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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17 (e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/23/2025 has been entered.
Claims 21,28 and 35 have been amended.
Claims 1-20, 22, 29, 36 have been canceled.
Claims 21, 23-28, 30-35, 37-40 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 12/23/2025 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 16/152,000 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 to claims 21, 23-28, 30-35, 37-40 rejection under 35 USC § 101:
Step 2A, Prong Two
Applicant argues that “the amended claim 21 resolves the §101 concerns. As amended, claim 21 remains directed to a statutory "machine" (system) and, under the Revised Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, is not "directed to" an abstract idea because the recited additional elements integrate any alleged abstract concept into a practical application that improves computer operation and controls network transmissions. First, the amendment anchors the "automatic/dynamic update" feature to a concrete, disclosed system operation. "in response to receipt of new audience data, overwrite or otherwise amend stored audience data and corresponding persona profiles and update advertisement targeting and placements based on correlated analytics results." This language tracks the Detailed Description, which teaches that "stored audience data may also be overwritten or otherwise amended upon receipt of new audience data" and that persona profiles are generated, stored, and used for matching and targeting based on correlated analytics results. By expressly tying updates to the receipt of new data and to the system's storage and analytics pipeline, the claim recites a computer-implemented control flow that is more than "mere automation of a business practice," integrating data ingestion with specific database operations and analytics-driven updates to targeting. Second, the amendment replaces the high-level "threshold level of engagement" with a concrete gating mechanism that uses stored engagement metadata to automatically suppress or permit transmissions of advertisements over the network. As claimed, the system uses this stored engagement metadata as a gating condition to actively control when the system transmits advertisements. This is a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two because the claim applies any alleged abstract idea with meaningful limitations that "apply or use" the idea in a particular technological environment to effect a concrete control of system behavior, rather than merely "linking" the idea to a computer. Third, the recited gating improves the operation of the computer system and network by reducing unnecessary transmissions and processing workload. the amended claim operationalizes that disclosure by requiring suppression of network transmissions unless the threshold condition is met. This is analogous to USPTO's subject matter eligibility examples where claims that concretely control packet/traffic behavior integrate any abstract concept into a practical application and are eligible. Here, the claim does not simply "collect and analyze" data; it uses stored engagement metadata to automatically control transmission behavior and workload, improving system performance within the advertising delivery pipeline (page 3/6)”.
Examiner disagrees. "automatic/dynamic update" feature to a concrete, and "in response to receipt of new audience data, overwrite or otherwise amend stored audience data and corresponding persona profiles and update advertisement targeting and placements based on correlated analytics results, that "stored audience data may also be overwritten or otherwise amended upon receipt of new audience data" and that persona profiles are generated, stored, and used for matching and targeting based on correlated analytics results. By expressly tying updates to the receipt of new data and to the system's storage and analytics pipeline, and / or the high-level "threshold level of engagement" with a concrete gating mechanism that uses stored engagement metadata to automatically suppress or permit transmissions of advertisements 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.
Also, the recitation of gating mechanism result in “improving the operation of the computer system and network by reducing unnecessary transmissions and processing workload improves the operation of the computer system and network by reducing unnecessary transmissions and processing workload and/ or uses stored engagement metadata to automatically control transmission behavior and workload, improving system performance within the advertising delivery pipeline “ does not change nor effect the actual computer itself. The computer still has the same processor, the same amount of memory, and still functions in the stands way a computer is intended to function. The network still has the same amount of bandwidth. Thus, there is no change to the computer itself or the way in which it is capable of functioning.
As such, any purported improvement in regards to “automatic/dynamic update" feature to a concrete, and "in response to receipt of new audience data, overwrite or otherwise amend stored audience data and corresponding persona profiles and update advertisement targeting and placements based on correlated analytics results, that "stored audience data may also be overwritten or otherwise amended upon receipt of new audience data" and that persona profiles are generated, stored, and used for matching and targeting based on correlated analytics results. By expressly tying updates to the receipt of new data and to the system's storage and analytics pipeline, and / or the high-level "threshold level of engagement" with a concrete gating mechanism that uses stored engagement metadata to automatically suppress or permit transmissions of advertisements”; that are required to processes by the computer, set are rooted solely in perform the identified abstract idea that is merely being applied with a general-purpose computer. Improvements of this nature are improvements in inelligible subject matter (see SAP v. Investpic).
Furthermore, the 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 “computer, network and gating mechanism”, as evidenced by applicant specification [28 and 77] 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.). As such, the applicant's arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 21, 23-28, 30-35, 37-40 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Under Step 2B
Applicant argues that “the combination of (i) the overwrite/amend trigger tied to receipt of new audience data and analytics-driven profile/placement updates, and (ii) the engagement-threshold gating that suppresses transmissions unless predefined conditions are met, amounts to "significantly more" than any alleged abstract idea. The Examiner previously characterized the system as a "generic computer," but the amended claim now recites specific operational constraints and control logic that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional. The record itself supports this: the Office indicated it was "unable to find a prior art that teaches" these specific limitations (CTFR, Detailed Action, §112 discussion at 14, stating the Examiner could not find prior art teaching "automatically and dynamically update ... in response to changes in user interaction data" combined with "deliver advertisements ... only when a threshold level of engagement is detected"). While that statement arose in the written-description context, it nonetheless weighs against any assertion that these additional elements are "conventional" for Step 2B (page 4/6)”.
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) Additionally, Amended claim 1 does not recite "automatically and dynamically update ... in response to changes in user interaction data" combined with "deliver advertisements ... only when a threshold level of engagement is detected” as thus Applicant’s arguments that record itself supports that the additional elements and/ or specific operational constraints and control logic that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional is moot . additionally Examiner notes that the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101 is separate and distinct from rejections for anticipation and obviousness. Rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. § 103 has no bearing or consequence on the materiality of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 21, 23-28, 30-35, 37-40 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Claims 21, 28, 35 rejection with regard to wherein the document processing and management system is configured to automatically and dynamically update the persona profiles and advertisement placements in response to changes in user interaction data, and wherein the system is further configured to deliver advertisements to entities only when a threshold level of engagement is detected, thereby improving the efficiency and accuracy of targeted advertising over conventional systems. Applicant has amended the claims by deleting the bolted terms of “ automatically and dynamically and only”. Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 21, 28, 35 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 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.
Claims 21, 23-28, 30-35, 37-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-2,4,6-9 and 21-31 of copending Application No. 16/152,000. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because they merely recite obvious variants of claims 1-2,4,6-9 and 21-31 of copending Application No. 16/152,000.
Claims 21,23-28,30-35,37-40 does not recite 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 native 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 21,23-28,30-35, 37-40 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, claim(s) 21,23-28,30-35, 37-40 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.
Claim 21, for instance recites the following abstract idea: “ a persona configured to: store of a plurality of profiles of fictional users, based on the plurality of user's content interaction where media content with which users have engaged is identified, where the media content is provided, 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 database are created from the identified media content and data analytics results; receive queries for and provide a plurality of fictional user profiles: apply to a marketing document, extract and identify, as a function of analysis of the marketing document, a plurality of fictional user profiles from the persona database of an audience towards whom the marketing document is targeted, and provide the plurality of fictional user profiles identified with the analysis to a database; the database configured to receive and store the plurality of fictional user profiles identified with the analysis and provide retrieval of the plurality of fictional user profiles identified with the analysis; and a content configured to store user content, wherefrom user content stored in the content database with which at least one fictional user profile identified from the analysis of the audience has engaged is identified, an entity that produced the identified user content is identified, and at least one advertisement is placed with the entity, thereby providing a limitation to whom the at least one advertisement is placed, wherein the document processing and management system is configured to, in response to receipt of new audience data, overwrite or otherwise amend stored audience data and corresponding persona profiles and update advertisement targeting and placements based on correlated analytics results; and wherein the system is further configured to gate delivery of advertisements based on engagement metadata stored in the content database, the engagement metadata comprising performance and interaction metrics indicative of relevance to an audience, and to suppress delivery of the advertisements unless a predefined threshold condition is satisfied, the predefined threshold condition comprising at least one of: (i) a weighted match score of targeting criteria matched to a selected persona profile meeting or exceeding a threshold, and (ii) one or more engagement metrics stored in the content database meeting respective thresholds and to deliver the responsive to satisfaction of the predefined threshold condition, thereby improving the efficiency and accuracy of targeted advertising over conventional systems”.
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. “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 “ system; (a network; devices, data sources, NLP module, database and gate mechanism)”. 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. “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.
More 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 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 paragraphs 28, 77); 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:
store of a plurality of profiles of fictional users ….;
receive queries for and provide a plurality of fictional user profiles to a natural language processing (NLP) module;
the NLP database configured to receive and store the plurality of fictional user profiles identified with the NLP analysis;
a content database configured to store user content, wherefrom user content stored in the content database with which at least one fictional user profile;
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. Same judicial analysis is applied here to independent claims 28 and 35.
The dependent claims 23-27, 30-34, 37-40 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), by adding the additional steps of : wherein the database of the content includes metadata associated with the entity ( claims 23,30,37); wherein the database of the content includes metadata associated with a number of user interactions with the user content ( claims 24,31,38); wherein a user interactions are associated with a user's interactions with advertisements including cost-per-click and click-through rate associated with each advertisement ( claims 25,32,39); Social network media accounts from which the user’s interactions are sourced ( claims 26, 33,40);wherein the content includes at least a plurality of images, videos, music, podcasts, and articles ( claims 27,34). Thus, the dependent claims further narrows the abstract idea and/or recite additional elements previously rejected in the independent claims 21, 28 and 35.
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 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21, 28 and 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 21, 28 and 35 recite the limitations of”
“wherein the system is further configured to gate delivery of advertisement ….” . it is unclear what system Applicant is referring to . is Applicant referring to a document processing system or is the Applicant referring to the document processing and management system. Appropriate correction and/ or clarification is required. For the For the purpose of this examination, the above limitation interprets as the document processing and management system.
“ in response to receipt of new audience data, overwrite…”. However, there is no receipt of new audience data claimed in order for “in response to new audience data..” to take a place. Appropriate correction and/ or clarification is required. For the purpose of this examination, the above limitation interprets as audience data stored in data base.
the engagement metadata comprising performance and interaction metrics indicative of relevance to an audience, it is unclear whether Applicant is referring to the same audience that is stored into the database or a new audience. For the purpose of this examination, the above limitation interprets as audience data stored in data base.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21,23-28,30-35, 37-40 would be allowable if the applicant were to be able to overcome the Claim rejection under 35 USC § 101 and Double patenting rejection.
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 21, 28 and 35. 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 under 35 USC § 112, second paragraph and the Double Patenting.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Campbell et al, US pub No: 20160117727 A1, teaches adaptive targeting.
Dilip et al, US pub No:20120066073 A1, teaches user interest analysis system s and methods.
Neb US pub No: 2016/0034974 A1 teaches method and system and a mobile app for providing an influecer with an offer to endorse a brand ‘s product or service.
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