Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to amendment submitted on 11/26/2025. 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 collecting, analyzing and transmitting information for targeted content delivery based on user/device interaction metrics. Specifically, the steps of receiving a request for data from a device (with a device identifier); sending data in response; determining, based on data transmission outcomes recorded in one more prior communication sessions associated with device identifier a parameters (e.g. abandonment or completion rates, initiated /completed /abandoned loads) associated with the request; comparing the parameters to a threshold); sending supplemental data (ads, HD content, features) based on that comparison. These steps are similar certain methods of organizing human activity such as advertising or marketing, and also mental processes such as (collecting information, evaluating it and deciding what content to send).
Step 2A, Prong 2, The additional elements such as commuting device, device identifier, sending parameters, threshold, are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than the generic computer components performing routine data processing functions such as receiving, storing, analyzing and transmitting data.
The claims do not improve the functioning of the computer itself, nor do they provide a technical solution to a technical problem. Instead, they apply the abstract idea using conventional components as tools.
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:
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..
Argument 1: claims do not recite a Judicial Exception.
Response: This argument is not persuasive. The claims are directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The claims recite collecting information about user behavior (abandoned and completed data loads), analyzing that information (determining parameters, comparing to thresholds), and making decision based on that analysis (what content to send). This is mental process that could be performed by a person manually tracking which customers abandon purchases and deciding t what promotion to offer them. The claims fall under “certain methods or organizing human activity”, specifically, customizing advertising and content delivery based on customer behavior. The specification confirms this at paragraphs 0003 and 0020-0021, the goal is to “deliver a customized experience for each class of user” and at least paragraphs 0026 and 0076, sending different advertisement based on user classification). The claims recite judicial exception.
Argument 2: not methods of organizing human activity.
Response: Applicant’s citation to Ultramercial actually supports the rejection, not overcomes it. In Ultramercial, the court found claims about showing advertisements before content were abstract ideas related to advertising. The present claims are similar because they involve determining what type of content or advertisements to show based on user behavior. The specification makes this clear that this is about advertising and marketing: paragraph 0002, minimizing abandonment to improve user experience; paragraphs 0034, 0055, configuring “light weight” text ads versus multimedia ads. These are advertising and marketing activities since they are deciding what ads to show to which customer, which is clearly a certain method of organizing human activity.
Argument 3- integration into practical application.
Response: the claims are different from both Enfish and DDR Holdings. Enfish involved a specific improvement to how computers store and retrieve data, with self-referential data base structure that improved computer functionality itself. The current claims do not improve computer functionality. Th specification describes only conventional tracking such as
Using cookies that increment or decrement (paragraphs 0027, 0033).
Tracking statistics like “average and standard deviation (paragraphs 0034, 0052).
Standard comparison operations (paragraphs 0031, 0050).
Nothing in the specification describes improving how computer operates. Instead, it describes using computers as tools to implement a business practice such as tracking customer behavior to customize content delivery.
DDR Holdings solved a problem specific to the internet by keeping visitors on a website when they click third party ads. The solution necessarily involved computer networks. The current claims address a business problem which is how to customize what you show customers based on their behavior. The specification confirms this t paragraph 0035, Information such as the tracked parameters can be used to communicate with the customer in other ways (e.g. email or direct mail). The claims merely apply the business practice using generic technologies.
4- Additional elements amount to Significantly More.
Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification reveals that the additional elements are conventional. The generic computing components are, user device in communication with a computing device such as server, (paragraph 0022), which is standard client-server; address elements can be a uniform resource identifier (URI) (paragraph 0025), which is standard web addressing. Cookies (paragraph 0027) which are standard web tracking.
Routine operations:
When a page header is loaded, the cookie can be incremented. When the page is completely loaded, the cookie can be decremented, in paragraph 0027, which is a basic arithmetic.
Comparing values to threshold, paragraphs 0033, 0051, which si routine logic.
Statistics, such as average and standard deviation paragraph 0034, are well known mathematics.
Conventional data gathering:
Tacking load times and user behavior is standard web analytics (paragraph 0034).
Monitoring initiated, abandoned and completed loads is a routine data collection (paragraph 0026).
Using general purpose computer (paragraph 0017), to collect and analyze data.
The specification itself acknowledges the generic nature of the implementation methods can be operational with numerous general purpose computing environment. These elements amount to no more than generally linking the abstract idea to computers, well understood, routine and conventional activity and adding apply it on a computer without meaningful limitation. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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