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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reference to the communication filed on 10 FEB 2026.
No amendments have been entered.
As such claims 1, 4-11, 14-24 are pending and examined.
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, 4-11, 14-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As explained below, the claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step One: Is the Claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? YES
With regard to claims 1, 4-11, 14-20, the independent claims (1, 11, 21) recite a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? YES
With respect to claims 1-20 the independent claims (claims 1, 11, 21) are directed, in part, to “a campaign management system, access an interface, identify a target segment population for the customized campaign based on rules related to attributes, receive a list of members of the target segment…; select parameters of the customized campaign; based on the selected parameters, receive campaign correspondence; and launch the customized campaign including receiving a second list…; translating rules received…; periodically and automatically updating execute a plurality of target populations, each target population comprising a plurality of targets having a plurality of attributes to capture changes, periodically storing and auditing data… in a worker table and a child table…; storing in an audit table, on a per rule, per dynamic target segment, per campaign bases, a count of members included in the worker table and omitted from the child table for each exclusion criterion, as a result of application of the rules to the worker table, wherein the count is a number; generate segment creation input for the customized campaign, a rule sub window including a set of rules for segmenting the target population, and a list of review results; send user input to the campaign…which is translated into a query; update the worker table, the child table, and the audit table in response to the…query, generate…a list of criteria for the customized campaign including target criteria and exclusionary criteria, a count of the target population that satisfy each of the target criteria for the customized campaign and a count of the target population excluded based on the exclusionary criteria; and forward the campaign correspondence to the current members of the dynamic target segment population.” These claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which include commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). Launching a customized, targeted campaign is categorically an act of advertising, marketing, and/or sales activities. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial and legal interactions, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional element – claim 1 recites a processing device, program code stored in nonvolatile storage, a graphic user interface, and campaign server, to perform the claim steps, with claim 11 reciting only a graphic user interface, and campaign server, and claim 21 reciting a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executed on one or more processors.
The processing device/memory in claim 1, as well as the non-transitory CRM in claim 21 are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function sending/receiving) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to “apply it” to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05f), or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use/computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05h). Similarly, the graphic interface, including the “segment window” and “segment creation input fields” and campaign server are at best recited as “apply it” to the abstract idea(s) identified, or generally linking that a user interface is used and information is sent/received from a campaign server. Displaying data on an interface is at best extra solution activity – see MPEP 2106.05g. Examiner finds no improvement to the functioning of the computer(s) or any other technology or technical field in the elements identified above as claimed (see MPEP 2106.05a), nor any other application or use of the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond a general like between the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05e).Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO.
The independent claims are additionally directed to claim elements such as processing device, program code stored in non-volatile storage, in claim 1, the non-transitory computer readable medium in claim 21, and the overlapping elements of claims 1, 11, 21 including a graphic user interface, and campaign server, to perform the claim steps. When considered individually, the “processing device and program code,” the “non-transitory computer readable medium” as well as the overlapping interface, and server claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in [043] “Accordingly, a campaign server which provides a significant benefit over the prior art has been shown and described. The campaign server includes a straightforward GUI which facilitates the entry…”; with regard to figure 2, the server is described solely in functional terms – i.e. the definition of “apply it” to the technological environment. As noted, displaying information in a GUI is extra solution activity, and Examiner further does not even find mention of any sort of processing device beyond reference to user workstation 102 shown as a personal computer. For example, at [0049] “Various embodiments also relate to apparatus or systems for performing these operations. This apparatus may be specially constructed for the required purpose or it may comprise a general-purpose computer as selectively activated or reconfigured by a computer program stored in the computer. The procedures presented herein are not inherently related to a particular computer or other apparatus. Various general-purpose machines may be used with programs written in accordance with the teachings herein…” Examiner further notes that the only discussion for the CRM in the specification would be in the form of the aforementioned general purpose computer, and as such, no improvement is found.
These passages, as well as others, makes it clear that the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
As per the dependent claims:
Dependent claims 10, do not recite any additional abstract ideas, however, they do recite non-abstract elements such as a data store and the use of database queries. Both the data store and database queries are insufficient to amount to a practical application, as they both recite an “application” or general link to the technology recited and the abstract idea, rather than any sort of improvement or meaningful way. Similarly, no finding of significantly more is appropriate for these elements as there is no finding that a use or application beyond was is well understood, routine and conventional is found.
Dependent claims 4-9, 14-24 are not directed any additional abstract ideas and are also not directed to any additional non-abstract claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as means of creating segmenting and executing a targeted campaign, including means of filtering and grouping recipients, permissions, and the use of templates. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks as filed on 10 FEB 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s remarks begin on page 10, with a general statement regarding the claimed invention.
Applicant also summarizes the graphical user interface as recently amended on page 11, including the updated feature of the review results link as clarified above.
On page 11, Applicant asserts a solution to a technical problem in the form of capturing large amounts of data. Examiner reiterates that the “problem” being solved is that of campaign parameters/rules, and while the solution presented is technical, the “problem” itself is not. Further on page 11 Applicant reiterates the “problem” being technical in the field of data processing, again, Examiner maintains that the solution presented is technical but the problem itself is not.
Applicant makes reference to figure 6 on page 11, however the interface is not per se being improved by elements Applicant alleges, i.e. the per rule, per segment visuals. The data structures mentioned on page 12 are also not being improved in any meaningful way. The presence of an “audit table and the graphical user interface” do not appear to place meaningful limitations on the claimed invention as argued on page 12.
Further on page 12 Applicant references “amended” independent claims 1, 11, 21, however, neither the claims filed on 10 FEB 2026 nor the summary on page 10 of the remarks indicate amendments.
Applicant’s remaining remarks are found unpersuasive in view of the discussion above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5920. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached on 571-270-1813. 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.
/KATHERINE . KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/KATHERINE KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687