DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The Response filed 04/09/2026 has been acknowledged. Claims 1, 3-4, 10, 12-13, 19 have been amended. Claims 5, 7, 9, 14, 16, 18 are canceled. Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17, 19 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
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 1-4, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the steps of collecting three sets of data, performing analysis on the sets of data to determine languages and accents of users and generating profiles of the users, segmenting the users based on the language analysis, and triggering the targeting of content to the user based on the segments including modulating the audio of the advertisement.
The limitations of collecting three sets of data, performing analysis on the sets of data to determine languages and accents of users, creating profiles for users, segmenting the users based on the language analysis and profile, and triggering the targeting of content to the user based on the segments, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “system with a/the processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “system with a/the processor” language, “collecting” in the context of this claim encompasses a person receiving/reviewing available information. The limitation of performing analysis to determine languages and segmenting users, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “system with a/the processor”, analyzing, profiling, and segmenting in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking and reviewing the collected information and checking against previously learned knowledge, determining and writing a profile for each individual user such as thinking about the language, accent, and industry of the user, and grouping users based on users using similar types of language and vocabulary. The limitation of triggering a campaign, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. But for the “system with a/the processor”, triggering a campaign in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking of which campaign matches a segment based on language characteristics. The step of “modulating” but for the “processor”, can be interpreted as a person altering their speech to be more recognizable to a listener such as using different pronunciation or vocabulary. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Still furthermore, the claimed invention is directed towards a certain method of organizing human activity, specifically, commercial interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activity or behavior. As currently claimed, the invention is directed towards the targeting and customization content to users based on profiling users. This is similar to In re Maucorp, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. Amazon.com, 838 F.3d 1266, 1270, 120 USPQ2d 1210, 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and Credit Acceptance wherein particular algorithms is used to analyze and profile user information to determine optimal business practice and targeting particular information to specific devices including altering how a consumer is communicated with and engaged with. As such, the claimed invention is further directed towards a certain method of organizing human activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recite the additional elements of the processor, using machine learning, and collecting information from sensors. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving data, performing analysis/comparison, organizing data, and providing/modifying data based on stored rules/criteria) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Furthermore, while the claims recite utilizing machine learning, machine learning is a computing technique, and is thus still merely instructions applied to a generic computer similar to Example 47 claim 2 of the 2024 AI SME Update. The concept of the information being from a sensor is also well-understood, routine, and conventional as this is conventional data gathering from a conventional sensor (as discussed in TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48.) Still furthermore, although the claims has been amended to further determine language proficiency based on keyboard switching and language preferences, this is still abstract as this is merely describing what the particular information being analyzed is. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps and using performing machine learning analysis amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims are further directed towards the judicial exception without significantly more. The dependent claims provide limitations on the type of information received (such as claims 2-4), the particular rules for segmenting/organizing users (such as claims 6), and property of content provided (such as claim 8). These are still directed towards the judicial exception as these further define the abstract elements such as further defining the information, relationship between the information, and the rules applied to the information. They are not significantly more as they do not further integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The dependent claims is not patent eligible.
Non-Obvious Subject Matter
As currently claimed, the invention is directed towards the providing accented audio content to end-users based on analysis and determination of end-user accents. The invention receives/collects/fetches information including a first set of user information, a second set of user information from audio sensors, and a third set of information associated with communication device of the user including typing and language settings. The invention then performs analysis of the first, second, and third set of data using a trained machine learning algorithm, including identifying language attributes across different vernacular contexts of the users, utilizing the second set of data to detect accents of the users, and determining language proficiency based on keyboard and language settings of the users. The invention then creates a vernacular profile for each user based on the analysis and segmenting users based on vernacular profiles and language attributes and patterns. The invention then triggers the initialization of personalized marketing campaigns based on the segmented user information including dynamically modulating the multi-lingual campaign audio signal.
The Examiner notes as discussed in the non-final rejection of 01/13/2026, the independent claims were previously rejected under the combination of Banga, Pasternack, Martitila, Sarikaya, Bojja, and Isaacson. As shown, Banga disclose retrieving multiple data sets for targeting content based on language, wherein Isaacson further teaches the concept of customizing/personalizing content for users. Pasternack further teaches the concept of utilizing machine learning for categorizing language including accounting for vernacular context. Marttila further teaches the concept of identifying language attributes. Sarikaya further teaches the concept of detecting accents. Bojja further teaches the concept of tracking keyboard settings.
Although the above-cited references teaches the elements of the claimed invention, the references fail to teach/suggest the amended concept of determining primary and secondary language settings. Upon further search and consideration, the Examiner further notes the following references(s);
Liu et al. (US 10565320 B1), which talks about multilingual speech recognition including tracking changes in language and keyboard settings, and language priority.
Vanreusel et al. (US 20170309272 A1), which talks about synthesizing audio transcripts including accent and vernacular determination.
Gray (US 20140236595 A1), which talks about recognizing accented speech including tracking language and keyboard settings.
Although these references further teach the concept of tracking and utilizing keyboard and language settings, these references do not teach/suggest determining primary and secondary language settings/preferences. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further combined additional references to modify Barga without impermissible hindsight as although the references do teach elements of how linguistic profiles are generated based on a plurality of factors, it would not have been obvious to continuously modify and add additional information into the analysis without explicit motivation for each factor. As such, the Examiner has determined the invention to be non-obvious over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments as directed towards the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant asserts the claimed invention is not directed towards mental process and certain method of organizing human activity. The Applicant asserts the amended limitations directed towards a multi-lingual campaigning system performing real-time analytics including real-time speech data collected via audio sensors cannot reasonably be performed by the human mind. The Examiner notes as discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(1), real-time collection and analysis of information still may recite a mental process including information collected from particular sensors. Furthermore, the implementation of mental processes on a generic computer system to increase speed of processing does not render the concept non-abstract as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a). The Applicant further asserts that the human mind cannot “dynamic modulation of an audio signal”. The Examiner notes as discussed in the originally filed specification, although the specification does utilize the term “modulate”, the originally filed specification does not specifically define modulating beyond the playback of the audio having a different accent. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing recognizes this can be achieved by selecting a different audio file similar to the selection of different video files as discussed in the originally filed specification. The Applicant further asserts the concept of receiving structured data set, utilizing machine learning algorithms, and real time analysis and segmentation cannot be performed by the human mind. The Examiner notes as discussed in Example 48 claims 1 and 3 of the July 2024 SME Update, the concept of receiving information including from multiple sources, as well as utilizing machine learning algorithms, under the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification is still abstract. Furthermore, the utilization of computers to accelerate the processing of information does not preclude an invention from being an abstract idea as discussed above. As such, the Examiner asserts the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea.
The Applicant further asserts the claimed invention is integrated into a practical application as the invention provides a specific technical solution to a technical problem as the invention is directed towards a multi-lingual campaigning system performing method steps in a concrete, rule-bound, multi-stage computational flow. The Examiner notes that although the system of claimed invention is named a multi-lingual campaigning system, as discussed in fig. 3 and the originally filed specification, the system is still comprised of generic computer components executing stored instructions. Furthermore, as discussed above, the invention performs the steps of receiving/collecting/fetching information which falls under mere data gathering, analyzing information using an algorithm and collected information at a high level of generality (similar to Genetic Techs. Ltd., 818 F.3d at 1377; 118 USPQ2d at 1546 and Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199), organizing/segmenting information which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (similar to Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015)), and triggering targeted communication based on collected information which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (similar to Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715-16, 112 USPQ2d at 1754 and Affinity Labs of Tex. v. Amazon.com, 838 F.3d 1266, 1270, 120 USPQ2d 1210, 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Furthermore, Although the Applicant further asserts the invention is technical in natural as the vernacular profiling must be done by a computer using computer related factors. The Examiner notes as currently claimed, the creation of the profile is “based on the analysis of the first set of data, the second set of data, and the third set of data using the one or more machine learning algorithms”. As discussed above, the recitation of machine learning algorithms does not render the abstract idea as being integrated into a practical application. Furthermore, creating a profile is also abstract as the profile is an intangible collection of information and thus merely the production of collected and processed information (as discussed in Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1720). As such, the Examiner asserts the claimed invention is not integrated into a practical application.
The Applicant further asserts the claimed invention is significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements are unconventional in combination. Specifically the Applicant asserts the amended limitation as directed towards the usage of audio sensor data, switching of keyboard languages, and primary and second language settings are not well-understood, routine, and conventional. The Examiner notes as discussed above, as currently claimed, the audio sensor is performing the well-understood, routine, and conventional function of detecting and collecting audio information. Furthermore, the analysis and usage of the collected abstract information is also not considered an unconventional arrangement like in the case of Bascom. In the case of Bascom, the originally filed specification explicitly stated the unconventional arrangements of known components to achieve particular technical solution of enabling both server and client side benefits. Therefore, the Examiner further asserts the claimed invention is not significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
Thus, the Examiner asserts the claimed invention is directed towards a judicial exception without significantly more and the rejection has been maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT M CAO whose telephone number is (571)270-5598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11-7.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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 published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VINCENT M CAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights