Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to Request for Continued Examination Transmittal submitted on 6/11/2026. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-20 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 2, Prong 1, the claims recite receiving, from a computing device, a request for data, wherein the request comprises a device identifier associated with the computing device; sending, based on the request, the data; determining, based on data transmission outcomes recorded in one or more prior communication sessions associated with the device identifier, a parameter associated with the request that relates to completed data transmissions associated with one or more data loads, wherein the parameter is based on a determination of each of the data transmission outcomes; and sending, based on the parameter associated with the request, supplemental data selected to reduce a likelihood of abandonment by the computing device. The claims therefore recite collecting information regarding prior communication sessions, analyzing data transmission outcomes associated with completed data transmissions and abandoned data transmissions, determining a parameter associated with the request, and selecting supplemental data based on the determined parameter. Such limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial interactions in the form of advertising, marketing and customer retention activities, for example claims 2, 3, 6 and 7 clearly recite supplemental data comprising advertisement, text advertisement, and multimedia advertisement. The claims also recite mental processes because the limitations directed to determining based on data transmission outcomes, a parameter associated with ethe request and selecting supplemental data based on the parameter can practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. Accordingly, the claims recite judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 2, The additional elements such as commuting device, device identifier, webpages, advertisements, multimedia advertisements, and commination sessions, simply employ generic computer technology as tools to perform the abstract idea. Although the claims recite determining, based on one or more initiated data loads or completed data loads, the parameter, decrementing the parameter based on the one or more abandoned data loads. The claims d not recite any improvement to the operation of the computing device, network browser or communication protocol. Rather, the claims sipy apply the judicial exception by using generic computer components to analyze prior data transmission outcomes ad select supplemental data such as advertisements, high- definition content, advanced features, text advertisements or multimedia advertisements. Accordingly, the claims fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, the claims do not include an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application. All recited computer and network elements are generic and conventional. When considered individually or as ordered combination, the additional elements amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on generic computer, which is not sufficient under 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the following:
Response to arguments (No judicial exception; not advertising/marketing; not a mental process).
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The specification explains that the invention identifies users or devices that present an “abandonment risk” and then classifies those users to provide a customized experience. The specification states that the system “can determine whether a user and/or device is an abandonment risk and can provide a custom experience based upon such determination”. Moreover, the specification describes delivering a lighter advertisement, multimedia advertisements, reward offers, customized pages, and other content based on user behavior. Accordingly, the claims recite collecting information about prior user behavior; evaluating that information; classifying users and devices; and selecting content to influence future behavior. Such concepts fall within certain methods or organizing human activity, including advertising, marketing and customer-retention strategies, as well as mental processes involving observation, evaluation and decision making.
Response to arguments practical application and integration.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the claims simply apply the abstract idea using conventional computing components. The specification describes generic components, including browsers, cookies, servers, databases, processors, URLs, and conventional network infrastructure. The claims do not improve any of: network protocols, browser architecture, page-rendering mechanisms, bandwidth allocation, caching techniques, or packet transmission. Instead, the claims use conventional computing components as tools to implement the abstract idea of tailoring content according to user abandonment history.
Response to arguments (improvement to technology; difference from conventional approaches; all embodiments provide improvement)
The arguments are not persuasive. The specification identifies the problem as users abandoning downloads and explains that one solution is to provide lighter pages, lower bitrate videos, text advertisements, or fewer features to users deemed likely to abandon content. However, the alleged improvement is directed to improving the user’s experience and increasing engagement, but not improving computer functionality itself. The claims do not recite any of: a new transmission protocol; a new data structure; a new browser engine; a new cashing mechanism; and improved network architecture; or a particular algorithm for improving computer performance. The claims broadly cover determining abandonment risk and selecting different content based on that determination. The specification confirms that the “customized experience” may simply consist of lighter advertisements, lower resolution content, or different webpage features.
Response to argument (DDR Holdings, Enfish, and Ex Parte Dejardins).
The applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. These cases do not support the applicant’s position.
DDR Holdings involved a specific technological solution to a problem unique to computer networks. Here, the claims simply classify users according to abandonment risk and select different content based on that classification.
Enfish involved a self-referential database structure that improved the operation of the computer itself. The present claims do not recite any new data structure or improvement to computer functionality. The present claims are more analogous to claims directed to targeted content delivery and customer-retention strategies implemented using generic computer.
Applicant’s reliance on Ex Parte Desjardins is not persuasive. Unlike the claims in Desjardins, the instant claims do not recite a specific improvement to the operation of a computer or network. Rather, the claims are directed to analyzing prior data transmission outcomes and selecting supplemental content, such as advertisement s or enhanced features, based on the analysis. The claims therefore, use generic computer components to implement the abstract idea and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Response to arguments (Sep 2B: BASCOM and Aatrix)
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The specification states that the invention maybe implemented using generic computers, browsers, servers, databases, professors, storage devices, cookies and software modules. Although paragraph 48 mentions artificial intelligence techniques, the claims do not recite any specific AI model, training technique, or unconventional computer architecture. Unlike BASCOM, the claims do not recite a non-conventional arrangement of network components. Unlike Aatrix, the claims do not recite a specific improvement to computer functionality itself. Rather the claims simply employ conventional computing technology to implement the abstract idea of identifying likely abandonment and tailoring content accordingly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARGON N NANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4007. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM. M.S.T..
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached on 571 272 3889. 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.
/SARGON N NANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights