processor coupled to the computer device and having access to social network data and browser data of the target user, the processor configured to provide dynamically determined targeted content to be communicated, via the computer device, to the particular target user computer device, wherein the processor is configured to execute a recommendation service that is configured to analyze context of the target user based on browse history of the particular target user computer device, behavior data of the target user, demographic information of the target user, and social network momentum data, wherein the recommendation service includes a social momentum recommendation engine that is configured to provide the targeted content based on the social network momentum data derived from social network content that is independent of and distinct from the browser data of the target user.
1. A computer system comprising:
a computer server configured to communicate via a communication network to a plurality of user computer devices including a particular target user computer device of a target user; and
a processor coupled to the computer server and having access to social network data, user browser data of the target user, relationship data, and content data, the processor configured to provide dynamically determined targeted content to be communicated to the particular target user computer device, wherein the processor implements a recommendation service that is configured to analyze context of the target user based on browse history of the particular target user computer device, behavior data of the target user, demographic information of the target user, and social network momentum data, wherein the recommendation service includes a social momentum recommendation engine that is configured to recommend the targeted content based on an amount of social momentum of content that is independent of and distinct from the browser data of the target user.
Note: Reference claim includes having access to relationship data and content data while the instant claim. “an amount of social momentum of content” is not patently distinct from “social network momentum data derived from social network content”.
3. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the social network momentum data is retrieved via a network from a remote computer site.
2. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the social network momentum data is retrieved via a network from a remote computer site.
4. The computer system of claim 1, wherein: the social network momentum data is stored in a first database, and the targeted content is selected from content stored in a second database.
3. The computer system of claim 1, wherein:
the social network momentum data is stored in the first database, and the recommended targeted content is selected from content stored in the third database.
5. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processor comprises a recommendation engine that includes a data aggregation module, a relationship mining module, and a recommender module, the data aggregation module configured to store raw word data and user data to one or more of a raw word database, a user data database, or a combined raw word and user data database.
4. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processor comprises a recommendation engine that includes a data aggregation module, a relationship mining module, and a recommender module, the data aggregation module configured to store raw word data and user data to one or more of a raw word database, a user data database, or a combined raw word and user data database.
6. The computer system of claim 5, wherein the recommendation engine is configured to store content targeted to the particular target user computer device.
5. The computer system of claim 4, wherein the recommendation engine is configured to store content targeted to the particular target user computer device.
7. The computer system of claim 5, wherein the data aggregation module is coupled to a first database.
6. The computer system of claim 4, wherein the data aggregation module is coupled to the first database.
8. The computer system of claim 5, wherein the relationship mining module is coupled to a first database and a second database.
7. The computer system of claim 4, wherein the relationship mining module is coupled to the first database and the second database.
9. The computer system of claim 5, wherein the recommendation engine is coupled to a first database, a second database, and to a third database.
8. The computer system of claim 4, wherein the recommendation engine is coupled to the first database, the second database, and to the third database.
10. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processor implements a recommendation service that is configured to analyze the context of the target user based on the particular target user computer's browse history, behavior data of the target user, demographic information of the target user, and the social network momentum data, wherein the social network momentum data is retrieved via a network from a remote computer site, and wherein the dynamically determined targeted content is based on the context.
9. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the processor implements a recommendation service that is configured to analyze the context of the target user based on the particular target user computer's browse history, behavior data of the target user, demographic information of the target user, and the social network momentum data, wherein the social network momentum data is retrieved via a network from a remote computer site, and wherein the dynamically determined targeted content is based on the context.
11. A computer system comprising:
a computer server configured to communicate via a communication network to a plurality of user computer devices including a particular target user computer device of a target user; and
a processor coupled to the computer server and having access to social network data and browser data of the target user, the processor configured to provide dynamically determined targeted content to be communicated, via the computer server, to the particular target user computer device, wherein the processor is configured to execute a recommendation service that is configured to analyze context of the target user based on browse history of the particular target user computer device, behavior data of the target user, demographic information of the target user, and social network momentum data, wherein the recommendation service includes a social momentum recommendation engine that is configured to provide the targeted content based on the social network momentum data derived from social network content that is independent of and distinct from the browser data of the target user.
10. A computer system comprising:
a computer server configured to communicate via a communication network to a plurality of user computer devices including a particular target user computer device of a target user; and
a processor coupled to the computer server and having access to social network data, user browser data of the target user, relationship data, and content data, the processor configured to provide dynamically determined targeted content to be communicated to the particular target user computer device, wherein the processor implements a recommendation service that is configured to analyze context of the target user based on browse history of the particular target user computer device, behavior data of the target user, demographic information of the target user, and social network momentum data, wherein the recommendation service includes a social momentum recommendation engine that is configured to recommend the targeted content based on an amount of social momentum of content that is independent of and distinct from the browser data of the target user.
Note: Reference claim includes having access to relationship data and content data while the instant claim. “an amount of social momentum of content” is not patently distinct from “social network momentum data derived from social network content”.
13. The computer system of claim 11, wherein the social network momentum data includes data related to users other than the target user.
11. The computer system of claim 10, wherein the social network momentum data includes data related to users other than the target user.
14. The computer system of claim 11, wherein the dynamically determined targeted content is based on a result of the recommendation service.
12. The computer system of claim 10, wherein the dynamically determined targeted content is based on a result of the recommendation service.
15. The computer system of claim 11, wherein the social network momentum data is retrieved via a remote computer site.
13. The computer system of claim 10, wherein the social network momentum data is retrieved via a remote computer site.
16. The computer system of claim 15,
wherein:
the social network momentum data is stored in a first database, and the targeted content is selected from content stored in a second database.
14. The computer system of claim 13, wherein:
the social network momentum data is stored in a first database, and the recommended targeted content is selected from content stored in a second database.
17. The computer system of claim 11, wherein the processor comprises a recommendation engine that includes a data aggregation module, a relationship mining module, and a recommender module, the data aggregation module configured to store raw word data and user data to one or more of a raw word database, a user data database, or a combined raw word and user data database.
15. The computer system of claim 10, wherein the processor comprises a recommendation engine that includes a data aggregation module, a relationship mining module, and a recommender module, the data aggregation module configured to raw word data and user data to one or more of a raw word database, a user data database, or a combined raw word and user data database.
18. The computer system of claim 17, wherein the data aggregation module has access to the social network data.
16. The computer system of claim 15, wherein the data aggregation module has access to the social network data.
19. At a computer system that includes a computer server and a processor coupled to the computer server, performing a method comprising:
at the processor, the processor having access to social network data and browser data of the target user, the processor configured to provide dynamically determined targeted content to be communicated, via the computer server, to the particular target user computer device, wherein the processor implements a recommendation service that is configured to analyze context of the target user based on browse history of the particular target user computer device, behavior data of the target user, demographic information of the target user, and social network momentum data, wherein the recommendation service includes a social momentum recommendation engine that is configured to provide the targeted content based on the social network momentum data derived from social network content that is independent of and distinct from the browser data of the target user.
17. At a computer system that includes a computer server and a processor coupled to the computer server, performing a method comprising:
at the computer server, communicating via a communication network to a plurality of user computer devices including a particular target user computer device of a target user; and
at the processor, the processor having access to social network data, user browser data of the target user, relationship data, and content data, the processor configured to provide dynamically determined targeted content to be communicated to the particular target user computer device, wherein the processor implements a recommendation service that is configured to analyze context of the target user based on browse history of the particular target user computer device, behavior data of the target user, demographic information of the target user, and social network momentum data, wherein the recommendation service includes a social momentum recommendation engine that is configured to recommend the targeted content based on an amount of social momentum of content that is independent of and distinct from the browser data of the target user.
Note: Reference claim includes having access to relationship data and content data while the instant claim. “an amount of social momentum of content” is not patently distinct from “social network momentum data derived from social network content”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
recommendation service that is configured to analyze context in Claims 1, 11 and 19
social momentum recommendation engine that is configured to provide the target content in Claim 1, 11 and 19
data aggregation module configures to store raw word data and user data in Claims 5 and 17
recommendation engine is configured to stored content in Claim 6
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the targeted content" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the targeted content" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 20 would be allowable if the 112 and double patenting rejections were overcome.
Reasons for Possible Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for possible allowance:
Independent Claims 1, 11 and 19 would be considered allowable if all other current rejections were overcome since when reading the claims in light of the specification, as per MPEP §2111.01 none of the references of record alone or in combination disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in independent claims 1 including
“a computer device configured to communicate via a communication network to a plurality of user computer devices including a particular target user computer device of a target user; and
a processor coupled to the computer device and having access to social network data and browser data of the target user, the processor configured to provide dynamically determined targeted content to be communicated, via the computer device, to the particular target user computer device, wherein the processor is configured to execute a recommendation service that is configured to analyze context of the target user based on browse history of the particular target user computer device, behavior data of the target user, demographic information of the target user, and social network momentum data, wherein the recommendation service includes a social momentum recommendation engine that is configured to provide the targeted content based on the social network momentum data derived from social network content that is independent of and distinct from the browser data of the target user”
The examiner has found that the prior art does not appear to teach or suggest or render obvious the claimed limitations as recited in independent claims. The prior art fails to teach or suggest individually or in combination the independent claims.
Examiner has presents Conant, US Pub. 2008/0092182 A1 as teaching a dynamic ad targeting system where advertisers refine and optimize their ads based on feedback events and appropriate content is selected based on a user's demographics, requests and other feedback events, as well as partly based on feedback of other users using social media and/or collaborative filtering techniques ([0005], [0015], [0123] - [0124]). Content has an overall popularity value where popularity as determined by other people with a similar profile and where content that is increasing rapidly in popularity may be selected over content this not increasing in popularity as much. Content velocity is the speed at which a segment is growing or decreasing in popularity, ([0055], [0059]-[0060]). But Conant does not clearly demonstrate the newly added limitation that content is recommended based on an amount of social momentum of content that is independent of and distinct from the browser data of the target user, as claimed.
Examiner further presents Gossweiler et al., US Pub. 2008/0244681 A1 as teaching that
it can be determined that a content that suddenly gets shared a lot, i.e. social momentum, can
be used in recommending content, ([0077]). Gossweiler further teaches that recommendation
systems that are not based on simple keyword matching can be created by recommending
videos that are often watched by other users who have also watched videos that user-X has
watched, ([0143]). However, Gossweiler either alone or in combination with Conant does not
fairly demonstrate the limitations of Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 1 would be considered allowable if all other rejections were overcome.
Claims 11 and 19 would be considered allowable for the same reasons stated above, if all other rejections were overcome. The dependent claims 2 – 10, 12 – 18 and 20 would be allowed because they further limit independent claims 1, 11 and 19 if all current rejections were overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Greer et al., US Pub. 2007/0085263 A1 teach targeting advertising to a particular user by establishing a baseline profile when a user connects to the website which profile includes static or rarely changing information. Then, the advertiser can generate a specific advertising banner for the user, (Fig. 3 and [0017]).
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cynthia M FOGG whose telephone number is (571)272-2741. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-3:30.
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at (571)272-1915. 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.
/CYNTHIA M FOGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights