DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submission filed on 12/16/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This is in reply to the claim amendments and remarks of the RCE filed 12/16/2025.
Claims 1, 15, 23, and 26-27 have been amended.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 15, and 18-29 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/16/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
The previously pending 35 USC 112a rejections are withdrawn in response to Applicant’s response.
Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered, but do not overcome the previously pending 35 USC 101 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner does agree these claims cannot be performed in the human mind, but are still directed towards the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity. See response below.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1-3, 5-7, 15, and 18-29, Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 USC 101 because the pending claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner has already set forth a prima facie case under 35 USC 101. The Examiner has clearly pointed out the limitations directed towards the abstract idea, what the additional elements are and why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and why the additional elements and remaining limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The Examiner further asserts that analyzing how humans interact to directed content (e.g. advertisements) is an abstract idea as shown. The Examiner points to Page 2 of the McRO-Bascom Memo from December 2016, "The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation "that improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process." The Applicants’ claims are geared toward analyzing location data of sets of users with conversion times to determine baseline and real conversion rates to provide output on impact of directed content and degree of influence of other users, where these techniques are merely being applied/calculated in a computing environment. Simply applying these known concepts to a specific technical environment (e.g. the computers/Internet) does not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because it does not solve a problem rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the functioning of the computer itself because it is merely making a determination based on rules and/or mathematical relationships to output to a user. The Applicant’s claimed limitations do not appear to bring about any improvement in the operation or functioning of a computer per se, or to improve computer-related technology by allowing computer performance of a function not previously performable by a computer (see page 2 of the McRo-Bascom memo). The solution appears to be more of a business-driven solution rather than a technical one. In addition, McRO had no evidence that the process previously used by animators is the same as the process required by the claims. The Applicant’s claimed limitations and originally filed specification provide no evidence that the claimed process/functions are any different than what would be done without a computer, where there are no adjustments to the mental process to accommodate implementation by computers. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner further asserts the claimed first, second, and third computing device are general purpose computers, where having the third computing device collect data from the first and second to run analysis is generically just not sharing certain data between the first and second computing device, such as keeping the first and second computer inaccessible by each other. Receiving, transmitting, and storing data on a general purpose computer amounts to insignificant extra solution and merely adds the words apply it with the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106). Generic use of general purpose computers to implement the abstract idea does not make the claims eligible. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner further asserts that presenting data for a human to interpret does not improve the technology, but rather further narrows the abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 1-3, 5-7, 15, and 18-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In the instant case (Step 1), claims 1-3, 5-7, 15, and 18-29 are directed toward a process and a system; which are statutory categories of invention.
Additionally (Step 2A Prong One), the independent claims 1, 15, and 27 are directed toward a method comprising: receiving, by a third computing device from a first computing device through a data communication network, location data corresponding to a first set of users being at a location as having been captured by a geographical location sensor in the first computing device located at the location, first timestamps corresponding to the location data, and a first set of indications that each correspond to a respective user from the first set of users; receiving, by the third computing device from a second computing device through the data communication network, a second set of indications corresponding to a second set of users, and second timestamps corresponding to when respective users of the second set of users have received directed content, wherein the directed content elicits respective recipients of the directed content to be at the location, and the first computing device, the second computing device, and the third computing device are distinct from one another, and the first timestamps comprises a first time that is subsequent to a second time as described by at least a part of the second timestamps; creating, by the third computing device, based on the first set of indications received from the first computing device and the second set of indications received from the second computing device, a third set of users, wherein the third set of users represents a matched subset of users who are in both of the first set of users and the second set of users, thereby enabling the third computing device to create the third set of users without direct sharing of the first set of users at the location by the first computing device with the second computing device and direct sharing of the second set of users about the directed content by the second computing device with the first computing device and the second computing device, thereby protecting privacy of the first set of users and the second set of users by maintaining the first computing device and the second computing device inaccessible with each other; calculating, by the third computing device, based on the first timestamps and the second timestamps, a real conversion rate for the matched subset of users, wherein the real conversion rate indicates a number of instances of a user who has received the directed content is at the location as elicited by the directed content; determining, by the third computing device, based on a predetermined baseline conversion rate and the real conversion rate, an impact of the directed content, wherein the predetermined baseline conversion rate describes a predetermined number of instances when a baseline user who has not received the directed content and is at the location, and the impact of the directed content indicates a degree of influencing users by the directed content to be at the location; and presenting the impact of the directed content (Organizing Human Activity), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See MPEP 2106). The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims are directed toward the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are analyzing location data of sets of users with conversion times to determine baseline and real conversion rates to provide output on impact of directed content and degree of influence of other users, which is managing how humans interact for commercial purposes (e.g. advertising).
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, 18-26, and 28-29 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, where any additional elements introduced are discussed below.
