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
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on 07/07/2026.
Claims 1, 21, 22-24, 27-29 and 31 have been amended.
Claims 3,5,10-20, 25-26, 30 have been canceled.
Claims 1-2,4,6-9,21-24,27-29,31 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 07/07/2026 have been fully considered and discussed in the next section. Applicant is reminded that the claims must be given its broadest, reasonable interpretation.
With regard to “non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection. Applicant has acknowledged the Double Patenting rejection and stated that Applicant will take the appropriate action if co-pending application 16/697,488 issues as a patent before the instant application and / or acknowledged the Double Patenting rejection and requested that this rejection be held in obeyance until the claims are otherwise in condition for allowance. However, the non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection will be maintained in the Office Action until such time as the conflicting claims are amended or terminal disclaimer is filed or abandoned of the application.
With regard to claims 1-2,4,6-9,21-24,27-29,31 rejection under 35 USC § 101 :
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the Alice/Mayo framework:
Applicant argues that “ As amended, claim 1 is not directed simply to advertising or marketing activity at that level of abstraction. The claim recites a particular processing pipeline in which an NLP module applies NLP to a marketing document, extracts campaign topics and categories, hierarchically arranges topics, categories, and sub- categories, translates or converts the NLP-based marketing results into media-specific equivalent terms, stores those results in an NLP database, retrieves those results for further processing, and uses the results with stored persona profiles to identify best-matching user persona profiles. The amended claim further requires determining a match score for each persona profile based on matched criteria or attributes, assigning weights to criteria or attributes so that some criteria are essential to matching the campaign topics, categories, or sub-categories, requiring a threshold number of criteria before presenting an advertisement, determining relevance scores from influencer-profile and content metrics, ranking content items and influencer profiles, and mapping the identified user persona profiles, content, and influencer profiles to targeted advertisement interests. These limitations define how the document processing and management system operates, not merely the desired business result of targeted advertising ( page 3/11)”.
Examiner disagrees. The limitations of “a particular processing pipeline in which an NLP module applies NLP to a marketing document, extracts campaign topics and categories, hierarchically arranges topics, categories, and sub- categories, translates or converts the NLP-based marketing results into media-specific equivalent terms, stores those results in an NLP database, retrieves those results for further processing, and uses the results with stored persona profiles to identify best-matching user persona profiles. The amended claim further requires determining a match score for each persona profile based on matched criteria or attributes, assigning weights to criteria or attributes so that some criteria are essential to matching the campaign topics, categories, or sub-categories, requiring a threshold number of criteria before presenting an advertisement, determining relevance scores from influencer-profile and content metrics, ranking content items and influencer profiles, and mapping the identified user persona profiles, content, and influencer profiles to targeted advertisement interests” are directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis.
Since analyzing data is part of the abstract idea itself, any improvement obtained by automating the analyzing of the data in an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matters (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.
As such, the claims as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors because they merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based on the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes). Accordingly, these limitations are merely the desired business result of targeted advertising. The use of document processing (e.g. NPL module) and management system does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 1-2,4,6-9,21-24,27-29,31 is maintained.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two:
Applicant argues that “ The claim does not merely place an advertising concept on generic computer components. Rather, the claimed networked system uses a particular sequence of NLP-driven and database-driven operations to normalize marketing-document content, store and retrieve normalized and media-specific results, match those results against persona-profile records, apply weighted and thresholded scoring rules, rank content and influencer profiles using relevance scores, and limit downstream content delivery based on mapped targeted advertisement interests [54-55]. The amended claim also imposes meaningful limits through weighted and thresholded matching [52,56]. These limitations are not insignificant data gathering or mere result- oriented analysis. They control whether a persona profile qualifies for downstream advertisement presentation and thereby constrain the system's delivery of content items and promotions. The amended claim further integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application through relevance-score ranking and targeted-interest mapping [61]. The claimed system therefore does not merely transmit tailored content after generic analysis. It limits delivery to content items and promotions determined through the recited NLP normalization, database retrieval, weighted matching, thresholding, relevance ranking, and targeted-interest mapping operations (page 3-4/11)”.
Examiner disagrees. Since the recitation of “control whether a persona profile qualifies for downstream advertisement presentation and thereby constrain the system's delivery of content items and promotions, through relevance-score ranking and targeted-interest mapping and transmit tailored content after generic analysis that limits delivery to content items and promotions determined through the recited NLP normalization, database retrieval, weighted matching, thresholding, relevance ranking, and targeted-interest mapping operations” are part of the abstract idea itself, they are not capable of transforming the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and not capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b.
Only technological improvements rooted in the "additional elements" of a claim are capable of transforming an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2, and only "additional elements" are capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b.
Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. In the instant case the only additional elements are “ system; (a network; devices, data sources, NLP module, database”, as evidenced by applicant specification [65] , are just general-purpose computers with generic computing components upon which the abstract idea is applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 or be considered significantly more under Step 2b.
Thus, any purported technological improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using the general-purpose computer, and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied.
Improvements of this nature are improvement to an abstract idea which are improvements in ineligible subject matter (SAP v. Investpic decision: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.). As such, the applicant's arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained. Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 1-2,4,6-9,21-24,27-29,31 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “The Examiner's analysis treats the network, devices, NLP module, and databases as isolated generic components. However, eligibility must be evaluated based on the claim as a whole and in view of the ordered combination actually recited. The amended claim uses those components to process particular data structures and intermediate results, including NLP-based marketing results, translated or converted media-specific results, stored fictional user profiles, matched criteria or attributes, weighted criteria, threshold criteria, relevance scores, ranked content items and influencer profiles, and mapped targeted advertisement interests. This ordered combination is more than an instruction to "apply" an abstract idea using a computer and is not merely a field-of-use limitation. Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection defines the alleged abstract idea at an impermissibly high level by absorbing the claim's operative processing architecture into the exception and then treating only the surrounding hardware labels as "additional elements." The amended claim does not merely recite advertising content selected by human preference or business judgment. It requires generation of NLP-based marketing results, media-specific translation or conversion of those results, storage and retrieval of those results in an NLP database, matching of those results against stored persona profiles, weighted and thresholded match-score processing, relevance-score ranking of content items and influencer profiles, and mapping of the ranked outputs to targeted advertisement interests. These limitations are not merely the field of use of advertising; they define the particular way the claimed document processing and management system controls the data path from marketing-document analysis to constrained downstream presentation (page 4/11)”.
Examiner disagrees. Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, when the claim (s) are considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of representative claim 1 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Under Step 2B, the claim is also analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. Although additional elements are recited, representative claim 1 merely invokes such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e. computer) being applied on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
As such, an purported improvement in what the applicant calls a technical field is an improvement in ineligible subject matter. In order for an improvement to a technology or technological filed to overcome a 35 USC 101 rejection, the purported improvement must be rooted in the "additional elements" which in this case they are not. The claimed additional elements are merely a general purpose computer upon which an abstract idea is merely being applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2. The instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Since representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, representative claim 1 is “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES). “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) ” .
As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of representative claim 1 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO). As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 1-2,4,6-9,21-24,27-29,31 is maintained.
Under Step 2B:
Applicant argues that “ the amended claim also recites significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The claim requires a concrete implementation in which normalized and media- specific NLP outputs are stored and retrieved, persona-profile matches are scored based on matched criteria or attributes, criteria are weighted so that some criteria are essential, a threshold number of criteria must be satisfied before an advertisement is presented, and relevance scores are used to rank content items and influencer profiles before the ranked outputs are mapped to targeted advertisement interests. Considered individually and as an ordered combination, these limitations confine the claim to a particular useful application and supply an inventive concept beyond the Examiner's generalized characterization of gathering, analyzing, and transmitting information (page 5/11)”.
Examiner disagrees. Alice decision requires the "additional elements" of the claim which must contribute something "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself that is far from routine and conventional. However, the only "additional elements" in the applicant's claims are a general- purpose computer . These "additional elements" are merely used as a tool to apply the abstract idea which is insufficient to be considered "significantly more" than the abstract idea. These additional elements “ system; (a network; devices, data sources, NLP module, database” fails to (a) improve another technology or technical field and (b) improve the functioning of the computer itself and (c) applies the abstract idea with or by use of, a particular machine, which is a generic computer performing generic computer functions and are not seen to recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
The argued limitations which the applicant asserts are far from routine and conventional are part of the abstract idea itself and not "additional elements" of the claimed invention. Thus, the argued limitations are not capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b. Instead, the argued limitations that the applicant asserts are far from routine and conventional would be, at best, an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matter. Thus, the applicants' arguments are not convincing and the claim rejection of claims 1-2,4,6-9,21-24,27-29,31 have been maintained.
Applicant argues that “The dependent claims further support eligibility in view of the current claim set. Claims 6-9 further limit the system's mapping and ranking operations by tying persona-profile interests, targeted advertising interests, relevant advertisement attributes, media-channel selection, influencer profiles, campaign topics, and campaign categories to the relevance-based delivery logic recited in claim 1. Claims 21-24, 27-29, and 31, as amended, likewise recite additional implementations of the same ordered processing architecture, including persona-profile generation from audience data, aggregation of persona-interest data, taxonomy-based assignment of interests, threshold and weighted match scoring, storage and amendment of audience/profile data, translation or conversion of NLP results using a media-specific dictionary, relevance-score ranking, and interactive tabs matched to topics and categories of a marketing campaign. Claims 25, 26, and 30 have been cancelled and therefore no longer form part of the pending eligibility analysis. Accordingly, the pending claims, considered as a whole and in view of the present amendments and cancellations, are not directed merely to a certain method of organizing human activity. At minimum, the amended claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and recite significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, and 21-24, 27-29, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ( page 5/11)”.
Examiner disagrees. the dependent claims 6-9 further limiting mapping and ranking operations by tying persona-profile interests, targeted advertising interests, relevant advertisement attributes, media-channel selection, influencer profiles, campaign topics, and campaign categories to the relevance-based delivery logic which is part of the abstract idea, Claims 21-24, 27-29, and 31 as amended further limiting persona-profile generation from audience data, aggregation of persona-interest data, taxonomy-based assignment of interests, threshold and weighted match scoring, storage and amendment of audience/profile data, translation or conversion of NLP results using a media-specific dictionary, relevance-score ranking, and interactive tabs matched to topics and categories of a marketing campaign, which is part of the abstract idea and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No). Thus, based on the detailed analysis above and in the rejection below, the claim rejection of claims 1-2,4,6-9,21-24,27-29,31 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
With regard to claims 1, 21-31previously 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. Applicant amended and/ or clarified the rejection. Therefore. 35 USC § 12 second paragraph rejection, Applicant arguments are considered, therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
Double Patenting Rejection
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-2,4,6-9 and 21-31 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 21,23-28,30-35,37-40 of copending Application No. 16/694,488. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because they merely recite obvious variants of claims 21,23-28,30-35, 37-40 of co-pending application 16/694,488.
Claims 1-2,4,6-9 and 21-31 of the instant application recites the limitations of : extract and generate NLP-based marketing results indicating at least one campaign topic associated with the marketing document and at least one category associated with the campaign, wherein the topics, categories and sub-categories in the NLP-based marketing results are hierarchically arranged and wherein the NLP-based marketing results are translated into different languages and/or converted into equivalent terms using a dictionary related to a specific media, and provide the NLP-based marketing results including the translated or converted results in an NLP database; and wherein the document processing and management system is configured to use the NLP results and the persona profiles stored in the persona database to identify user persona profiles that best match the topics, categories and/or sub- categories associated with the marketing document, wherein the NLP results are used to determine a match score for each persona profile based on a number of criteria and/or attributes that matched, wherein the NLP results are used to assign weights to the criteria and/or attributes so that some criteria are essential for the persona profile to match the topics, categories and/or sub-categories of the campaign, wherein the document processing and management system determines that a threshold number of criteria need to be met for presenting an advertisement to a user persona profile, wherein metrics associated with an Influencer profile and content are used to determine a relevance score and then rank content items and the Influencer profiles based on a degree of relevance and/or match factor, and wherein the document processing and management system maps the identified user persona profiles, content and influencer profiles to targeted advertisement interests.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to incorporate the above limitation into the instant application with the motivation of targeting users more efficiently based on their spoken language with marketing materials and hence increase marketability of products.
Applicant is required to either cancel the conflicting claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the referenced copending application and would be covered by any patent granted on that copending application since the referenced copending application and the instant application are claiming common subject matter. Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant would be prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application in the other copending application.
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 1-2,4,6-9,21-24,27-29,31 are directed to a system and a method which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes). However, claims 1-2,4,6-9,21-24,27-29,31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea:
apply a machine algorithm to a marketing document, extract and generate based marketing results indicating at least one campaign topic associated with the marketing document and at least one category associated with the campaign, wherein the topics, categories and sub-categories in the NLP-based marketing results are hierarchically arranged and wherein the NLP-based marketing results are translated into different languages and/or converted into equivalent terms using a dictionary related to a specific media, and provide the NLP-based marketing results including the translated or converted results in an NLP database;
the storage configured to receive and store the based marketing results and provide retrieval of the based marketing results; and a persona storage configured to:
store of a plurality of profiles of fictional users, wherein each profile of a fictional user in the plurality of profiles of fictional users is representative of a typical member of a respective demographic and is characterized by a respective set of one or more interests, the one or more interests in the respective set of one or more interests being any interest that distinguish an audience of the respective profile of a fictional user from a different audience of another profile of a different fictional user, where media content with which users have engaged is identified, where the media content is provided by the plurality of third-party data sources and, data analytics is performed on the identified media content, and results from the performance of the data analytics are correlated and assigned to the users, such that the plurality of profiles of fictional users stored in the persona storage are created from identified media content and data analytics results of an actual user’s social media behavior; and
receive queries for and provide at least one fictional user profile matching the at least one campaign topic and the at least one category associated with the campaign indicated in the based marketing results, and/ or the translated or converted results,
wherein the document processing and is configured to use the NLP results and the persona profiles stored in the persona database to identify user persona profiles that best match the topics, categories and/or sub- categories associated with the marketing document;
wherein the NLP results are used to determine a match score for each persona profile based on a number of criteria and/or attributes that matched, wherein the NLP results are used to assign weights to the criteria and/or attributes so that some criteria are essential for the persona profile to match the topics, categories and/or sub-categories of the campaign, wherein the document processing and determines that a threshold number of criteria need to be met for presenting an advertisement to a user persona profile, wherein metrics associated with an Influencer profile and content are used to determine a relevance score and then rank content items and the Influencer profiles based on a degree of relevance and/or match factor, and wherein the document processing and maps the identified user persona profiles, content and influencer profiles to targeted advertisement interests”.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of a computer with one or more hardware processors coupled to a non-transitory memory and configured to execute software instructions “ system; (a network; devices, data sources, NLP module, database (e.g. a general purpose computer with generic computer components) and a database to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and one or more generic computer component.
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, storing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying data and, as such, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
receive queries for and provide at least one fictional user profile matching the at least one campaign topic and the at least one category associated with the campaign indicated in the NLP-based marketing results;
receive and store the NLP-based marketing results and provide retrieval of the NLP-based marketing results;
store of a plurality of profiles of fictional users, where media content with which users have engaged is identified;
More The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and generic computer components performing a generic computers function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and generic computer components. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on one or more computers, or merely uses computers as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes). When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “ system; (a network; devices, data sources, NLP module, database to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and one or more generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on one or more computers, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires one or more general-purpose computer and generic computer components (as evidenced from paragraphs 65 of the applicant’s specification) and the affinity v Direct TV decision which states that a database is a generic computer component); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility.
Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, displaying, storing, and/or transmitting data (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
receive queries for and provide at least one fictional user profile matching the at least one campaign topic and the at least one category associated with the campaign indicated in the NLP-based marketing results;
receive and store the NLP-based marketing results and provide retrieval of the NLP-based marketing results;
store of a plurality of profiles of fictional users, where media content with which users have engaged is identified;
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e., “PEG” Step 2B=No). For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 2,4,6-9,21-24,27-29 and 31 appear to merely further limit the abstract idea by further limiting profiles of fictional users (claims 2,4), which is part of the abstract idea, claims 6-9 by further limiting mapping and ranking operations by tying persona-profile interests, targeted advertising interests, relevant advertisement attributes, media-channel selection, influencer profiles, campaign topics, and campaign categories to the relevance-based delivery logic which is part of the abstract idea, Claims 21-24, 27-29, and 31 by further limiting persona-profile generation from audience data, aggregation of persona-interest data, taxonomy-based assignment of interests, threshold and weighted match scoring, storage and amendment of audience/profile data, translation or conversion of NLP results using a media-specific dictionary, relevance-score ranking, and interactive tabs matched to topics and categories of a marketing campaign and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No). Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-2,4,6-9,21-24,27-29,31 are not patent eligible.
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 22 is 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 claim(s) contains 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 22 recite the limitation of “The document processing system of wherein the natural language processing (NLP) module is further configured to generate NLP results that are based on topic extraction, identification of categories and/or sub-categories of content of the marketing document, wherein the topics, categories and sub-categories are hierarchically arranged depending upon a business objective, marketing goal, targeted persona profile, brand name, economy economic sector, insights and/or causes that can be extracted from the marketing document an internal taxonomy of topics, translated into Facebook Interests, is used to assign the interests to the persona profiles”. The specification teaches “The system can also identify influencers that the user follows and/or interacts with through the online and offline sources. In step 802, the system can perform data analytics on the identified content that the user interacts with. The data analytics results can include results from other data analytics platforms such as (e.g. Facebook Audience Insights and Google Analytics [53]). The specification does not teach “The document processing system of wherein the natural language processing (NLP) module is further configured to generate NLP results that are based on topic extraction, identification of categories and/or sub-categories of content of the marketing document, wherein the topics, categories and sub-categories are hierarchically arranged depending upon a business objective, marketing goal, targeted persona profile, brand name, economy economic sector, insights and/or causes that can be extracted from the marketing document an internal taxonomy of topics, translated into Facebook Interests, is used to assign the interests to the persona profiles”.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2,4,6-9,21-24,27-29,31 would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant were to be able to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections identified above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The most relevant prior the examiner has found is:
Brent et al, US Pat No: 11042896 B1 teaches A content influencer scoring system may include influencer computers each associated with a respective content influencer having influencer historical performance data and legacy influencer content associated therewith. A remote server may obtain advertisement campaign data associated with an advertisement campaign and parse the advertisement campaign data for advertisement keywords. The remote server may match content influencers to the advertisement campaign data based on the advertisement keywords and, for each content influencer, generate an advertisement campaign score. The score may be generated by determining whether the content influencer is suitable for the advertisement campaign based upon a term frequency of the advertisement keywords for each document from the legacy influencer content, and frequency of the advertisement keywords across the documents, and when suitable, determining whether the advertisement campaign score based upon the historical performance data to generate the advertisement campaign score.
Smith et al, US Pub No: 2015/0293,997 A1, teaches Methods and techniques may be provided for matching user profiles on distinct social media platforms. A first profile is retrieved from a first social media platform. The first profile is identified by one or more search criteria. Responsive to identifying an instance of the one or more search criteria on a second social media platform, a first probability is determined. A second profile is identified by the one or more search criteria on the second social media platform. The first probability predicts whether the second profile is associated with an entity associated with the first profile. The determining the first probability further comprises comparing an attribute of the first profile to an attribute of the second profile. Responsive to determining that the first probability exceeds a threshold, a match indicating that the second profile is associated with an entity associated with the first profile is recorded.
As thus, none of the cited reference discloses the claimed features of the independent claim 1. Accordingly, the claims subject matter of claims 1-20 would be allowable over the prior art, if the applicant would able to overcome the claim rejections under 35 USC 101 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant' s disclosure.
Neb, US Pub No: 2016/0034974 A1, teaches An advertising system for providing an influencer with an offer to endorse a brand's product or service is also disclosed. The advertising system is selectively in operative communication with one or more influencers and one or more brands. The advertising system comprises of an influencer data repository configured to store the data relating to a plurality of registered influencers and a brand data repository configured to store the data relating to a plurality of brand's offering product or service for endorsement. The advertising system further comprises of an advertising engine, selectively in operative communication with influencer data repository, configured to select an influencer to endorse at least one product or service offered by a brand and formulate an offer for the selected influencer to endorse at least one product or service. The advertising engine is further configured to notify the selected influencer of the offer and provide the selected influencer to endorse the product or service upon a successful approval from the influencer.
Sims et al, US Pub No: 2016/0019579 A1, teaches The invention is a system and method for coordination communication between an advertiser, an influencer and consumers in connection with an influencer campaign which uses social media. The invention also provides a method and system for evaluating the effectiveness of an influencer campaign as well as individual influences who participate in an influencer campaign. The invention gathers and stores social media data which is, in turn, used to evaluate how well and influencer campaign has reached consumers. The invention also measures the reach of individual influencers.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 files within TWO MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX Months from the mailing date of this final.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Affaf Ahmed whose telephone number is 571-270-1835. The examiner can normally be reached on [ Mon-Thursday 8-6 pm ].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached at 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 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.
/AFAF OSMAN BILAL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
