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 .
Introduction
The following is a non-final Office Action in response to Applicant’s communications received on June 23, 2026. Claims 1, 5-6, 8, 12-13, 15 and 19-20 have been amended, claims 3, 10 and 17 have been canceled.
Currently claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16 and 18-20, claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submissions filed on June 23, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 5-6, 8, 12-13, 15 and 19-20 are NOT sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection to claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16 and 18-20 has been maintained.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments, as the closest prior art of Alspaugh et al., (US 10936643 B1), and in view of Badger et al., (US 2021/0209637), and further in view of Palay et al., (US 5613120), and Yee et al., (US 2023/0042210) fails to teach or suggest “receiving a first event data instance and a second event data instance, wherein the first event data instance is in a first source format, and the second event data instance is in a second source format, adding metadata to the second event data instance to identify the second event data instance as related to the first event data instance based at least in part on the attribution criteria, transforming the first event data instance and the second event data instance to a uniform searchable format, identifying, by the computing device, from the first event data instance and the second event data instance in the uniform searchable format, at least one commonality between the first event data instance and the second event data instance, linking, by the computing device and based at least in part on the at least one commonality, the first event data instance and the second event data instance to create or modify a linked list of associated events by at least: adding a data fie3ld to a table associated with the first event data instance, and storing a memory address for the second event data instance in the data field of the table associated with the first event data instance, calculating one or more first attribution score between the first event data instance and the second event data instance based at least in part on the at least one commonality”, as recited in independent claims 1, 8 and 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 23, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on page 16, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that even if, arguendo, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application such that the claims are patent eligible.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order for a claim to integrate the exception into a practical application, the additional claimed elements must, for example, improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), apply the judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)), or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See Revised 2019 Guidance. Here, using the additional elements as recited in the claims does not reflect an improvement to a computer itself or another technology. For example, the computing device, at best, may perform the generic computer functions including transmitting data schema to an event recorder executing on a web server; receiving data/information, storing data/information in a memory, and transmitting the predicted attribution scores to a third part, nothing in the claim reflects any improvement to the functioning of the computing device itself or the web server.
With respect to Example 42, Applicant’s claims are different. Claim 1 of Example 42 was deemed patent-eligible because it provided a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. Thus, exemplary claim 1 of Example 42 addressed technological difficulties related to incompatible computer formats, by converting information in a non-standardized format dependent on the hardware and software platform used by the other users into the standardized format, disparate geographic locations, and the untimely sharing of information. See 2019 Eligibility Examples at 17-18. In contrast, Applicant’s claim does not receive data in different formats from disparate geographic locations and transforming the received data into a uniform. Rather, Applicant’s Specification discloses “the computing device receiving a first event data instance and a second event data instance from the first client application; and the computing device formatting the first event data instance and the second event data instance to conform to a uniform format (see ¶ 3-4). At best, the claim steps may convert the event data instances into a table with standardized column and row, but “the mere function of converting is not a ‘specific improvement to the way computers operate.’” Univ. of Fla. Res. Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Further, the claims do not recite an improved way to train a machine learning model and dos not purport to improve machine learning by retraining/updating the machine learning model using an optimized training dataset. See Intellectual Ventures, 792 F.3d at 1371. Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In the Remarks on page 21, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that even if, arguendo, the claims are abstract, the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and thus qualify as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Step 2B is to determine whether any “inventive concept” which can transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. The “inventive concept” may arise in one or more of the individual claim limitations or in the ordered combination of the limitations. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. An “inventive concept” that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention must be significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and cannot simply be an instruction to implement or apply the abstract idea on a computer. Id. at 2358.
In the present case, beyond the abstract idea, the claims recite the additional elements of “by a computing device”, “a web server”, “a machine learning model” and “an application programming interface”. The Specification discloses these additional elements at a high level of generality, for example, “The computing device can transmit a data schema to a first client application executing on a first web server; The computing device can receive a first event data instance and a second event data instance from the first client application” (see Abstract; ¶ 39). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are no more than generic computer components. At best, these generic computer components may perform the generic computer functions including receiving, storing, and transmitting information over a network. However, generic computer for performing generic computer functions have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and Storing a memory address in an appropriate field of the associated entry in the table (see Palay et al., US_5813120, col. 15, lines 1-6)). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In the Remarks on page 23, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that like the claims at issue in both DDR Holdings and Trading Technologies, Applicant’s claims utilize unconventional techniques to solve problems rooted in prior art technological systems. Here, the instant application, the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology and is directed to improvements to prior art feedback evaluation system.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejected claims do not adhere to the same fact pattern seen in the DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com decision. In DDR Holdings, the solution was found necessarily rooted in computer technology by sending the website visitor to the third-party website that appears to be connected with the clicked advertisement, because it could have not been performed otherwise. The court held that claimed invention did not simply use computers to serve a conventional business purpose; instead, the invention was “necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer network.” See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In contrast, Applicant does not claim to redirect the user to a third-party website when the user clicked on the advertisement, but instead, using a computing device for transmitting/receiving event data instance to/from the web server.
However, using a generic computer for performing generic computer functions have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and Storing a memory address in an appropriate field of the associated entry in the table (see Palay et al., US_5813120, col. 15, lines 1-6)). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The added subject matter which is not in the original specification is as follows:
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite limitations “a first source format”, “a second source format”, and “one or more predicted attribution scores representing a strength of associated between the first subsequent data instance and the second subsequent event data instance” appear to constitute new matter. Examiner was not able to find any support for these limitations in the specification as originally filed. Applicant is required to cancel or amend the claims in accordance with written description requirements.
Dependent claims 2, 4-7. 9, 11-14, 16 and 18-20 are also rejected for the same reasons as each depends on the rejected claims.
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 1-2, 4-9, 11-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claims 1, 2 and 4-7 are directed to a method for estimating a downstream impact, which falls within the statutory category of a process; claims 8. 9 and 11-14 are directed to an apparatus comprising a processor and computer-readable medium, which falls within the statutory category of a machine; and Claims 15, 16 and 18-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, which falls within the statutory category of a product.
In Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to “determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Under this step, a two-prong inquiry will be performed to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 Guidance), 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019).
In Prong One, it is to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Taking the method as representative, claim 1 recites steps of “transmitting a data schema, receiving a first event data instance and a second event data instance, receiving attribution criteria specifying rules for determining attribution between event data instances, adding metadata to the second event data instance to identify the second event data instance as related to the first event data instance, transforming the first event data instance and the second event data instance to a uniform searchable format, identifying at least one commonality between the first event data instance and the second event data instance, linking the first event data instance and the second event data instance to create or modify a link list of associated events by at least: adding a data field to a table , storing a memory address for the second event data instance in the data field of the table, storing the linked list of associated event, calculating one or more first attribution scores between the first event data instance and the second event data instance, training a machine learning model using training data …to generate one or more training attribution scores between the event data instances of training data …, applying the trained machine learning model to subsequent event data instance to generate one or more predicted attribution scores between a first subsequent event data instance and a second subsequent event data instance, receiving an application programming interface call from a third party requesting the attribution score, and transmitting the one or more predicted attribution scores to the third party”. None of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means.
Here, training a machine learning model is to generate one or more training attribution scores between the event data instances, however, the trained machine learning model is to generate one or more predicted attribution scores, and there is no step for retraining/updating the machine learning model with optimized training data to reflect a functioning improvement to the computer itself or other technology.
The limitations, as drafted, are methods that allow user to manipulate data requested by a thirty-party, manage commercial interactions including marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and manage personal behavior or interactions between people including social activities, teaching and following rules or instruction, which fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Further, the claim recites a concept similar to the claims as discussed in Electric Power Group (e.g., collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain result of the collection and analysis, see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Dependent claims 2-7 are further narrowing and characterizing the limitations of claim 1, which also cover subject matter that is judicially excepted from patent eligibility under § 101.
The mere nominal recitation of “by a computing device”, “a web server”, and “an application programming interface” do not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping because these elements are recited at a high level of generality amounted to no more than generic computer components for generic computer functions. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Further, the “memory address”, in this case, is directed to data per se. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. The analysis is proceeding to Prong Two.
In Prong Two, it is to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Beyond the abstract idea, the claims recite the additional elements of “by a computing device”, “a web server”, “a machine learning model”, and “an application programming interface”. The Specification discloses these additional elements at a high level of generality, for example, “The computing device can transmit a data schema to an application executing on a web server; The computing device can receive a first event data instance and a second event data instance from the first client application” (see Abstract; ¶ 39). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are no more than generic computer components. Thus, merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014); and Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). Further, reciting “a machine learning model” is merely adding the words “apply it” or using “a particular machine” with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. The Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract. See Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As to learning per se, such an argument overlooks the entire education system. Reciting machine learning is placing such learning in a computer context, offering no technological implementation details beyond the conceptual idea to use a machine for learning. The claim does not recite an improved way to train a machine learning model and does not purport to improve machine learning by retraining/updating the machine learning model using an optimized training dataset. See Intellectual Ventures, 792 F.3d at 1371. However, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and does not reflect an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or another technology. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea, the analysis is proceeding to Step 2B.
In Step 2B of Alice, it is "a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept’ itself.’” Id. (alternation in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
The claims as described in Prong Two above, nothing in the claims that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B.
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of “by a computing device”, “a web server”, “a machine learning model” and “an application programming interface”. The Specification discloses these additional elements at a high level of generality, for example, “The computing device can transmit a data schema to a first client application executing on a first web server; The computing device can receive a first event data instance and a second event data instance from the first client application” (see Abstract; ¶ 39). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are no more than generic computer components. At best, these generic computer components may perform the generic computer functions including receiving, storing, and transmitting information over a network. However, generic computer for performing generic computer functions have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Storing a memory address in an appropriate field of the associated entry in the table (see Palay et al., US_5813120, col. 15, lines 1-6)). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e-f) & (h)).
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1, 2 and 4-7 cover subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101 as discussed above, the other claims, system claims 8, 9 and 11-14 and medium claims 15, 16 and 18-20 parallel claims 1, 2 and 4-7—similarly cover claimed subject matter that is judicially excepted from patent eligibility under § 101.
Therefore, the claims as a whole, viewed individually and as a combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
McGovern et al., (US 2017/0091810) discloses a method for classifying, weighting, and quantifying audience responses to stimulation by forming a predictive model to generate weighted touchpoint contribution values that can be used to predict future responses.
Mo (US 11875383 B2) discloses an advertisement attribution method for sending a first advertisement event when determining that the first advertisement played by the advertising device is effectively exposed to a user.
Bhamidipati et al., (US 11182390 B2) discloses method for selecting content items for presentation via a second client device based on the attribution data structure.
Hiraoka et al., (JP 2006031209) discloses a method for calculating an attribute score from the attribute of the registered document and a composition score from an adaptation score corresponding to the document of the retrieval result.
Dane et al., (CN 107637086) discloses a method for managing distributed discrete content fragment sets of a first event data and a second event data by determining participant scores based on the set of event instances.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAN CHOY whose telephone number is (571)270-7038. The examiner can normally be reached 5/4/9 compressed work schedule.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on 571-272-6787. 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.
/PAN G CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights