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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 15, 2026has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 11 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-14, 16 and 18-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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, 7, 9-14, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-14, 16 and 18-20 are drawn to an apparatus. As such, claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-14, 16 and 18-20 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
Claim 1 (representative of independent claim(s) 11 and 20) recites the following steps:
A method for running high performance marketing campaigns for granular-level segments of users in real-time, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, a first set of data associated with a plurality of users, wherein the plurality of users is associated with one or more communication devices, wherein the first set of data is received in real time;
fetching, a second set of data associated with a plurality of past events of the plurality of users on
obtaining a third set of data associated with a plurality of live events of the plurality of users wherein the third set of data is obtained in real-time, wherein the third set of data comprises live event data generated from user interactions of the plurality of users
analyzing, the first set of data, the second set of data and the third set of data using one or more algorithms, wherein the analysis is performed based on training of a model, wherein the analysis is performed to identify one or more patterns, wherein the analysis is performed in real time;
creating the model to perform analysis of the first set of data, the second set of data, and the third set of data, wherein the model is trained to identify the one or more patterns from the first set of data, the second set of data, and the third set of data;
predicting, a behavior category of each user of the plurality of users based on the one or more patterns associated with each user of the plurality of users, wherein the behavior category of each user is predicted in real time, wherein the one or more patterns comprises uniform resource locater visit pattern, webpage visit pattern, number of webpage accessed pattern, application installation pattern, application launch pattern, application uninstallation pattern;
identifying, a match between the behavior categories of the plurality of users based on a comparison between the one or more patterns associated with each user of the plurality of users;
selecting, one or more categories from a plurality of categories based on the match between the behavior categories of the plurality of users, wherein the plurality of categories are pre-defined by an administrator;
enabling, segmentation of the plurality of users in one or more segments using the one or more categories based on a plurality of filters, wherein the plurality of filters is based on one or more parameters, wherein the segmentation of the plurality of users is enabled in real-time, and wherein the one or more parameters comprises day, time, language, location events, inactivity,
creating a segment plot for each of the one or more segments, the segment plot is in one or more forms, wherein the one or more forms comprise bar graph, histogram, pictogram, pie graph, line graph, and, cartesian graph, wherein the segment plot is downloaded in one or more formats, wherein the one or more formats comprise chart, joint photographic experts group, portable network graphics, portable document format, scalable vector graphics, and comma-separated values;
assigning, one or more segment goals for each of the one or more segments for creation of a plurality of micro-segments using the created segment plot, wherein the one or more segment goals are ambitious aim for the one or more segments, wherein each of the one or more segment goals is tracked in real-time, wherein the one or more segment goals are assigned in real-time;
creating, the plurality of micro- segments associated with each of the one or more segments to initiate one or more marketing campaigns to achieve each of the one or more segment goals, wherein the plurality of micro- segments is created in real-time;
triggering, by the user segmentation system with the processor, initialization of the one or more marketing campaigns for the one or more segments, wherein the one or more marketing campaigns are initiated based on the one or more patterns of the one or more segments using the plurality of filters, wherein the one or more marketing campaigns are initiated in the real-time;
predicting performance of each of the one or more marketing campaigns for corresponding segment goal of the one or more segment goals, wherein the performance of each of the one or more marketing campaigns is;
predicted based on analysis of each of the plurality of users in corresponding segment of the one or more segment using the one or more algorithms, and wherein the performance of each of the one or more marketing campaigns is further predicted based on the analysis of each of the plurality of users before engagement with the one or more marketing campaigns;
providing, the information regarding an actual performance of each of the one or more marketing campaigns in real time based on a monitoring of each of the plurality of users after engagement with the one or more marketing campaigns; and
generating a performance chart based on the predicted performance and the information regarding the actual performance, wherein the performance chart depicts an accuracy and a precision of the predicted performance and the actual performance with time.
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth running high performance marketing campaigns for granular-level segments of users in real-time, which amounts to a “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).” These limitations therefore fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Alternatively, these steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass mathematical relationships or mathematical calculations. These limitations therefore fall within the “mathematical concepts” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Alternatively, these steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass gathering & analyzing data, and further identifying one or more patterns from the data, and predicting a behavior based on the identified data patterns associated with each user, identifying a match between behaviors, enabling segmentation/filtering of users using the one or more categories, assigning one or more segment goals, creating micro-segments of users to achieve the goals, predicting performance, providing information and generating a performance chart, based on observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "mental processes" subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 11 and 20 are determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of:
a user segmentation system with a processor
one or more online platforms through the one or more communication devices;
machine learning algorithms
machine learning model
marketing-campaign system
one or more processors; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors -Claim 11
user segmentation system- Claim 11
non-transitory tangible computer readable medium – Claim 20
by the computing device Claim 20
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on producing the abstract idea and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A -Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above in "Step 2A - Prong 2", the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words "apply it" on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding Dependent Claims:
Dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 14, 16 and 18 fail to include any additional elements and are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner.
Dependent claims 3, 10, 12 and 13 include additional limitations that are part of the abstract idea except for:
online platform
user segmentation system with the processor
one or more communication devices;
one or more online platform database, one or more communication device database, and third-party database
one or more online platforms
The additional elements of the dependent claims are equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
Prior Art
Examiner conducted a thorough search of the body of available prior art (see attached documents regards PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited and PE2E Search History). Notably, Examiner discovered several patent literature documents that taught aspects of the invention, but no single disclosure taught “every element required by the claims under its broadest reasonable interpretation” [MPEP § 2131] to make a 35 USC § 102 rejection. Further, Examiner considered the individual elements of the recited claims taught across the prior art cited below, but did not find it obvious to combine such disclosures [MPEP § 2142] to make a 35 USC § 103 rejection. Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-14, 16 and 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The rejection has been maintained.
Applicant Argues: The Claims Recite Eligible Subject Matter Because They Are Not Directed To The Abstract Idea Of Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity, could not be considered a mental process abstract idea category and are not grouped within the "mathematical concepts" subject matter grouping of
abstract ideas… The claim is no longer reasonably understood as being directed to a generalized business method for organizing users or campaigns, but instead to a computer-implemented process for ingesting and processing live digital interaction events as they are generated by distributed user devices.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s amended claims remain rooted in the abstract idea. But for the required “online platform” capturing live event data could absolutely be performed by a human. The additional element of using the online platform is considered to be merely applying the on a generic computer mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Applicant argues: Live event data generated from user interactions on online platforms arises continuously and asynchronously from multiple communication devices. Processing such data in real time, in combination with historical datasets and across a plurality of users, is not practically performable in the human mind. The amended claim therefore cannot reasonably be grouped as a "mental process".
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to data gathering and the source of where the data is gathered does not automatically make the claims rooted in technology when it is so broadly cited. A human could pull live event data from multiple source through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. For example, an employee can observe users at a baseball game (first set of data) where there employee history gives them access to past behavioral trends in attendees (second set of data); they can observe that there are many more children at the current game (third set of data) then previous games and decide to run a marketing campaign for cotton candy to entice more customers to concessions.
Applicant Argues: Claim 1 improves the performance of behavioral segmentation and campaign execution systems by replacing static, batch segmentation with real-time ML-driven micro segmentation; enabling real-time triggering of the marketing campaigns with no human involvement; introducing a feedback loop with predictive comparison and ML model refinement; minimizing latency, increasing behavioral classification accuracy, and enabling fine-grained adaptive control.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Improvements to technology refer to limitations which are beyond the abstract idea. The functions stated above may be improvements to an abstract idea, but not to anything beyond the abstract idea. The features of the claims are all functions that could be performed by people and do not require any technology other than a generic computer. Therefore it is respectfully submitted that there is no technical improvement.
Applicant Argues: Claims applying algorithms to specific technological data inputs within a defined processing workflow are not directed to mathematical concepts merely because mathematics is involved..
Respectfully, referring to the Recentive Analytics v. Fox Corp decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Recentive Analytics against Fox Corporation, where it was determined that the machine learning algorithms employed were conventional. The Federal Circuit reaffirmed that iteratively training a machine learning algorithms on data does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Similarly, confining the trained machine learning algorithms to a particular technological field is insufficient unless the implementation introduces a specific, non-generic improvement to computing technology and describes how this improvement is accomplished. It is important to note that most machine learning algorithms are inherently trained on large, often complex datasets to generate predictions or classifications [summaries]. It is not apparent that such a non-generic improvement is reflective in the instant claims as the claims do not provide any detail that addresses any improvement to the broadly claimed training step. As such the rejection is maintained.
Applicant Argues: Even assuming arguendo, the claim were considered to involve an abstract idea, the
amended claims clearly integrate such idea into a practical application. The amended limitation ties the claimed analysis and segmentation to live event data generated from user interactions occurring on online platforms.
The Examiner notes that this claim of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application is not representative of an "actual" improvement to the technology itself, but at best is an improvement to the business method or abstract idea itself. In fact. Applicant can provide no tangible findings that there was actually anything different and/or improved in the instant system compared to prior "conventional systems", other than a mere allegation and unsubstantiated, conclusory statement that the instant invention improves existing systems and is significantly more than using rules to identify options. However, the Examiner respectfully notes that the features of the claimed invention (i.e. running high performance marketing campaigns (claim 1) does not represent an improvement, it is gathering information and merely performing operations/ analyzing with a device. The Applicant cannot point to anything that was specifically done either in the claimed subject matter, the specification, or provided reasoning to show how this is significantly more or provides an improvement to the technology of the conventional system implementation. Moreover, the Examiner respectfully notes that the needed "improvement" in terms of patent eligibility is not one resulting from programming a generic processor to perform a different (or even improved) function, but rather a specific and actual improvement to the machine itself is needed. Based on these findings of fact, the Examiner contends the claims are indeed directed towards an abstract idea and Applicant's arguments to the contrary are considered to be non-persuasive.
Applicant Argues: According to the guidelines in the 2019 PEG and the October 2019 Update, amended
independent claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea because it recites features that provide a practical application.
Applicant’s alleged improvement is not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. A showing that a claim is directed to any improvement does not automatically mean a claim is patent eligible (e.g., an improved business function or an improved idea itself is not patent eligible). In this case, running high performance marketing campaigns for granular-level segments of users in real-time is an abstract idea, and an “improved” way of running high performance marketing campaigns for granular-level segments of users in real-time is, if anything, an improvement to the idea itself.
Applicant Argues: Like the technology-based solution for filtering content on the Internet that the BASCOM Court ruled met Step 2 of the Alice/Mayo test, the invention of amended independent claim 1 also implements a technology-based solution that integrates predictive analytics, automated segmentation, and dynamic performance tracking, and improves marketing automation systems beyond mere abstract concepts. Such improvements represent a significant departure from conventional online platforms.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the fact pattern present in the Bascom v. AT&T case is entirely different than the fact pattern of the instant application, and thus cannot be relied upon as a prima facie basis for patent eligibility simply because Applicant purports their invention is a technology-based solution.
Moreover, the Examiner notes the following excerpt from Bascom (pages 12 and 14-17 of Opinion):
“We agree with the district court that filtering content is an abstract idea because it is a longstanding, well-known method of organizing human behavior, similar to concepts previously found to be abstract. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that "tracking financial transactions to determine whether they exceed a pre-set spending limit (i.e., budgeting)" is an abstract idea that "is not meaningfully different from the ideas found to be abstract in other cases...involving methods of organizing human activity"); see also Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347 (finding that "1) collecting data, 2) recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and 3) storing that recognized data in a memory" was an abstract idea because "data collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known" and "humans have always performed these functions"); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding that "a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations" is an abstract idea). An abstract idea on "an Internet computer network" or on a generic computer is still an abstract idea. See Intellectual Ventures I, 792 F.3d at 1368 n.2 (collecting cases).
“We agree with the district court that the limitations of the claims, taken individually, recite generic computer, network and Internet components, none of which is inventive by itself[…]However, we disagree with the district court's analysis of the ordered combination of limitations[…] the claims may be read to “improve[] an existing technological process.” Id. at 2358 (discussing the claims in Diehr, 450 U.S. 175).”
Based on the decision detailed above, it is clear that the claims in Bascom were deemed eligible exclusively on the fact that the claimed solution was the combination of elements, and it was how those elements were all used together in combination relative to the state of the prior art as of the filing date that sufficiently moved the claims beyond an abstract idea itself or merely applying the abstract idea (i.e. filtering content) on a computer.
Furthermore, any general allegation of patent eligibility because the instant claims may contain individual elements present in Bascom (e.g.. filtering, profile, ISP server) would be non-persuasive and insufficient to constitute eligible subject matter, as the Court was clear the individual elements were routine and conventional and thus not inventive, and it was the combination of those elements that was the deciding factor on eligibility.
Moreover, it is clear from the Bascom decision that the apparent improvement was not merely directed to the abstract idea itself (i.e. filtering content), but to the actual technology. However, such an improvement is not readily apparent in the instant case. In fact, the instant application does not parallel the fact patterns in Bascom at all, and more importantly Applicant has failed to provide evidence on how the instant claims, and particularly the combination of the instant claimed elements, provide an improvement or solution to an existing technological process that can be considered some more than routine or conventional.
Applicant Argues: Importantly, the Office Action acknowledges that no single prior art reference discloses
all claim elements and the Examiner did not find it obvious to combine the cited references under §§102 or 103. While eligibility is a separate inquiry, this finding is relevant to whether the claimed combination reflects well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is incorrect, novelty is not considered when evaluating the claims under 35 USC 101. The application has been examined using the guidelines as set forth by the Office. Furthermore, without reference to the currently pending claims, even if a claim were found to contain novel elements, such a conclusion would not automatically transform the claim into patentable subject matter. Just as it is possible for an abstract idea or other judicial exception to be novel while still remaining a judicial exception, determination of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 are a separate inquiry than determinations of patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHIDA R SHORTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday from 9am- 530pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/RASHIDA R SHORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626