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
Claims 1 – 13, 15 – 19, and 21, are pending, claims 14 and 20 being presently cancelled, claim 21 is new.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's reply and remarks of 05/19/2026 have been entered and considered.
The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/19/2026.
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 – 13, 15 – 19, and 21, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step 1 of analysis, the instant claims are directed towards a method; thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories and are considered eligible subject matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One, of analysis, the claims set forth a method for determining authorship of edits made to certain content. Proper provenance of content is given based on human or artificial editing. Therefore, the claims describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, which are within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Because the edits are made via a human device, and regions containing edits may have human authorship, the claims describes certain instances when a human may be interacting with a computer. Activity of a single person; i.e., activity between a person and a computer may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping. The number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. The activity identified earlier to be determining authorship of edits made to certain content based on human or artificial editing recites the identified judicial exception.
Claim 1, which is illustrative of claim 11, contains those elements that define this judicial exception, (and are highlighted below):
A computer-implemented method comprising:
while providing a content editor that permits a user to edit content:
receiving a manual edit to the content via a human interface device, wherein the manual edit includes one or more changes to a region of the content;
modifying the region of content based on the manual edit;
determining first authorship of the region based on the manual edit and according to a first standard;
applying a fragile authorship token in association with the region based on the first authorship, wherein the fragile authorship token indicates that:
the region has human authorship rather than artificial authorship;
the region has artificial authorship rather than human authorship notwithstanding the manual edit being received over the human interface; or
the region has mixed human and artificial authorship;
detecting occurrence of a predetermined event;
responsive to detecting the occurrence of the predetermined event, and after determining the first authorship and applying the fragile authorship token, determining second authorship of the region associated with the manual edit according to a second standard different from the first standard, wherein the second authorship is the same as or different from the first authorship, and wherein determining second authorship according to the second standard requires greater computational resources compared to determining first authorship according to the first standard; and
in response to determining the second authorship, replacing the fragile authorship token associated with the region with a durable authorship token based on the second authorship.
Claim 11 adds additional elements:
determining a significance of the first subregion based on the second subregion or the second subregion based on the first subregion;
responsive to determining that the significance fails to satisfy a threshold:
automatically consolidating authorship information for the meta-region by
removing authorship tokens associated with the first subregion and the second subregion; and
associating the meta-region with a third authorship token corresponding to updated authorship of the meta-region.
Therefore, analysis at Step 2A Prong One, which asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, is answered YES.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, of analysis, the Examiner has determined that the identified abstract idea (judicial exception) is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP 2106.05(f) it is noted that "[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology.
Claims 1 and 11 recite the following additional elements:
computer-implemented;
a content editor;
a human interface device;
a fragile authorship token;
a durable authorship token.
These elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has described these computing elements generically in their disclosure, at Specification [0010, 0068, and 0087], and Figures 5 and 6, as filed. Applicant has also broadly defined token within the disclosure; see [0095]: “The authorship token instructions 110 are instructions that, when executed, facilitate the labeling of content …”. (Emphasis added). Therefore, this term too refers to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea on technology. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to the abstract idea, based on analysis at Step 2A Prong Two, which asks does the claim recite an additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical answer, and which is answered NO.
At Step 2B of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generically recited devices to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. As discussed above, the additional elements of (computer-implemented; a content editor; a human interface device; tokens), are recited at a high level of generality and are instructions to apply the exception on a computer. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) does not provide significantly more per MPEP 2106.05(f). Step 2B is answered NO and the claims are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims 2, 6, 10, 12, 17, and 18, contain further recitations to the same abstract ideas found in claims 1 and 11. References to regions, subregions, standards, and, significance of the edits, are further recitations directed to the method for determining authorship of edits made to certain content; therefore, they are directed to the abstract idea identified. Furthermore, these claims just recite implementing the abstract idea on a computer – (the computer-implemented method of claims 1 and 11. This not sufficient to provide for integration into a practical application or provide for significantly more. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 3, 8, and 16, contain further recitations to the same abstract idea found in claims 1 and 11. Recitations to a predetermined events are references to how certain content was edited. An event is defined as an edit performed at the content editor or as key or mouse events, thus, they rely on the human interaction and are directed to organizing human activity. Furthermore, these claims just recite implementing the abstract idea on a computer – (the computer-implemented method of claims 1 and 11. This not sufficient to provide for integration into a practical application or provide for significantly more. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 4, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, 19, and new claim 21, contain further recitations to the same abstract ideas found in claims 1 and 11. References to fragile tokens, durable tokens, and their protection features, and removing tokens, are further descriptions of how the computer-implemented method is operated for determining authorship of edits made to certain content. A token is defined as a data entry, and how (or where) information is stored is use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data. Therefore, these claim do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Therefore, for the reasons set above, claims 1 – 13, 15 – 19, and 21, are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without reciting significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant traverses the prior rejection of all previous claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See page 9. Applicant remarks that the amended independent claims 1 and 11 are directed to specific improvements in the operation of computerized content-editing systems involving mixed human and artificial authorship. Applicant adds the claims recite concrete technological mechanisms for dynamically managing authorship metadata in a computationally efficient manner. See page 10. Applicant contends this integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application, and significantly more. See page 10. Based on the reasoning that follows, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant.
Applicant’s arguments are delineated and commented on, as follows:
I. The claims are not directed to an abstract idea, as they do not recite mere mental processes or methods of organizing human activity. Page 10.
Applicant adds that the claims recite operations that cannot practically be performed mentally or with pen and paper. Page 10. This argument is not persuasive. First, the Examiner concludes, and details above, that the amended claims set forth a method for determining authorship of edits made to certain content to ascertain provenance of content. Therefore, the claims describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Because the edits are made via a human interface device, and may have human authorship, they are directed to some edits possible being made by humans. The humans interacting with an interface to edit content. This is aptly descriptive of managing personal behavior or interactions between people. Further, activity of a single person; i.e., activity between a person and a computer may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping. The number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. The activity identified earlier to be determining authorship of edits made to certain content based on human or artificial editing recite the identified judicial exception.
Second, Applicant’s focus on practically being performed mentally or with pen and paper is misplaced. Certain claims may be concluded to recite a mental process when the contain limitations that can be practically performed in the human mind. To Applicant’s remark about pen and paper, the Examiner comments that the use of these physical aids, to perform a mental step, would not negate a mental process. However, the Examiner has concluded, and detailed earlier, that the claims describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, which are within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. The discussion above highlights those elements that define this judicial exception. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 11 are similarly not persuasive. See page 13. Parallel to the Examiner’s remarks regarding claim 1, amended claim 11 suffers the same fate. Amended claim 11 adds certain elements, (highlighted above), that add to the method for determining authorship of edits made to certain content to ascertain provenance of content. The newly added elements add more recitations to how the method is performed and focus on what content was edited (regions). Thus, the remarks as to claim 11 are also not persuasive.
II. The claims are directed to specific improvements in computer functionality. Page 13.
Applicant adds that amended claims 1 and 11 recite concrete technological improvements and are not instructions to apply the abstract idea on computer. See page 14. Applicant argues the claims satisfy Step 2A, Prong Two of subject matter eligibility. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Evaluation at Prong Two requires the use of the considerations identified by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, as set forth at MPEP 2106.05(a) through (c), and MPEP 2106.05(e) through (h). As detailed above, the Examiner maintains that the amended claims are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). The amended claims recite only the following additional elements: computer-implemented; a content editor; a human interface device; a fragile authorship token; a durable authorship token.
Applicant has described these computing elements generically in their disclosure, at Specification [0010, 0068, and 0087], and Figures 5 and 6, as filed. Applicant has also broadly defined token within the disclosure; see [0095]: “The authorship token instructions 110 are instructions that, when executed, facilitate the labeling of content …”. (Emphasis added). Therefore, this term too refers to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea on technology.
Applicant further comments on the use of these tokens. See page 14. Applicant remarks that the staged computational process includes applying a fragile token during editing. Further regarding the use of these tokens, the Examiner comments that the disclosure repeatedly defines this action as “applying the authorship token”. See Specification [0272, 0289, 0407, 0411, 0415, 0420, et. al.). Paragraph [0066] may best define this element when disclosing: “[s]uch authorship tokens can be used to identify content authored by a particular author or kind of author (e.g., human or artificial).” Thus, Applicant seems to be using the token (both fragile and durable) for identification purposes. This would be reasonably concluded to describe use of a computer in its ordinary capacity for other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data). It also can be reasonably concluded that the claims describe general purpose computer components after the fact to an abstract idea. Noting again that Applicant defines the token by applying a token, this reiterate the conclusion above that this is mere use of computer technology to identify authorship. Applicant’s arguments that the use of authorship tokens provide a technological improvement is not persuasive.
The Examiner further remarks that successive analysis of tokens, i.e., the claimed elements of determining authorship according to standards, is directed to steps for determining authorship of edits made to certain content. Thus, they are directed to the abstract idea identified.
Applicant notes, and claims per amendments, that determining steps according to different standards, requires greater computational resources than other standards. See page 14. This would serve to pass Prong Two analysis. This argument is not persuasive. Most germane to the Examiner’s conclusion is that this recitation to “…wherein…requires greater computational resources…” is results-based language that recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished. This type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it"; therefore, the Examiner has concluded the use of tokens is mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has broadly defined token within the disclosure; see [0095]: “The authorship token instructions 110 are instructions that, when executed, facilitate the labeling of content …”. (Emphasis added). If determining second authorship according to the second standard requires greater computational resources, why perform the second step if the goal is to improve computational efficiency? Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments as to claim 11, see page 15, suffer the same fate as discussed above with regard to claim 1.
IV. (sic) The claims recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.
See page 16. As discussed above, for analysis at Step 2B, the Examiner has determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generically recited devices to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. As concluded above, the additional elements of (computer-implemented; a content editor; a human interface device; tokens), are recited at a high level of generality and are instructions to apply the exception on a computer. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) does not provide significantly more per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s final remarks are directed to new claim 21. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant. New claim 21 recites applying the fragile authorship token during real-time editing of the content. This element would be pointedly directed to determining authorship of edits made to certain content. Therefore, the claim includes elements refining the personal behavior or interactions between people, which are within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Further, this claim recites implementing the abstract idea on a computer – (the computer-implemented method of claims 1. This not sufficient to provide for integration into a practical application or provide for significantly more. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f).
Claims Distinguished over Prior Art
Regarding the amended claims, the prior art does not teach nor suggest a system or method as claimed. Upon updated research and in view of amendments to the claims, the Examiner maintains the conclusion detailed within the Office Action filed 02/20/2026. Accordingly, the current claim set remains distinguished over the prior art.
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 DON EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571) 272-6171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
DONALD J. EDMONDS
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights