DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of the Application
This Action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed November 21, 2025. Claims 1, 6-10 are amended. Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined in the application. This is the ninth action on the merits.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/21/2025 has been entered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application Nos. 62/378,186, 62/378,188 and 62/378,192, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Application Nos. 62/378,186, 62/378,188 and 62/378,192 at least do not disclose, obtain, a historical tracking link click request associated with a tracking link from a user.
Therefore, as the present application is a nonprovisional of the prior-filed application, Application Nos. 62/378,186, 62/378,188 and 62/378,192; and the claims are not supported by the disclosure of the application, the current claims, 1-10 of present application do not receive priority to the filing date of Application Nos. 62/378,186, 62/378,188 and 62/378,192.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claims 1 and 8-10 the subject matter “obtain, a historical tracking link click request associated with a tracking link from a user” is not supported by the original disclosure. The specification states that it “obtain[s], via at least one processor, a tracking link click request associated with the tracking link from the receiving user.” Published specification [0389]. This does not describe obtaining a historical tracking link click request. Accordingly this is impermissible new matter. Claims 2-7 by being dependents of Claim 1 are also rejected.
In claims 1 and 8-10 the subject matter “the structured vendor link facilitates structuring of the vendor's website” is not described by the specification how the vendor website is facilitated by the vendor link. The specification recites that a “tracking link generating (TLG) component 129 may utilize data provided in the tracking link request to facilitate generating tracking links (e.g., for any websites, products, services, etc. mentioned in the video stream).” [0042]. This does not describe how generating tracking links facilitates structuring of the vendor's website. The ability of one skilled in the art to make and use the invention does not satisfy the written description requirement if details of how the claimed function is to be performed are not disclosed, including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function. See MPEP 2161.01. Claims 2-7 by being dependents of Claim 1 are also rejected.
In claim 7 the subject matter “the vendor link is structured such that the user is precluded from visiting the vendor's website” is not described by the specification how the vendor link precludes the user from visiting the vendor’s website. The specification does not describe how the function is performed, i.e., how the user is precluded from visiting the website. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015); MPEP 2161.01.
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.
Claim 1-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claims 1, 8-10, the claim limitation “analyze, the tracking link determining a corresponding vendor link of a vendor”. However, it is not clear if the tracking link is analyzed in order to determine a vendor link, or if the tracking link is analyzed, then determining a vendor link is performed. As such, the claims are indefinite. Claims 2-7 by being dependents of Claim 1 are also rejected.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, claims 1-10 are directed toward at least one judicial exception without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP § 2106 the rationale for this determination is explained below:
Representative independent claim 1 is directed towards an apparatus, claim 9 is directed towards a system, and claim 10 is directed towards a method, which are statutory categories of invention. Claim 8 is directed to a non-transient medium which is not a statutory category of invention.
Although, claim 1 is directed towards a statutory category of invention, the claim, however, is directed to an abstract idea. The limitations that set forth the abstract idea are: obtain, a historical tracking link click request associated with a tracking link from a user; determine, a user identifier associated with the user; retrieve, historical visitor profile data from a database based on the user identifier; determine, current visitor profile data from a tracking cookie associated with the user's client; generate, visitor summary data for the user based on the historical visitor profile data and the current visitor profile data; generate, a visitor profile for the user based on the visitor summary data; analyze, the tracking link determining a corresponding vendor link of a vendor; structure, the vendor link using the visitor profile; and redirect, the user's client to the structured vendor link, the structured vendor link facilitates structuring of the vendor's website. These limitations entail commercial interactions including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; as well as managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions (tracking clicks from a user); and are thus, directed towards the abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II)
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 elements provided by the claim amount to mere use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. In particular the claim recites the additional elements of at least one memory; a component collection in the memory; at least one processor disposed in communication with a memory, at least one processor executing processor-executable
instructions from the component collection storage of the component collection structured with processor-executable instructions comprising, which are recited at a high level of generality and amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea via a computer and/or are merely the use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Simply applying the abstract idea by a generic computer is not a practical application of 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)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), 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). 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 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited additional elements provide instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Viewing the limitations individually, the limitations generically, referring to a memory; component collection in the memory, processor, and website, do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment1. Viewing these limitations as a combination, the claims merely instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with a high level of generality, executing automating functions of a computer, and with no specific examples of the algorithms themselves which achieve the functionalities claimed. Merely applying an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea”). Therefore, the limitations of the claim as a whole, when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
A review of dependent claims 2-7, likewise, do not recite any limitations that would remedy the deficiencies outlined above as they do not add any elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more. While they may slightly narrow the abstract idea by further describing it, they do not make it less abstract and are rejected accordingly. Further still, claims 8-10 suffer from substantially the same deficiencies as outlined with respect to claim 1 and are also rejected accordingly.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed towards a non-transient physical medium which given the broadest reasonable interpretation includes “signals” and "carrier waves" or other transitory media.
Transitory media are not a statutory type of storage media, see, In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter). The specification, however, is silent as to whether the medium is “non-transitory". Accordingly, the claim recitation is being interpreted as signal per se which are non-statutory forms of patentable subject matter because they are transitory media.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turgeman (US Publication 2018/0034850) in view of Pettersen (US Patent 6826594).
A. In regards to Claims 1, 8, 9 and 10, Turgeman discloses apparatus, medium, system and method, comprising:
at least one memory; Turgeman [0179]
a component collection in the at least one memory; a processor disposed in communication with the memory, and configured to issue a plurality of processing instructions from the component collection stored in the memory, the processor issues instructions from the visitor profile determining component, stored in the memory, to: Turgeman [0179; 0190]
obtain, a historical tracking link click request associated with a tracking link from a user; Tugeman [0041: tracking module may monitor the interactions of the end-user; including his native or natural interactions that he performs while browsing a website; 0042: tracking module may detect and determine the user clicks an on-screen submit button (link) using a mouse-cursor]; it is old, known and well understood that a button is a link; see Pettersen [Col. 11 Ln 62-63: links might be displayed as buttons]; see also Applicant’s definition of a hyperlink, in Applicant’s Remarks 3/21/2023, p 32.
determine, a user identifier associated with the user; Turgeman [0107: determine which one of the different users is currently acting in the current usage session (e.g. User 3 under Cookie number 12345); 0126: storing in a remote database, a record indicating the extracted behavioral biometric model of the user, and a unique identifier];
retrieve, historical visitor profile data from a database based on the user identifier; Turgeman [0097: check whether a Behavioral Biometric Cookie is already stored locally in the current end-user device, having a Cookie ID identifier number; obtain from the remote database the corresponding record, that reflects the user-specific profile that had previously been extracted from previous user-interactions];
determine, current visitor profile data from a tracking cookie associated with the user's client; Turgeman [0076: the Behavioral Cookie based Ad Server may receive a signal from the end-user device, that the current fresh user-interactions of a currently-browsing user, match the user-specific characteristics of Device 123456, User A;];
generate, visitor summary data for the user based on the historical visitor profile data and the current visitor profile data; Turgeman [0097: system may operate in real time, or in near-real-time or substantially in real time in order to monitor the fresh or the current user interactions, and in order to determine in real time whether or not the fresh interactions match the previously-stored Behavioral Biometric Profile that corresponds to the Cookie ID number; 0133: determining that the current user, who performed the fresh user interactions, is the same human user as the user that previously performed interactions associated with said particular record];
generate, a visitor profile for the user based on the visitor summary data; Turgeman [0085: user-side tracking module may monitor the user interactions of the user with or via the input unit(s) of end-user device; and may extract from them user-specific behavioral characteristics, and/or may generate from them a unique user-specific behavioral profile; 0019: system monitors user-interactions of a user, that are performed via an input unit of an end-user device; and extracts a set of user-specific characteristics (summary data), which are used as a behavioral profile];
additionally and/or alternatively Pettersen ALSO discloses, obtain, a historical tracking link click request associated with a tracking link from a user; Pettersen [Col 14 Ln 48-53: a user may activate (e.g., click on) the click-through link, which will cause the user system browser to send to the central linking web site a redirect request to the merchant web site: The central linking web site tracks the user's request, then processes the request and redirects the user system to the merchant web site; Col 13 Ln 48-52: linking information is stored in a dynamic lookup table (historical). The central linking web site also includes a web server which, among other things, responds to requests from affiliate web sites for linking information];
while, Turgeman does not specifically disclose, analyze, the tracking link determining a corresponding vendor link of a vendor; this is disclosed by Pettersen [Col. 14 Ln 48-51: user may activate the click-through link, which will cause the user system browser to send to the central linking web site a redirect request to the merchant web site];
structure the vendor link using the visitor profile; this is disclose by Pettersen [Col 27 Ln 35-39: request is generated from the user system browser to a central tracking application program, which preferably incorporates as part of the request any existing cookies from the user system browser for the domain name used in the tracking request];
and redirect, the user's client to the structured vendor link, the structured vendor link facilitates structuring of the vendor's website. This is disclosed by Pettersen [Col. 14 Ln 51-56: central linking Web site tracks the user's request, then processes the request and redirects the user system to the merchant web site. The merchant web site then serves a web page corresponding to the destination link for display or other processing at the user system; Col 27 Ln 46-49: user system browser sends the request specified in the redirect to the designated domain of the central linking web site server, including all cookies for that domain in the request header];
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Turgeman with the teachings from Pettersen with the motivation to provide a linking web site between a merchant and user which is advantageous in that it greatly simplifies and centralizes accounting and compensation, relieving affiliates and merchants of the time consuming task of performing such accounting functions themselves. Pettersen [Col 2 Ln 32-40]. Moreover, since the claimed invention is implemented through well-known computer technologies, combining their features, as a whole, using such well-known computer techniques would be reasonable, according to one of ordinary skill in the art. Being that the elements disclosed by Turgeman and Pettersen would function in the same manner in combination as they do in their separate embodiments, it would be reasonable to conclude that their resulting combination would be predictable.
B. In regards to Claim 2, Turgeman discloses, wherein the user identifier is determined by generating a fingerprint of the user's client. Turgeman [0093: system may utilize, generate, read and/or write the Behavioral Biometric Cookies locally within the end-user device as client-side cookies; for example, by utilizing a Cookie ID number or identifier string, or other Global Unique Identifier (GUID) or other unique string, which may link or associate between a behavioral biometric cookie that is stored locally within an end-user device].
C. In regards to Claim 3, Turgeman discloses, wherein the user identifier is determined by retrieving the user identifier from the tracking cookie, Turgeman [0100: biometric/behavioral cookie may be a client-side cookie and/or a server-side cookie, to identify an anonymous user and/or a logged-in (e.g., already authenticated) user],
Turgeman does not specifically disclose, and wherein the vendor link is a vendor JavaScript redirect link. This is old and known in the art, see Pettersen [Col. 20 Ln 24-25: click-through link redirects a user's web browser to load and display a new destination web site page; Col. 2 Ln 19-23: when a user activates a link (for example, by clicking on it), the user's web browser is directed first to the central linking web site, and then, based upon the merchant's URL embedded in the web page link, re-directed to the merchant web site; Col. 8 Ln 54-59: dynamic output used by the client computer to display links or web page content is obtained by a call string embedded in the code (such as HTML code) of a web page displayed on the client computer's web browser. The call string passed to the host server can be in the form of, for example, JavaScript]. The motivation being the same as stated in claim 1.
D. In regards to Claim 4, Turgeman discloses wherein the historical visitor profile data includes any of: purchases data, refunds data, browsing behavior. This is old and well known in the art, see at least Turgeman [0030: cookie may store in plaintext a representation of "prior-visits=37", indicating that the user has visited this website 37 times so far; 0059: algorithm may be utilized, in order to learn and to define a user-specific profile based on the data that is monitored or produced during the interaction].
E. In regards to Claim 5, Turgeman discloses, wherein the visitor summary data includes a visitor type of the user. Turgeman [0046: the tracking module may differentiate between: (a) a human user who performs manual interactions that exhibit a first set of user-specific attributes; and (b) an automatic script or a bot].
F. In regards to Claim 6, Turgeman does not specifically disclose, wherein the vendor link is structured including the visitor profile via a URL query string. This is old and well known in the art to include parameters in a URL, see at least Pettersen [Col. 25 Ln 15-18: URL denoting a file address, a program file designation, and a user ID]. The motivation being the same as claim 1.
G. In regards to Claim 7, Turgeman discloses, the vendor link is structured such that the user is precluded from visiting the vendor's website. Turgeman [0046:].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's filed arguments have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive.
A. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection Applicant alludes to the Kim Memorandum. This however, has no bearance on the rejection as the rejection is not grouped under Mental Processes, nor does the computer components used to apply the abstract idea provide for any computer or technological improvement. Even more so, Desjardins has no relevance or analog to Applicant’s claims, as the instant claims do not apply any AI innovation nor do they proffer to improve any AI technology.
Applicant contends that the claim elements are not abstract and that the Examiner is willfully blind to numerous valuable claim elements. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. All recited claim limitations have been analyzed and determined to be directed towards an abstract idea without additional elements that could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. The representative claim provides limitations that: obtain, a tracking link click request associated with a tracking link from a user; determine, a user identifier associated with the user; retrieve, historical visitor profile data from a database based on the user identifier; determine, current visitor profile data from a tracking cookie associated with the user's client; generate, visitor summary data for the user based on the historical visitor profile data and the current visitor profile data; generate, a visitor profile for the user based on the visitor summary data; analyze, the tracking link to determine a corresponding vendor link of a vendor; configure, the vendor link using the visitor profile; and redirect, the user's client to the configured vendor link, the configured vendor link facilitates configuration of the vendor's website. These limitations are directed towards the abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, because they entail and describe commercial interactions including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; as well as managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions.
Applicant further submits that the claim elements are similar to those found eligible in Core Wireless, DDR, Enfish; however, all of these cases have different claim sets, different fact patterns, and are not even remotely analogous to the instant claims. Most of all, Applicant’s application provides no improvement similar to any of these cases. The closest case might be DDR, where claims were directed to generating a composite webpage that combined certain visual elements of a host website with the content of a third-party merchant. The court found that the claim had additional elements that amounted to significantly more than the abstract idea, because they modified conventional internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.”) But, unlike DDR, Applicant’s claims, result in the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink. Additionally, Applicant highlights/proffers as additional elements the limitations, “obtains a tracking link click;” “determines current visitor profile data from a tracking cookie;” “analyze the tracking link;” “redirect the user's client to the configured vendor link, the configured vendor link facilitates configuration of the vendor's website.” However, these limitations, as the 101 analysis determined, are in and of themselves parts of the abstract idea and are akin to Electric Power Group, where the claims, collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying certain result of the collection and analysis, were found ineligible. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Applicant argues that the claim elements amount to significantly more (pp 24-28). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements of the claim recite, a memory; a component collection in the memory; a processor in communication with the memory, which is configured to issue a plurality of processing instructions from the component collection stored in the memory; and at least one processor; these amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea via a computer and/or are merely the use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant alludes to Berkheimer, BASCOM, as being similar to the instant claimed elements. However, neither of these cases are comparable, having different claim sets, different fact patterns, and moreover, include additional elements that were unconventional and improved the functioning of the computer itself or some other technology. Merely applying an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea”).
Applicant asserts that the claimed elements include unconventional features and improvements not available in the prior art. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Patentability based on whether features are unconventional or not available in a prior art reference is not within the purview of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection, and is therefore not determinant. Nevertheless, assuming arguendo, the claimed elements were unconventional and improved on the prior art it still would not necessarily constitute significantly more. As even newly discovered judicial exceptions are still exceptions, despite their novelty. For example, the mathematical formula in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 591-92, 198 USPQ 193, 198 (1978), the laws of nature in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 73-74, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968 (2012), and the isolated DNA in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116, 106 USPQ2d 1972, 1978 (2013) were all novel, but were considered by the Supreme Court to be judicial exceptions.
Applicant argues that the machine-or-transformation test of Bilski must be considered as evidence of significantly more (pp 28-33). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Even though the application of a judicial exception by or with a particular machine, or the transformation of an article is an important clue, neither is a stand-alone test for eligibility. What is required is that all claims must be evaluated for eligibility using the two-part test from Alice/Mayo. “And if a claim fails the Alice/Mayo test (i.e., is directed to an exception at Step 2A and does not amount to significantly more than the exception in Step 2B), then the claim is ineligible even if it passes the M-or-T test.” (MPEP 2106.05(b)). See also DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1104 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[I]n Mayo, the Supreme Court emphasized that satisfying the machine-or-transformation test, by itself, is not sufficient to render a claim patent-eligible, as not all transformations or machine implementations infuse an otherwise ineligible claim with an 'inventive concept.'”). Notwithstanding, Applicant’s claims are not applied by or with a particular machine, nor do they transform a particular article to a different state or thing. Applicant proffers FIGURE 16, which is merely the various components of a generic computer. Applicant provides paragraphs [0025], [0032], [0079], [0318] of the specification to show some sort of “transforming.” These paragraphs basically show that communication data can be modified to add more text; e.g., a link’s text “venusfactor.com” is edited to “http://www.communicationchannel.com/link?ref=http://venusfactor.com.” This is not a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article. See MPEP 2106.05(c); see also Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U.S. 707, 729 (1881) (transformation of the fatty bodies into fat acids and glycerine); Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 184, 209 USPQ 1, 21 (1981) (process that transforms raw, uncured synthetic rubber into precision-molded synthetic rubber products).
As such, the claims in view of Alice do not connote an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is maintained.
B. After eight actions on the merit Applicant now baselessly claims regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection that the references do not discuss, nor render obvious, the limitation: “generate, via at least one processor, a visitor profile for the user based on the visitor summary data.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s summary is based on “historical visitor profile data and the current visitor profile data”, hence, Turgeman discloses that it generates user “summary” data based on currently gathered interaction data and historical profile data stored in its profile database, in that its system may operate in real time, to monitor the fresh or the current user interactions, in order to determine in real time whether or not the fresh interactions match the previously-stored Behavioral Biometric Profile; Turgeman [0097]; and determining that the current user, who performed the fresh user interactions, is the same human user as the user that previously performed interactions associated with said particular record; Turgeman [0133]; then by using said interaction (summary) data, Turgeman’s user-side tracking module may monitor the user interactions of the user with or via the input unit(s) of end-user device; and may may generate from them a unique user-specific behavioral profile. Turgeman [0085].
C. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection Applicant claims that support for the limitation “obtain, a historical tracking link click request associated with a tracking link from a user" is found in paragraphs [0059-0063] and [0096-00102]. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraphs [0059-0063] do not describe obtaining a historical tracking link click from a user. Paragraphs [0096-00102] discuss configuring the vendor's website with cookies and/or for different kinds of users and describes nothing about obtaining a historical tracking link click from a user. Accordingly, this is impermissible new matter.
Applicant’s argument regarding Claim 7 that “the vendor link is configured such that the user is precluded from visiting the vendor's website” is supported by discussion of how visitor profiles may be configures to vary vendor's website differently for different types of visitors in Figure 8 and paragraphs [0062-0063] and [0096-00101]. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Figure 8, depicts a flow chart that does not describe how a vendor link is configured such that a user is precluded from visiting a vendor's website. Paragraphs [0062- 0063] do not disclose determining a visitor profile associated with the user. Paragraphs [0096- 00100] disclose determining using cookies a visitor profile associated with the user; to determine a type of customer. Paragraph [00101] states that in “another embodiment, some visitors (e.g., undesirable bots) may be precluded from visiting the vendor.” Thus, none of the proffered paragraphs describe how the vendor link, precludes a user from visiting the vendor’s website. Stating that using profile data to configure the vendor's website differently for different types of visitors does not describe how a user is precluded from a website. Stating that bots may be precluded from visiting the vendor does not describe how such bots are precluded. The ability of one skilled in the art to make and use the invention does not satisfy the written description requirement if details of how the claimed function is to be performed are not disclosed. See MPEP 2161.01.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Errol CARVALHO whose telephone number is (571)272-9987. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30-7:00 Alt Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E CARVALHO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
1 See, Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2360 (2014) (noting that none of the hardware recited “offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,’ that is, implementation via computers” (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010))).
Prosecution Insights