DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 4, 2025, has been entered.
In response, the Applicant amended claims 1, 11, and 19. Claim 10 was cancelled. Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
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 Amendments and Arguments
v Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-9 and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been maintained accordingly.
Applicant specifically argues that
1) “Applicant submits that the amended claims do not recite any limitations falling within any of these enumerated groupings...the amended claims do not recite any mathematical relations…the amended claims are not directed towards mental processes…the amended claims do not recite any methods or techniques for organizing human activities, such as fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or personal behaviors or relationships or interactions between people…For example, the amended claims recite the specific steps of…These steps quite clearly are rooted in computing device-based technology, including the steps of storing a first set of event data and normalizing the first set of event data, and thus do not recite any methods or techniques for organizing human activities…Because none of the limitations recited in the amended claims are directed towards any of the enumerated categories of abstract ideas, the amended claims cannot be properly interpreted as being abstract”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s first argument.
The steps recited in the independent claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth a process for transmitting communications (e.g., advertisements), analyzing event data (e.g., response/interaction data) associated with the transmitted advertisements to generate one or more scores and associated labels and to segment users therewith, and targeting communications (e.g., advertisements) to the segment users based on their respective segments. More specifically, the steps recited in the independent claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth a process of sending and receiving data (a plurality of messages and corresponding event data corresponding to user interactions with the messages, wherein each message is sent via a communication channel of a plurality of communication channels, wherein each message is associated with an identifier that is logged in conjunction with a timestamp captured at the time the message was transmitted to the user; wherein each event includes a timestamp captured at the time the user interacts with the message and the identifier of the message; and wherein the event data is stored as a first set of event data divided into subsets of events, each of the subsets of events associated with a different communication channel in the plurality of communication channels) and analyzing the data (normalizing the event data for each subset of events by applying time decay to the events in the subset of events to generate a decayed count of the vents in the subset based on the timestamps and accounting for recency and time interval between transmission of consecutive messages, generating a raw score associated with the subset of events based on the decayed counts, generating an adjusted score associated with the subset of events by adjusting the raw score based on a volume of messages associated with the subset of events, generating a label associated with the user based on the one or more adjusted scores associated with the subset of events), segmenting users for a new message based on the label, and transmitting new targeted messages to the user. This process amounts to a commercial or legal interactions (specifically, an advertising, marketing or sales activity or behavior; business relations) and/or managing interactions between people (e.g., social activities).
Examiner respectfully disagrees that this process is “clearly…rooted in computing device-based technology” so as to disqualify the recited steps from amounting to subject matter falling within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas. Transmitting communications to users is not rooted in technology. A large variety of print-based, audio-based, and human-to-human forms of targeted message communication existed prior to the rise of computing technology. The desire or business need to identify segments of users to target with communications is a business problem that existed prior to the rise of computing technology. Similarly, the desire to analyze communication channel (e.g., newspaper vs magazine vs mailer vs radio vs television etc.) efficacy and event/interaction data existed prior to the rise of computing technology. Relatedly, the need and ability to analyze data associated with previous user interaction/response to communications, so as to derive user characteristics (e.g., preferences, affinities) and further to identify segments of users to subsequent communications, existed prior to the rise of computing technology. Finally, the recited steps pertaining to the analysis of the event data (e.g., normalizing, generating one or more adjusted scores, generating labels) is simply data analysis. Analyzing data existed prior to the rise of computing technology, and is not “rooted in computing device-based technology”. In other words, nothing in the steps/limitations identified by the Examiner as setting-forth the abstract idea is clearly…rooted in computing device-based technology” so as to disqualify the recited steps from amounting to subject matter falling within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas. That claims do recite “additional elements” (e.g., technology-based features) does not mean the claims do not recite subject matter falling within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas. As can be seen below, these additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, and do not ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner further notes that, per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).II. “certain activity between a person and a computer (for example, a method of anonymous loan shopping using a mobile phone) may fall within the ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’ grouping”. Again, that a claim recites use of a computer or computer-based interactions does not mean the claim cannot recite a concept falling within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping.
Applicant specifically argues that
2) “Second, the amended claims recite limitations that integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application….the claimed approach is directed towards the practical application of generating and transmitting messages over electronic communication channels to users based on event data that corresponds to user interactions with the messages…Through this practical application, the claimed approach imparts the technological improvement of optimizing message transmission in a way that is agnostic to electronic communication channels used to transmit the messages as well as the technological improvement of scaling with the number of electronic communication channels over which the messages can be transmitted. See id. at paragraph [0058]. Accordingly, any purported abstract idea recited in the amended claims is integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the amended claims are subject-matter eligible…”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s second argument.
Generating and transmitting messages (e.g., targeted advertisements) to users that were segmented based on labels assigned to users that were assigned based on an analysis of their responses/interactions to previous messages is part of the abstract idea. That the claims require these messages to be transmitted via a plurality of electronic communication channels and where each message includes a uniform resource locator (URL) (i.e., includes a hyperlink) and where each event is generated when the user clicks on the URL serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (specifically, this requirement serves to limit the application of the abstract idea to computing environments, such as distributed computing environments and/or the internet-based advertising, where advertisements/messages are represented digitally, exchanged between computers over a network, and interacted with digitally; as opposed to physical/auditory advertising mediums). In other words, neither the generating and transmitting of the messages (e.g., targeted advertisements) to the segmented users, nor the requirement for these messages to be transmitted via a plurality of electronic communication channels or for each message to include a uniform resource locator (URL) (i.e., includes a hyperlink) or for each event to be generated when the user clicks on the URL serves to “integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception”. Examiner notes that simply having a real-world affect or benefit does not mean a claim is integrated into practical application, as it relates to the eligibility analysis. See also In re Mohapatra, 842 F. App’x 635, 638 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (A claim does not “cease to be abstract for section 101 purposes simply because the claim confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment in order to effectuate a real-world benefit.”).
Applicant’s assertion that “through this practical application, the claimed approach imparts the technological improvement” is not persuasive. The Examiner finds no such technological improvement, nor would one of ordinary skill in the art recognize the claimed invention as providing a technological improvement. Message transmission is not “optimized” in any technological way by the claimed invention. Applicant’s claims merely require “transmitting the new messages to the user via at least one of the plurality of electronic communication channels” (e.g., the same channel and the same transmission mechanism as was used for the first plurality of messages). The high-level requirement for the message to be transmitted via an electronic communication channel serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., electronic communication channels). Furthermore, Applicant’s own disclosure acknowledges that transmitting messages via electronic communication channels was known before the effective date of the claimed invention (e.g., paragraph [0002] of Applicant’s published disclosure “automated message campaigns are used to send electronic messages to a large number of users. Often times, multiple message campaigns are used to send messages to the same users across different electronic communication channels, such as email, text message…”). Clearly, the transmission mechanism itself is not optimized.
Applicant’s inventive concept is concerned with assigning labels to users (e.g., inferred user preferences/affinities, such as affinities for a brand or product) based on their previous interactions with messages, and segmenting users based on these labels for use in targeting users with subsequent messages. Because messages may be sent with different frequency/cadence via different communication channels (e.g., emails sent once a week, text messages sent once a month), analysis of user interactions with these messages (or analysis of channel effectiveness) may be biased based on event recency or interaction/transmission frequency. By normalizing the event data by applying time decay, generating adjusted scores based on the normalized event data, and labeling users based on the adjusted scores, these biases can be reduced, the labels to assigned to users (e.g., inferred user preferences/affinities, such as affinities for a brand or product) may be more accurate, and therefore messages subsequently targeted to users based on their assigned labels may be more effective at eliciting a desired user response (e.g., increased interaction, sales, recall, etc.,). See, for example, paragraphs [0002]-[0003], [0030]-[0033], [0040], [0044], and [0059] of Applicant’s published disclosure. Reducing measurement bias to more accurately infer/assign labels to users (e.g., inferred user preferences/affinities, such as affinities for a brand or product) and accordingly increasing the accuracy/effectiveness of subsequent messages at eliciting a desired user response (e.g., increased interaction, sales, recall, etc.,) are not technological improvements. These are subjective business improvements. Any “optimization” associated with either the labeling of the users, the segmentation of the users based on the labels, or the effectiveness of the messages at eliciting a desired user reaction (e.g., purchase a product) are non-technical business “optimizations”. At most, these improvements/”optimizations” amount to an improvement to an abstract idea itself (e.g., an improved process for labeling users, segment users, and targeting them with content based on their labels/segments).
Examiner finds no technical improvement associated with “scaling with the number of electronic communication channels”. It is unclear how or why analyzing historical interaction data in the manner claimed to reduce bias and/or increase inference accuracy (e.g., by normalizing the event data by applying time decay, generating adjusted scores based on the normalized event data, and labeling users based on the adjusted score) could be said to be directed to improving a technical data scaling issue. Examiner notes, that the claimed invention may only require transmission of two messages over two electronic communication channels, and may involve an analysis of only two events corresponding to two interactions. The claims do not even require analysis of a large amount of data, or analyzing data associated with a large number of electronic communication channels.
Applicant specifically argues that
3) “Applicant submits that the amended claims are similarly directed towards a technological solution to a technological problem…Application makes clear that a technical problem that existed in the prior art prior to the development of the claimed approach was the inability to control the transmission of messages to users in a way that accounts for (i) messages sent across multiple electronic communication channels to those users and (ii) user interactions with those messages. See Application at Paragraph [0003]. Additionally, data associated with messages that are sent to users over multiple electronic communication channels and user interactions with those messages are oftentimes in disparate formats that cannot be readily used together to segment the users into groups for optimized messaging. See Application at Paragraph [0004]. The present Application also makes clear that one of the technical advantages of the claimed approach is that the claimed approach normalizes disparate forms of data that corresponds to user interactions with messages that are transmitted over multiple electronic communication channels, thereby controlling the transmission of messages to the users without penalizing the number or type of electronic communication channels over which the messages are transmitted. See Application at Paragraph [0008]. Thus, among other things, the claimed approach solves the above technical problems that existed in the prior art. Further, each of the amended claims recite…the limitations are specific to imparting the technological improvement of the claimed approach”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s third argument.
Needing to “account” for messages sent across multiple electronic communication channels and user interactions with those messages (e.g., accounting for bias and/or inference accuracy that may be associated with messages sent with different frequency/cadence via different communication channels) is not a technological problem. This is a subjective business problems. Relatedly, reducing bias, more accurately inferring/assigning labels to users (e.g., inferred user preferences/affinities, such as affinities for a brand or product) and accordingly increasing the accuracy/effectiveness of subsequent messages at eliciting a desired user response (e.g., increased interaction, sales, recall, etc.,) are not a technological improvements These are subjective business improvements. Message transmission (and/or “control” of such transmission) is not improved in any technical way.
Although asserted by the specification and by Applicant, the Examiner finds no technical improvement/solution associated with “disparate formats” of interaction data or message data associated with messages sent over different electronic communication channels. Not only is it generally unclear how applicant’s inventive process for analyzing historical interaction data in the manner claimed (e.g., by normalizing the event data by applying time decay, generating adjusted scores based on the normalized event data, and labeling users based on the adjusted score) could be said to address a data formatting issue, the claims certainly do not reflect this alleged problem or solution. The claimed invention only require transmission of two messages over two electronic communication channels, and may involve an analysis of only two events corresponding to two interactions. The claims do not even require analysis of a large amount of data, or analyzing data associated with a large number of electronic communication channels. There is no normalization of “disparate forms of data that corresponds to user interactions with messages that are transmitted over multiple communication channels”. This argument is incommensurate with what is actually claimed. Examiner notes that normalizing data by applying a time decay (e.g., weighting the interaction data, such as a count of events, based on timing of message transmission and volume of messages sent, computing a score using the weights, converting the score to a label) does not somehow address a problem with how the event/interaction data is formatted as a result of a communication channel used to transmit the corresponding message.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 1, 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Each of the independent claims recite “for each message in the first plurality of messages, generating an event when the user clicks on the URL included in the message, wherein the event includes a timestamp captured at the time the user interacts with the URL and the identifier of the message” and “storing, as a first set of event data, the events generated when the user clicks on the URLs included in the subset of the first plurality of messages, wherein the first set of event data is divided into subsets of events, each of the subsets of events associated with a different electronic communication channel of the plurality of electronic communication channels “. Applicant’s specification explains that a server can log events associated with the user interactions with messages, including “the servers…segment users based on user behaviors that are logged (i.e., stored) by the servers…the server can record, in a log, and send event that include the message ID, an open event…and a timestamp when the user opens the message, and/or a hyperlinked click event that includes the message ID and a timestamp…The server can identify the message opens, clicks on the hyperlinks, etc., an any technically feasible manner, including using well-known techniques” ([0019] of the published disclosure) and “the segmentation application receives sets of event data (e.g., sets of event data 302) associated with interactions of a user with messages transmitted to the user…user interactions with the messages, such as opening the messages, clicking on links within the messages, etc. can then be logged as the sets of event data. In some embodiments, the event data logs can be cleaned in any technically feasible manner to remove noisy data” ([0046] of the published disclosure). As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “for each message in the first plurality of messages, generating an event when the user clicks on the URL included in the message, wherein the event includes a timestamp captured at the time the user interacts with the URL and the identifier of the message” comprises receiving (e.g., over the network from some other device/server) indications that users clicked/interacted with the URLs included in the messages and associated timestamps (captured at the time the user interacted with the URL) and message identifiers, and then generating corresponding event data including the timestamps and the identifier of the message, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of “storing, as a first set of event data, the events generated when the user clicks on the URLs included in the subset of the first plurality of messages, wherein the first set of event data is divided into subsets of events, each of the subsets of events associated with a different electronic communication channel of the plurality of electronic communication channels “ comprises storing the generated event data (e.g., divided into subsets of events, each of the subsets of events associated with a different electronic communication channel of the plurality of electronic communication channels).
Claim Objections
v Claims 1, 11, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: --generating-- should be inserted to replace “generated” in the “normalizing…by…generated an adjusted score associated with the subset of events by…” limitation to ensure the claim language conforms with standard grammatical construction. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
v Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are drawn to methods (i.e., a process), claim(s) 11-18 is/are drawn to non-transitory computer-readable storage media (i.e., a machine/manufacture), and claim(s) 19-20 is/are drawn to systems (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1-9 and 11-20 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Claim 1 (representative of independent claim(s) 11 and 19) recites/describes the following steps;
transmitting a first plurality of messages to a user via a plurality of…communication channels, wherein each message is associated with an identifier that is logged in conjunction with a timestamp captured at the time the message was transmitted to the user on (a)…communication channel;
for each message in the first plurality of messages, generating an event…wherein the event includes a timestamp captured at the time the user interacts…and the identifier of the message
storing, as a first set of event data, the events generated…wherein the first set of event data is divided into subsets of events, each of the subsets of events associated with a different…communication channel of the plurality of communication…channels
normalizing the first set of event data by, for each subset of events, applying a time decay to the events in the subset of events to generate a decayed count of the events in the subset, wherein the time decay is computed based on the timestamps included in the subset of events accounting for how recently each of the subset of events occurred and a time interval between transmission of consecutive messages associated with the subset of events;
generating a raw score associated with the subset of events based on the decayed counts
generating an adjusted score associated with the subset of events by adjusting the raw score based on a volume of messages associated with the subset of events
generating, based on at least the adjusted scores associated with the subsets of events, a first label associated with the user in response to normalizing the first set of event data;
generating a new message for a segment of users associated with the first label; and
transmitting the new message to the user via at least one of the plurality of …communication channels
The steps recited in the independent claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth a process for transmitting communications (e.g., advertisements), analyzing event data (e.g., response/interaction data) associated with the transmitted advertisements to generate one or more scores and associated labels and to segment users therewith, and targeting communications (e.g., advertisements) to the segment users based on their respective segments. More specifically, the steps recited in the independent claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth a process of sending and receiving data (a plurality of messages and corresponding event data corresponding to user interactions with the messages, wherein each message is sent via a communication channel of a plurality of communication channels, wherein each message is associated with an identifier that is logged in conjunction with a timestamp captured at the time the message was transmitted to the user; wherein each event includes a timestamp captured at the time the user interacts with the message and the identifier of the message; and wherein the event data is stored as a first set of event data divided into subsets of events, each of the subsets of events associated with a different communication channel in the plurality of communication channels) and analyzing the data (normalizing the event data for each subset of events by applying time decay to the events in the subset of events to generate a decayed count of the vents in the subset based on the timestamps and accounting for recency and time interval between transmission of consecutive messages, generating a raw score associated with the subset of events based on the decayed counts, generating an adjusted score associated with the subset of events by adjusting the raw score based on a volume of messages associated with the subset of events, generating a label associated with the user based on the one or more adjusted scores associated with the subset of events), segmenting users for a new message based on the label, and transmitting new targeted messages to the user. This process amounts to a commercial or legal interactions (specifically, an advertising, marketing or sales activity or behavior; business relations) and/or managing interactions between people (e.g., social activities).
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 11 and 19 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Each of the depending claims likewise recite/describe these steps (by incorporation - and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Any element(s) recited in a dependent claim that are not specifically identified/addressed by the Examiner under step 2A (prong two) or step 2B of this analysis shall be understood to be an additional part of the abstract idea recited by that particular claim. The same reasoning is similarly applicable to the limitations in the remaining dependent claims, and their respective limitations are not reproduced here for the sake of brevity.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claims recite the additional elements/limitations of
“computer-implemented” (Independent claim 1)
“one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media including instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to…” (Independent claim 11)
“a system, comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors that are coupled to the one or more memories and, when executing the instructions, are configured to…” (Independent claim 19)
“…via a plurality of electronic communication channels…an electronic communication channel, and wherein each message includes a uniform resource locator (URL)…an event when the user clicks on the URL included in the message…at the time the user interacts with the URL…when the user clicks on the URLs…associated with a different electronic communication channel of the plurality of electronic communication channels...via at least one of the plurality of electronic communication channels…” (Independent claims 1, 11, and 19)
“…via another electronic communication channel…” (dependent claims 2, 12, and 20)
“wherein the one or more events are corresponding to at least one of the user opening an email, viewing a text message, viewing an in-application notification, viewing a push notification, viewing a web push notification, or activating a hyperlink” (dependent claims 6 and 15)
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “computer-implemented” means (Independent claim 1), or “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media including instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to…” (Independent claim 11) or “a system, comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors that are coupled to the one or more memories and, when executing the instructions, are configured to…” (Independent claim 19) 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. Applicant’s own disclosure explains that these elements may be embodied as a general-purpose computer (e.g., the following paragraphs of the published disclosure – [0021]-[0025] “computing device…CPU…general purpose and/or computer processing…” and [0083]-[0086] “may take the form of an entirely hardware embodiment, an entirely software embodiment…computer program product…computer program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer…such processors may be, without limitation, general purpose processors…” ). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recited additional element(s) of “…via a plurality of electronic communication channels…an electronic communication channel, and wherein each message includes a uniform resource locator (URL)…an event when the user clicks on the URL included in the message…at the time the user interacts with the URL…when the user clicks on the URLs…associated with a different electronic communication channel of the plurality of electronic communication channels...via at least one of the plurality of electronic communication channels…” (Independent claims 1, 11, and 19) and/or “…via another electronic communication channel…” (dependent claims 2, 12, and 20) and/or “wherein the one or more events are corresponding to at least one of the user opening an email, viewing a text message, viewing an in-application notification, viewing a push notification, viewing a web push notification, or activating a hyperlink” (dependent claims 6 and 15) serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to computing environments, such as distributed computing environments and/or the internet, where information is represented digitally, exchanged between computers over a network, and presented using graphical user interfaces. It could also be said that these limitations serve to limit the application of the abstract idea to internet-based advertising, where advertisements/messages are represented digitally, exchanged between computers over a network, and interacted with digitally (e.g., via clicks to activate embedded hyperlinks/URLs), as opposed to physical/auditory advertising mediums. They also serve to limit the application of the abstract idea to certain communication channels used to transmit messages, such as via email, text message, in-application notification, push notification, web, etc.. This reasoning was demonstrated in Bilski, where it was determined that certain claim elements limiting the basic concept of hedging to commodities and energy markets (merely limiting an abstract idea to one field of use) did not make the concept patentable. This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The recited element(s) of “transmitting a first plurality of messages to a user via a plurality of electronic communication channels, wherein each message is associated with an identifier that is logged in conjunction with a timestamp captured at the time the message was transmitted to the user on an electronic communication channel, and wherein each message includes a uniform resource locator” (claims 1, 11, and 19) and/or “transmitting the new message to the user via at least one of the plurality of electronic communication channels” (claims 1, 11, and 19), even if they were analyzed as “additional” elements recited in the claims, would simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). The term “extra-solution activity” is understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The recited additional element(s) do are deemed “extra-solution” because all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such preliminary message transmission, data gathering, and final output, and because such data gathering and solution-outputting/transmission steps have long been held to be insignificant pre/post-solution activity. Furthermore, these steps are tangential to the inventive concept of the claims, which is the way the event data corresponding to user interactions is analyzed in order to label users, segment users based on their assigned labels, and target these user segments. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h) and (g)).
Furthermore, although the claims recite a specific sequence of computer-implemented functions, and although the specification suggests certain functions may be advantageous for various reasons (e.g., business reasons), the Examiner has determined that the ordered combination of claim elements (i.e., the claims as a whole) are 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. For example, Applicant’s published specification (see paragraphs [0002]-[0003], [0030]-[0033], [0040], [0044], and [0059]) suggests that Applicant’s inventive concept is concerned with assigning labels to users (e.g., inferred user preferences/affinities, such as affinities for a brand or product) based on their previous interactions with messages, and segmenting users based on these labels for use in targeting users with subsequent messages. Because messages may be sent with different frequency/cadence via different communication channels (e.g., emails sent once a week, text messages sent once a month), analysis of user interactions with these messages may be biased based on event recency or interaction/transmission frequency. By normalizing the event data by applying time decay, generating adjusted scores based on the normalized event data, and labeling users based on the adjusted scores, these biases can be reduced, the labels to assigned to users (e.g., inferred user preferences/affinities, such as affinities for a brand or product) may be more accurate, and therefore messages subsequently targeted to users based on their assigned labels may be more effective at eliciting a desired user response (e.g., increased interaction, sales, recall, etc.,). More accurately inferring/assigning labels to users (e.g., inferred user preferences/affinities, such as affinities for a brand or product) and accordingly increasing the accuracy/effectiveness of subsequent messages at eliciting a desired user response (e.g., increased interaction, sales, recall, etc.,) are not a technological improvements. These are subjective business improvements. At most, these improvements amount to an improvement to an abstract idea itself (e.g., an improved process for labeling users, segment users, and targeting them with content based on their labels/segments). Examiner finds no technical improvement associated with “scaling with the number of electronic communication channels”. It is unclear how or why analyzing historical interaction data in the manner claimed to reduce bias and/or increase inference accuracy (e.g., by normalizing the event data by applying time decay, generating adjusted scores based on the normalized event data, and labeling users based on the adjusted score) could be said to be directed to improving a technical data scaling issue. Although asserted by the specification, the Examiner finds no technical improvement/solution associated with “disparate formats” of interaction data or message data associated with messages sent over different electronic communication channels. It is generally unclear how applicant’s inventive process for analyzing historical interaction data in the manner claimed (e.g., by normalizing the event data by applying time decay, generating adjusted scores based on the normalized event data, and labeling users based on the adjusted score) could be said to address a data formatting issue. Examiner notes that normalizing data by applying a time decay (e.g., weighting the interaction data, such as a count of events, based on timing of message transmission and volume of messages sent, computing a score using the weights, converting the score to a label) does not somehow address a problem with how the event/interaction data is formatted as a result of a communication channel used to transmit the corresponding message.
Dependent claims 3-5, 7-9, 13, 14, and 16-18 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims 3-5, 7-9, 13, 14, and 16-18 is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). For example, claim 3 recites “wherein generating the combined label comprises: adding a first score associated with the first label to a second score associated with the second label to determine a combined score; and determining the combined label based on the combined score”. This is an abstract limitation which further sets forth the abstract idea encompassed by claim 3 (i.e., adds a further data analysis step). This limitation is not an “additional element”, and therefore it is not subject to further analysis under Step 2A- Prong Two or Step 2B. The same logic applies to each of the other dependent claims, whose limitations are not being repeated here for the sake of brevity and clarity.
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:
In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966)
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “computer-implemented” means (Independent claim 1), or “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media including instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to…” (Independent claim 11) or “a system, comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors that are coupled to the one or more memories and, when executing the instructions, are configured to…” (Independent claim 19) 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)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of “…via a plurality of electronic communication channels…an electronic communication channel, and wherein each message includes a uniform resource locator (URL)…an event when the user clicks on the URL included in the message…at the time the user interacts with the URL…when the user clicks on the URLs…associated with a different electronic communication channel of the plurality of electronic communication channels...via at least one of the plurality of electronic communication channels…” (Independent claims 1, 11, and 19) and/or “…via another electronic communication channel…” (dependent claims 2, 12, and 20) and/or “wherein the one or more events are corresponding to at least one of the user opening an email, viewing a text message, viewing an in-application notification, viewing a push notification, viewing a web push notification, or activating a hyperlink” (dependent claims 6 and 15) serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited element(s) of “transmitting a first plurality of messages to a user via a plurality of electronic communication channels, wherein each message is associated with an identifier that is logged in conjunction with a timestamp captured at the time the message was transmitted to the user on an electronic communication channel, and wherein each message includes a uniform resource locator” (claims 1, 11, and 19) and/or “transmitting the new message to the user via at least one of the plurality of electronic communication channels” (claims 1, 11, and 19), even if they were analyzed as “additional” elements recited in the claims, would simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). These additional element(s), taken individually or in combination, additionally amount to well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, appended to the judicial exception. These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, are well-understood, routine and conventional to those in the field of advertising/marketing. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more”. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).This conclusion is based on a factual determination. The determination that associating/storing data in a database is well-understood, routine, and conventional is supported by the Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which note the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of associating/storing data in a database.The determination that receiving data/messages over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional is supported by Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which note the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of receiving data/messages over a network. Examiner also takes Official Notice that these steps were well-understood, routine, and conventional at the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Furthermore, the lack of technical detail/description in Applicant’s own specification provides implicit evidence that these steps were well-understood, routine, and conventional. Furthermore Applicant’s disclosure acknowledges that these steps were well-understood, routine, and conventional at the effective filing date of the claimed invention ([0002]-[0004]).
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity), and appended with well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Dependent claims 3-5, 7-9, 13, 14, and 16-18 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims 3-5, 7-9, 13, 14, and 16-18 is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea identified by the Examiner to which each respective claim is directed).
The Examiner has