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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17 (e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/22/2026 has been entered.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 3,5,10-20 have been canceled.
Claims 1-2, 4,6-9, 21-31 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 01/22/2026 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. 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 o claims 22-23, 25-29 objections. Applicant clarified the claims. Therefore, the claim objection of claims 22-23, 25-29 is withdrawn.
With regard to claims 1-2, 4,6-9, 21-31 rejection under 35 USC § 101 :
Applicant argues that “The Office's abstract idea groupings include "mathematical concepts,""mental processes," and "certain methods of organizing human activity," such as "advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors." See MPEP §2106.04(a). Even if the Examiner maintains that some limitations implicate "advertising, marketing or sales activities" as an abstract idea grouping, the amended claim now recites concrete data processing operations that are not mental processes and are implemented as part of a specific document processing and management system. The claim expressly recites a natural language processing (NLP) module configured to apply NLP to a marketing document; extract and generate NLP-based marketing results indicating at least one campaign topic and at least one category; arrange the topics, categories and sub-categories hierarchically; translate the results into different languages and/or convert into equivalent terms using a dictionary related to a specific media; and provide the translated/converted results in an NLP database. The claim further recites an NLP database configured to receive, store, and provide retrieval of the NLP-based marketing results, including the translated/converted results. The claim also recites a persona database configured to store profiles of fictional users created from identified media content and analytics results of actual users' social media behavior; receive queries; return matching fictional profiles; determine a geographic region associated with each received fictional profile; identify at least one industry associated with the region from media content; and generate an advertisement price or performance metric; then deliver data representative of content items and promotions to each user personal device, ensuring delivery is limited to content items and promotions of interest. The claimed NLP hierarchical arrangement and multilingual translation/conversion using a media-specific dictionary, and the subsequent storage and retrieval by a dedicated NLP database, are computer-implemented data transformations that are tied to, and integral to, the operation of a particular document processing and management system, not a mere organization of human activity or mental process. See MPEP §2106.04(a) (e.g., Enfish, McRO) and § 2106.04(d). The claimed NLP hierarchical arrangement and multilingual translation/conversion using a media-specific dictionary, and the subsequent storage and retrieval by a dedicated NLP database, are computer-implemented data transformations that are tied to, and integral to, the operation of a particular document processing and management system, not a mere organization of human activity or mental process. See MPEP §2106.04(a) (e.g., Enfish, McRO) and § 2106.04(d) (page 2/9)”.
Examiner disagrees. The applicant's argument that the claims overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 1 because the claimed NLP hierarchical arrangement and multilingual translation/conversion using a media-specific dictionary, and the subsequent storage and retrieval by a dedicated NLP database, are computer-implemented data transformations that are tied to, and integral to, the operation of a particular document processing and management system cannot be performed by a human being is not convincing. The only abstract idea bucket in which performance by a human is required is the "Mental Process" bucket which requires that the steps be capable of being performed in the human mind. The claims of the instant invention have not been identified as a "Mental Process". Instead the claims of the instant invention have been identified as "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities". The Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines indicate that "advertising, marketing or sales related activities" is a subcategory of "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities". There is no requirement that these "advertising, marketing, or sales related activities" be performed by a human being. Therefore, all steps involved in the performance of advertising, marketing or sales related activities are part of the abstract idea itself irrespective of whether they are performed by a computer or performed by a human being. Thus, the applicant's arguments are moot. The claim rejection of claims 1-2, 4,6-9, 21-31 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Applicant argues that “the amended claim integrates any such exception into a practical application under Prong Two. The claim as a whole applies and uses NLP-extracted topics and categories in a manner that imposes meaningful limits and yields concrete, technical outcomes. The claimed operations are implemented by a particular "document processing and management system" comprised of an "NLP module," an "NLP database," and a "persona database," all communicatively coupled to a computer network and to plural classes of devices and heterogeneous data sources; these components are integral to the claimed process, not generic adjuncts. The claim requires hierarchical arrangement of topics/categories/sub-categories and multilingual translation or conversion using a dictionary related to a specific media, followed by storage and retrieval in the NLP database. This normalizes heterogeneous document inputs into a structured, multilingual representation that the system uses downstream for matching queries to fictional profiles and for generating campaign metrics. This is more than "apply it"; it specifies a particular technical way of processing and normalizing textual content for cross-lingual, media-specific interoperability. The persona database stores fictional profiles created from identified media content and analytics results of actual users' social media behavior, then correlates queries to matching profiles and determines geographic regions and industries from media content. These steps use the normalized NLP outputs and persona analytics to effect specific, technical selections and calculations by the system. The system then provides each user personal device with data representative of content items and promotions in which the content user is interested, thereby ensuring the content provided is limited to those items. This ties the processed/normalized results to a specific technological outcome controlling networked content delivery. These additional elements, individually and in combination, demonstrate a specific improvement to computer-implemented content processing: hierarchical and cross-lingual normalization of campaign attributes using a media-specific dictionary, structured storage in the NLP database, and technical matching/delivery constrained by computed interests. Under the 2019 PEG, such claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application (page 3/9)”.
Examiner disagrees. Since the steps of hierarchical arrangement of topics/categories/sub-categories and multilingual translation or conversion using a dictionary related to a specific media, and normalizes heterogeneous document inputs into a structured, multilingual representation that uses downstream for matching queries to fictional profiles and for generating campaign metrics; processing and normalizing textual content for cross-lingual, media-specific interoperability and storing fictional profiles created from identified media content and analytics results of actual users' social media behavior, then correlates queries to matching profiles and determines geographic regions and industries from media content 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 “a computer network and to plural classes of devices and heterogeneous data sources”, as evidenced by applicant specification [65] which 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.). Additionally, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES). As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem.
As such, the applicant's arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1-2, 4,6-9, 21-31 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Step 2B :
Applicant argues that “the claim's ordered combination includes "significantly more" than any alleged abstract idea. The claim does not merely say "apply it" or generically use a computer. Rather, it recites specific NLP operations to hierarchically arrange topics/categories/sub-categories and perform multilingual translation/conversion using a dictionary related to a specific media, and then store the translated/converted outputs in an NLP database for retrieval; a persona database that constructs fictional profiles from analytics of identified media content and actual users' social media behavior, receives queries, returns matching profiles, computes geographic regions and industries, and generates advertisement price or performance metrics; and a networked delivery mechanism that constrains content provision to items/promotions in which the user is computed to be interested. These recitations amount to more than routine data gathering or post-solution activity; they specify a particular technical approach to cross-lingual normalization, structured storage, targeted profile matching, and controlled delivery. If the Office were to assert that these are "well-understood, routine, conventional" activities, factual support would be required. See MPEP §§2106.05(d), 2106.07. The specification describes the technical system and data stores supporting the claimed processing. For example, the document processing and management system receives a document (e.g., a marketing campaign brief), uses an NLP module to extract relevant information (e.g., business objective, marketing goal, targeted persona profile, brand name, economic sector, insights/causes), and stores the extracted information in an NLP database. The system receives audience data from third-party sources (e.g., Facebook Insights, Google Analytics); creates persona profiles; stores them in a persona database; and maintains audience data storage with updating/overwriting. The amended claim's hierarchical arrangement, multilingual translation/conversion, dedicated NLP database storage/retrieval, persona database creation based on media engagement analytics, and targeted content provisioning fit within and further particularize the disclosed technical architecture. Accordingly, to the extent the Examiner characterizes certain limitations as "advertising/marketing," the claim nonetheless primarily recites concrete computer-implemented data processing operations. The claim integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical-application via specific technical processing within a particular document processing and management system, improving computer-implemented handling and normalization of heterogeneous, multilingual campaign data and constraining networked content delivery. The ordered combination recites significantly more than any abstract idea. As such, any assertion of well-understood, routine, conventional activity would require evidentiary support. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the § 101 rejection and allowance of the claims in view of the amendment and the above remarks (page 4/9)”.
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, and a standard use of NLP database technique. 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. 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.
Furthermore, it appears that the applicant has misinterpreted MPEP 2106.05(d) and the Berkheimer memo. MPEP 2106.05(d) requires that the examiner determine whether the "additional element(s)" of a claim are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry in regards to evaluating the claim under Step 2b. Berkheimer requires the examiner to provided proof of "additional elements" that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. "Additional elements" are defined as those element outside the identified abstract itself. The only additional elements of the argued limitations are “a computer network and to plural classes of devices and heterogeneous data sources”, which is merely a general-purpose computer. The examiner has provided proof of this in the rejection itself based on the applicant's disclosure. A general-purpose computer which merely applies an abstract idea is insufficient to be considered "significantly more" under Step 2b as clearly indicated in at least MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). As such, the rejections have been maintained. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1-2, 4,6-9, 21-31 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
With regard to claims 23-31 rejection under 35 USC § 112 first paragraph rejection as failing to comply with the written description requirement, Applicant arguments are considered. Examiner carefully considered Applicant’s cited paragraphs of Summary, 4-6, 23 28-30, 34-46, 48-56, 60-61, 63-66 and Figs 1-9 as support for the claimed features of claims 21-31. However, none of the argued paragraphs and/ or Figs 1-9 cited by Applicant provide support for the claimed features of claims 23-31. Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 23-31 as failing to comply with the written description requirement is maintained.
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; at least one industry associated with the geographic region is identified from the media content and an advertisement price or an advertisement performance metric associated with the at least one campaign topic indicated in the NLP based marketing results is generated. 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 and 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception subject matter, specifically an abstract idea. The analysis for this determination is explained below:
Step 1, determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. In this case, Step 1, determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claim(s) 1-2,4,6-9 and 21-31 are directed to a machine (i..e a system). The claimed invention is directed to at least one judicial exception (i.e a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The analysis is as follows:
Claim 1 for instance recite(s) the following abstract idea of: “ 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 based marketing results in a storage; 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, where from geographic region associated with each received fictional user profile is determined, at least one industry associated with the geographic region is identified from the media content, and an advertisement price or an advertisement performance metric associated with the at least one campaign topic indicated in the based marketing results is generated ”.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP 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 “ system; (a network; devices, data sources, NLP module, database”. The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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 a computer, or merely uses a computer 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. MPEP 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.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the additional elements of “ 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 a 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 a computer, 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 a general purpose computers communicating over a general purpose network (as evidenced from paragraph 65); 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 are considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, storing and/or transmitting data:
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, wherefrom a geographic region associated with each received fictional user profile is determined;
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.MPEP 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 and21-31 appears to merely further limit the abstract idea of Certain methods of organizing Human Activity” as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), which is considered part of the abstract idea and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. MPEP 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. MPEP Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2B=No). Thus, the dependent claims further narrows the abstract idea and/or recite additional elements previously rejected in the independent 1.
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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, 21-23 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 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 1 recites the limitations of :
a geographic region associated with each received fictional user profile is determined, at least one industry associated with the geographic region is identified from the media content. The specification teaches “ In some embodiments the NLP results may include demographics and/or geographic data identified from the marketing document 9paragprha 54). The specification does not teach “ a geographic region associated with each received fictional user profile is determined, at least one industry associated with the geographic region is identified from the media content”.
an advertisement price or an advertisement performance metric associated with the at least one campaign topic indicated in the NLP-based marketing results is generated.
The specification teaches “ The content item may also include several metrics indicative of its relevance to an audience. The metrics can include the number of people who interacted with the content, the number of comments people posted, the sentiment of the comments, the number or type of reaction people users, the number of people who shared the content with others, or unique performance metrics that can indicate on the ration between the number of people who saw the content versus the number of people who interacted with it (e.g. number of interaction per 1000 people) paragraph 50); The specification teaches “the metrics can include the number of people who interacted with the content, the number of comments people posted, the sentiment of the comments, the number or type of reaction people users, the number of people who shared the content with others, or unique performance metrics that can indicate on the ration between the number of people who saw the content versus the number of people who interacted with it (e.g. number of interaction per 1000 people). By matching content items to interests of a persona profile, and considering the associated metrics, the document processing and management system103 can increase a likelihood of the persona (paragraph 50). The specification does not teach the claimed limitations of “ an advertisement price or … associated with the at least one campaign topic indicated in the NLP-based marketing results is generated.
Claim 21 recites the limitation of : The document processing system of claim 1, wherein each fictional user profile is an anonymized behavioral archetype statistically aggregated from interaction data of at least a minimum threshold number of distinct real users, such that no fictional user profile is traceable to any single real user, and wherein each fictional user profile is constructed from multi-modal interaction logs comprising at least two different content modalities selected from text, image, and audio/video, the interaction logs being gathered from at least two heterogeneous content sources selected from the plurality of user devices and the plurality of third-party data sources.
The specification teaches “ Document processing and management system110 is configured to a receive document (e.g. a document describing a marketing campaign) and use NLP module112 to extract relevant information from the document. For example, in the case of a marketing campaign brief, the relevant information may include a business objective, marketing goal, targeted persona profile, brand name, economic sector, insights and/or causes. The extracted information is stored in a NLP database114 (paragraph 28). The specification teaches “ persona profile401 is generated based on identifying the persona's interest in charities and causes, software and the environment. As another example, persona profile402 is generated based on identifying the persona's interest an interest in detergents, retail, live events and night clubs (page 35)”. The specification does not teach the claimed limitation of “ wherein each fictional user profile is an anonymized behavioral archetype statistically aggregated from interaction data of at least a minimum threshold number of distinct real users, such that no fictional user profile is traceable to any single real user, and wherein each fictional user profile is constructed from multi-modal interaction logs comprising at least two different content modalities selected from text, image, and audio/video, the interaction logs being gathered from at least two heterogeneous content sources selected from the plurality of user devices and the plurality of third-party data sources.
Claim 23: recites the limitation of : The document processing system of: wherein the document processing and management system further comprises a machine- learning pricing engine configured to generate an advertisement price or advertisement performance metric, wherein the machine-learning pricing engine receives as input features derived from the persona database, including attributes of the selected fictional user profile, and features derived from industry information identified from the media content,and wherein the advertisement price or advertisement performance metric is generated based on a trained machine-learning model that explicitly utilizes the persona features and industry features as predictive inputs.
The specification teaches “the metrics can include the number of people who interacted with the content, the number of comments people posted, the sentiment of the comments, the number or type of reaction people users, the number of people who shared the content with others, or unique performance metrics that can indicate on the ration between the number of people who saw the content versus the number of people who interacted with it (e.g. number of interaction per 1000 people). By matching content items to interests of a persona profile, and considering the associated metrics, the document processing and management system103 can increase a likelihood of the persona (paragraph 50). The specification does not teach the claimed limitations of “ wherein the document processing and management system further comprises a machine- learning pricing engine configured to generate an advertisement price or advertisement performance metric, wherein the machine-learning pricing engine receives as input features derived from the persona database, including attributes of the selected fictional user profile, and features derived from industry information identified from the media content,and wherein the advertisement price or advertisement performance metric is generated based on a trained machine-learning model that explicitly utilizes the persona features and industry features as predictive inputs.
Claim 24 recites the limitation of: The document processing system of claim 1, wherein the persona database is further configured to update each fictional user profile dynamically in response to changes in aggregated user engagement data, such that the interests and demographic attributes of each profile are periodically recalculated based on newly received media content and analytics results.
The specification teaches “ . Marketer device108 may also consume persona profiles generated based on the user and influencer data in order to better tailor marketing campaigns to users and influencers who are likely to be interested in the associated products or services. In some embodiments, this influencer data may be stored and/or aggregated in one or more third-party data sources120 (paragraph 27). The specification teaches persona profile401 is generated based on identifying the persona's interest in charities and causes, software and the environment. As another example, persona profile402 is generated based on identifying the persona's interest an interest in detergents, retail, live events and night clubs. The specification does not teach the claimed limitation of: wherein the persona database is further configured to update each fictional user profile dynamically in response to changes in aggregated user engagement data, such that the interests and demographic attributes of each profile are periodically recalculated based on newly received media content and analytics results.
Claim 25 : recites the limitation of: The document processing system of wherein the document processing and management system is configured to anonymize all user data prior to aggregation into fictional user profiles, such that no personally identifiable information is stored or accessible in the persona database.
The specification teaches “ persona profile401 is generated based on identifying the persona's interest in charities and causes, software and the environment. As another example, persona profile402 is generated based on identifying the persona's interest an interest in detergents, retail, live events and night clubs (paragraph 35)”. The specification does not teach “ wherein the document processing and management system is configured to anonymize all user data prior to aggregation into fictional user profiles, such that no personally identifiable information is stored or accessible in the persona database”.
Claim 26 : recites the limitation of: The document processing system of wherein the system further comprises a feedback module configured to receive user interaction data in response to presented content items or promotions, and to adjust the selection or ranking of fictional user profiles for future campaigns based on the received feedback.
The specification teaches “ By estimating reach, influence and/or interaction of viewers with an influencer's posts, document processing and management system103 can determine a rank for the influencer. For example, a rank for the influencer of FIG. 5 can be estimated to be "10" based on a degree of relevance of the influencer's posts and/or interests to the marketing campaign of the "Meadow" brand of laundry detergent. The rank can be modified depending upon the product being marketed by the campaign and a match score of the influencer's interests with the product being marketed. For example, if the influencer cares about organic products and publishes posts that promote organic products, the document processing and management system103 can assign the influencer a higher match score for campaigns affiliated with organic products and a lower match score for campaigns that do not align well with such preferences. As a result, the rank assigned to the influencer for campaigns affiliated with organic products can be higher than those that are not affiliated with organic product (paragraph 49)”.
The specification does not teach teaches the claimed limitation of “wherein the system further comprises a feedback module configured to receive user interaction data in response to presented content items or promotions, and to adjust the selection or ranking of fictional user profiles for future campaigns based on the received feedback”.
Claim 27:recites the limitation of: The document processing system of wherein the NLP module is further configured to translate extracted topics and categories into multiple languages using a language normalization engine, and to store the multilingual results in the NLP database for cross-lingual campaign targeting.
The specification teaches “The results of the NLP can be stored in a NLP results database for future retrieval and further processing. In other embodiments, the NLP results might be translated into different languages and/or converted into equivalent terms using a dictionary related to a specific media (e.g. terms most often used over social media and/or terms often used over instant messaging) (paragraph 54)”. The specification does not teach the claimed limitation of : wherein the NLP module is further configured to translate extracted topics and categories into multiple languages using a language normalization engine, and to store the multilingual results in the NLP database for cross-lingual campaign targeting.
Claim 28 : recites the limitations of: The document processing system of wherein the system is further configured to generate a confidence score for each match between a fictional user profile and a campaign topic or category, the confidence score being based on the degree of overlap between the interests of the fictional user profile and the normalized campaign attributes.
The specification teaches “ In step 906, the metrics associated with the Influencer profile and the content can be used to determine a relevance score and then rank the content items and the influencer profiles based on a degree of relevance and/or match factor. By ranking the most relevant content items and influencer profiles that a user is likely to engage with, and that matches the topic and/or category of the marketing campaign, the system is able to map the identified user persona profiles, content and influencer profiles to targeted advertisement interests, as in step 907 (paragraph 61)”. The specification does not teach the claimed limitation of: wherein the system is further configured to generate a confidence score for each match between a fictional user profile and a campaign topic or category, the confidence score being based on the degree of overlap between the interests of the fictional user profile and the normalized campaign attributes.
Claim 29 : recites the limitation of: The document processing system of wherein the system is further configured to identify and rank influencer profiles by calculating a relevance score that combines the influencer's historical engagement metrics with the distinguishing interests of the matched fictional user profile.
The specification teaches “ In step 906, the metrics associated with the Influencer profile and the content can be used to determine a relevance score and then rank the content items and the influencer profiles based on a degree of relevance and/or match factor. By ranking the most relevant content items and influencer profiles that a user is likely to engage with, and that matches the topic and/or category of the marketing campaign, the system is able to map the identified user persona profiles, content and influencer profiles to targeted advertisement interests, as in step 907. This approach enables improved efficiency of marketing campaigns by providing users with content items and promotions related to products that the users are interested in by leveraging profiles of Influencers they follow or engage with (paragraph 61)”. The specification does not teach the claimed limitation of “wherein the system is further configured to identify and rank influencer profiles by calculating a relevance score that combines the influencer's historical engagement metrics with the distinguishing interests of the matched fictional user profile).
Claim 30 recites the limitation of : wherein the system is further configured to generate synthetic engagement data for each fictional user profile, the synthetic data being used to simulate campaign performance prior to actual deployment.
The specification teaches “ In some embodiments the metrics associated with the content, as described with respect to FIG. 6. can be used to identify content that better performs (e.g. more relevant, drives more engagement) with the identified persona profile. The matched content items can then be presented to users associated with the persona profiles via advertisements, promotional feeds and/or targeted feeds on the corresponding social media profiles as described earlier with respect to FIG. 6. This approach enables improved efficiency of marketing campaigns by providing users with content items and promotions related to products that the users are interested in. The methods and systems described above have the potential to improve the overall customer experience, the sales of products and other content items being promoted by the marketing campaign (paragraph 59)” . The specification does not teach the claimed feature of “ to generate synthetic engagement data for each fictional user profile, the synthetic data being used to simulate campaign performance prior to actual deployment.
Claim 31:recites the limitation of: The document processing system of wherein the system is further configured to provide a graphical user interface that visually displays the hierarchical relationships among topics, categories, and fictional user profiles, enabling a user to interactively explore and select target audiences for a campaign.
The specification teaches “ FIG. 7 shows an example of recommended advertisement targeting criteria based on user data for a selected user persona profile that matches topics/or categories of the campaign as described in FIGs. 2-4 above. For example, interests and demographics related to age, location and language are seen to match the recommended targeting criteria of advertisements related to the laundry detergent campaign. Other selectable options for the advertisement targeting criteria can be related to feed targeting and gating, wherein advertisements may be included as part of targeted feeds to the selected user persona profiles and gating may be included to enable viewing of the advertisement after the selected user persona profile has interacted favorably with certain aspects of the marketing campaign. For example, if the selected user persona profile has liked one of the products of the marketing campaign, then the advertisement will be presented to the selected user persona profile, otherwise the advertisement will not be presented (paragraph 51)”. The specification does not teach the claimed limitation of to provide a graphical user interface that visually displays the hierarchical relationships among topics, categories, and fictional user profiles, enabling a user to interactively explore and select target audiences for a campaign.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter, none of the cited reference discloses the claimed features of independent of claims 1-2,4,6-9 and 21-31 As such, the examiner, has been unable to find prior art that discloses the combination of the claimed features. Thus, the claims contain subject matter that would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant to be able to overcome the Claim rejections under 35 USC § 101, and 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, and the Double patenting rejection.
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 method and system and a mobile App for providing an influencer with an offer to endorse a brand’s product or service.
Smith et al, US Pub No: 2015/0293,997 A1, teaches user profile stitching.
Sims et al, US Pub No: 2016/0019579 A1, teaches system and methods to coordinate communication programs.
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 [M- R 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
Prosecution Insights