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 .
Response to Amendment
The following is a FINAL Office action in reply to the Amendments and Arguments received on May 31, 2026.
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 and 10 are drawn to a method. 11-14, 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
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 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; wherein each micro-segment of the plurality of micro- segments represents an intent-based subgroup of users within the one or more segments, each intent-based subgroup being automatically classified as most likely, moderately likely, or least likely to meet the corresponding segment goal;
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 (i.e. machine learning algorithms). 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
A marketing-campaign system for running high performance marketing campaigns for granular-level segments of users in real-time, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors, the memory for storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform a method for running high performance marketing campaigns for granular-level segments of users in real-time, the method comprising: (Claim 11)
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium encoding computer executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor performs running high performance marketing campaigns for granular-level segments of users in real-time comprising: (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: Amended Independent claims 1, 11, and 20 do not recite Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, a mental process abstract idea category or "mathematical concepts" subject matter grouping of abstract ideas. The features recited in amended independent claim 1 do not relate to a method of organizing human activity. Indeed, the claimed method recites describe a machine implemented, multi-stage process including steps for ingesting three distinct machine generated data sets (personal, historical event, and real-time live event data) in real time; training and deploying a machine learning model to identify per-user behavioral patterns from those data sets; predicting a behavior category for each user in real time; automatically classifying users into intent-based micro-segments (most likely / moderately likely / least likely); triggering marketing campaigns based on those micro-segments; and generating a predictive performance comparison chart with measured accuracy and precision over time. Each of these steps operates autonomously on machine-generated data with no human deliberation, judgment, or decision-making. This is not a method of human organization; it is a specific automated technical system..
Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the previous response. 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. Additionally, Applicant’s claimed multi stage process is considered to be mere data gathering and not enough to transform the claims to eligible subject matter.
Applicant argues: Amended claim 1 is directed not to the mathematics of machine learning, but to the specific technological pipeline through which that model is applied to produce a machine deterministic, three-tier user classification that no human evaluator could replicate in real time across thousands of concurrent users. Furthermore, Applicant submits that amended claim 1 requires, in pertinent part: simultaneously processing three distinct real-time data streams, each comprising dozens of specific event types (e.g., real-time video-on-demand searches, real-time credit card requests, real-time hotel bookings, etc.) from a plurality of geographically distributed users communicating through heterogeneous devices; training a machine learning model to identify specific behavioral patterns from the first, second, and third sets of data; predicting a peruser behavior category in real time; and automatically assigning every user of a plurality of users to exactly one of three micro-segments in real time, continuously, and without human intervention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner reiterates from the 101 rejection above that the limitations of " 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,…) represent a process that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The use of generic computer components to execute the mental process is considered to be mere programming the computer to do what it is designed to do… compute large amounts of data. These claimed steps relate to concepts that merely involve observing, evaluating and judging data. This concept falls under the "Mental Processes" abstract idea grouping. There is nothing that precludes these steps from being performed in the human mind, and there is nothing limiting or excluding regarding the real-time implementation, as observations and judgements occur in real-time all the time. As such, the examiner is not persuaded by applicant's argument.
Applicant Argues: The complexity, volume, and simultaneity of the claimed method take it decisively outside the realm of mental processes. The Examiner's baseball-game analogy involves a single human observer, a single venue, a general impression of audience composition, and a single binary marketing decision, none of which maps to the multi-variable, ML-driven, per user classification across a plurality of users, event types, and real-time data streams required by amended claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the previous response with further clarification. 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 (or multiple humans) could pull live event data from multiple sources through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. For example, an employee (or employees) can observe users at a baseball game (first set of data) where there employee history or length of time observing 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: The claim unambiguously integrates any such exception into a practical application under at least two independent theories: improvement to a computer-related technology, and application to a particular machine.
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. Claims appear to further define generic computing functions and do not represent an improvement to the computer or the technology. Therefore it is respectfully submitted that there is no technical improvement.
Applicant Argues: Automated real-time intent classification replacing human-dependent segmentation: Prior art systems performed segmentation through manual rule-based categorization or offline batch processing. The claimed method implements a machine-learning pipeline that continuously processes three concurrent data sets (personal, historical, and live event data) and automatically classifies each user into an intent-based micro-segment in real time.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant claims that the instant application continuously updates the classification system. The examiner contends that this allegation at best amounts to an improvement to the abstract idea itself. The Applicant essentially alleges that an improvement to the machine is made and represents their technical improvement. However, better classification is simply an improvement to the data (i.e., improvement to the abstract idea itself). The claimed subject matter fails to recite any technically improved way in which this data is being leveraged. The claimed invention simply gathers data and makes prediction based on the gathered data. Such an implementation does not amount to a technical improvement. See MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2) III(A) “a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant Argues: Amended claim 1 requires the machine learning model to assign each user to exactly one of three micro-segments (most likely, moderately likely, least likely). This is a specific functional output of the machine learning model, a structured machine-generated data object, that is used to select, configure, and trigger the marketing campaign.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that as stated in the updated 101 rejection above, the particular “creating of micro-segments…" features of the claims are SO broad that they could reasonably be done mentally in the human mind as part of an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. There is nothing in the claim language nor in the specification that would prohibit such an implementation. In fact, there is no limiting technology tied to these features at all other a generic system and processor and/or computing device. Therefore, contrary to applicant's assertion, these claimed features can and should be deemed part of a recited abstract idea categorized in Mental Process. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Amended claim 1 further requires generating a performance chart that depicts, with quantified accuracy and precision, the divergence between predicted and actual campaign performance over time. This is a specific machine-generated analytical output that enables continuous model refinement, a closed-loop technical improvement cycle described in paragraph [0164] of the specification.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Generating a performance chart is not a technical improvement. See MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2) III(A) “a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant Argues: The assertion that these are improvements to the abstract idea, not to the technology, is respectfully incorrect. The improvement is to the machine's capability, its ability to perform real-time probabilistic behavioral classification across a plurality of users at a scale and speed that was technically impossible without the specific pipeline claimed.
Examiner maintains the claims do not support the claimed improvement to the machine’s capability. 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: 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 merely gathering information and merely performing operations/ analyzing with a computing 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: 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is 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 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
Prosecution Insights