Step 2A Prong Two: In this application, even if not directed toward the abstract idea, the independent claims additionally recite “by a third computing device from a first computing device through a data communication network, by a geographical location sensor in the first computing device located at the location, by the third computing device from a second computing device through the data communication network, the first computing device, the second computing device, and the third computing device are distinct from one another, by the third computing device, from the first computing device; from the second computing device, enabling the third computing device to; by the first computing device with the second computing device; by the second computing device with the first computing device and the second computing device, by maintaining the first computing device and the second computing device inaccessible with each other, by the third computing device (claims 1, 15, and 27)” and “system comprising: a processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to perform a set of operations, the set of operations comprising (claim 27)”, which are additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106) and are recited at such a high level of generality. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computer or other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology.
In addition, dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, 18-26, and 28-29 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 5-6, 23, 26, and 28 additionally recite a “plurality of first computing devices (claim 5); plurality of second computing devices (claim 6); a machine learning model (claims 23 and 26); wherein the first computing device, the second computing device, and the memory are all remote from each other (claim 28)” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106).
The Examiner further notes the claimed machine learning in claims 23 and 26 merely ads the words apply it with the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106), because the machine learning is recited at such a high level of generality that the claims only generically recite use of machine learning.
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106). Further, method and system independent claims 1, 15, and 27 recite “by a third computing device from a first computing device through a data communication network, by a geographical location sensor in the first computing device located at the location, by the third computing device from a second computing device through the data communication network, the first computing device, the second computing device, and the third computing device are distinct from one another, by the third computing device, from the first computing device; from the second computing device, enabling the third computing device to; by the first computing device with the second computing device; by the second computing device with the first computing device and the second computing device, by maintaining the first computing device and the second computing device inaccessible with each other, by the third computing device (claims 1, 15, and 27)” and “system comprising: a processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to perform a set of operations, the set of operations comprising (claim 27)”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0083-0087 and Figures 1 and 8. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 2-3, 5-7, 18-26, and 28-29 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 5-6, 23, 26, and 28 additionally recite a “plurality of first computing devices (claim 5); plurality of second computing devices (claim 6); a machine learning model (claims 23 and 26); wherein the first computing device, the second computing device, and the memory are all remote from each other (claim 28)” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable over 35 USC 103
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 15, and 18-29 are allowable over the prior art, but remain rejected under §101 for the reasons set forth above. Independent claims 1, 15, and 27 disclose a system and method for analyzing location data of sets of users with conversion times to determine baseline and real conversion rates to provide output on impact of directed content and degree of influence of other users.
Regarding a possible 103 rejection: The closest prior art of record is:
Iyer et al. (US 2021/0103953 A1) – which discloses conversion score determination for trending and non-trending content.
Shim et al. (US 2016/0048869 A1) – which discloses attributing in store visits to media consumption based on data collected from user devices.
The prior art of record neither teaches nor suggests all particulars of the limitations as recited in claims 1, 15, and 27, such as analyzing location data of sets of users with conversion times to determine baseline and real conversion rates to provide output on impact of directed content and degree of influence of other users. While individual features may be known per se, there is no teaching or suggestion absent applicants’ own disclosure to combine these features other than with impermissible hindsight and the combination/arrangement of features are not found in analogous art. Specifically the claimed “a method comprising: receiving, by a third computing device from a first computing device through a data communication network, location data corresponding to a first set of users being at a location as having been captured by a geographical location sensor in the first computing device located at the location, first timestamps corresponding to the location data, and a first set of indications that each correspond to a respective user from the first set of users; receiving, by the third computing device from a second computing device through the data communication network, a second set of indications corresponding to a second set of users, and second timestamps corresponding to when respective users of the second set of users have received directed content, wherein the directed content elicits respective recipients of the directed content to be at the location, and the first computing device, the second computing device, and the third computing device are distinct from one another, and the first timestamps comprises a first time that is subsequent to a second time as described by at least a part of the second timestamps; creating, by the third computing device, based on the first set of indications received from the first computing device and the second set of indications received from the second computing device, a third set of users, wherein the third set of users represents a matched subset of users who are in both of the first set of users and the second set of users, thereby enabling the third computing device to create the third set of users without direct sharing of the first set of users at the location by the first computing device with the second computing device and direct sharing of the second set of users about the directed content by the second computing device with the first computing device and the second computing device, thereby protecting privacy of the first set of users and the second set of users by maintaining the first computing device and the second computing device inaccessible with each other; calculating, by the third computing device, based on the first timestamps and the second timestamps, a real conversion rate for the matched subset of users, wherein the real conversion rate indicates a number of instances of a user who has received the directed content is at the location as elicited by the directed content; determining, by the third computing device, based on a predetermined baseline conversion rate and the real conversion rate, an impact of the directed content, wherein the predetermined baseline conversion rate describes a predetermined number of instances when a baseline user who has not received the directed content and is at the location, and the impact of the directed content indicates a degree of influencing users by the directed content to be at the location; and presenting the impact of the directed content (as required by independent claims 1, 15, and 27)”, thus rendering claims 1, 15, 27 and their dependent claims as allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892 and should be taken into account / considered by the Applicant upon reviewing this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-0504. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRIAN EPSTEIN can be reached on (571)-270-5389. 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.
/MATTHEW D HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights