DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on 8 October 2025.
Claims 1 – 4, 7 – 13, and 16 – 18 are presented for examination.
The following is a FINAL office action upon examination of application number 18/156957. Claims 1 – 4, 7 – 13, and 16 – 18 are pending in the application and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
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 .
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 8 October 2025, Applicant amended claims 1 and 10. Applicant previously cancelled claims 5 – 6, 14 – 15, and 19 – 27.
Amendments to claims 1 and 10 are insufficient to overcome the 35 USC § 101 rejection. Therefore, the 35 USC § 101 rejection of claims 1 – 4, 7 – 13, and 16 – 18 is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, Applicant argues that claims are not directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The reference to Ex Parte Desjardins guidance from the USPTO director is appreciated, but not relevant to Applicant’s claims. Desjardins refers to artificial intelligence claims, which have no connection to Applicant’s claims that do not require artificial intelligence in any manner. Regardless, Applicant’s arguments that their claims address technical models by executing and re-executing a model has no connection to artificial intelligence other than both involve mathematical models. There may be some benefit to variables for a field that considers stimuli, but that is not a particular technical field. Stating that this can apply in any field shows that it is an effort to monopolize the exception, the abstract idea, without imposing a meaningful limit. Applicant has no support in their disclosure for a mold or heaters such as in Diamond v. Diehr. The reminder to Office personnel that Applicant points to for TC 3600 does not mean that any technology or technical field must be considered when not disclosed. It means that computer technology or any other technology/technical field that actually has claims in a particular application. Applicant’s specification describes features that the Applicant argues are complex and improving accuracy of estimating coefficients. However, these are not improvements to a technology or technical field. Purported efficiency improvements are not describing technology improvement but an improvement to abstract functionality. Applicant is claiming and disclosing stimuli for a marketing endeavor, which is a business field and not a technology field. Examiner maintains that the 35 USC 101 is proper.
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, 7 – 13, and 16 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims recite obtain total activity data structures from a database corresponding to a measured quantity of stimuli, execute a model to transform the total activity data structures to a total contributory effect, based on a decay rate and a saturation factor corresponding to the quantity of stimuli, exclude a first stimulus data structure from the quantity of stimuli to generate first activity data, re-execute the same model based on the first activity data to transform the first activity data to a first contributory effect based on a decay rate and a saturation factor corresponding to the quantity of stimuli without the first stimulus data structure, exclude a second stimulus data structure from the quantity of stimuli to generate second activity data, the second activity data associated with the first stimulus data structure, re-execute the same model based on the second activity data to transform the second activity data to a second contributory effect based on a decay rate and saturation factor corresponding to the quantity of stimuli without the second stimulus data structure, trigger generation of a revised stimuli data structure combination excluding at least the first stimulus data structure or the second stimulus data structure based on the first contributory effect and the second contributory effect, and apply the revised stimuli data structure combination to at least one object. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance section 2106 of the MPEP (hereinafter, MPEP 2106).
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the apparatus, the machine readable storage medium, and the method are directed to an eligible categories of subject matter. Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A prong 1 of MPEP 2106, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting concepts of mathematical modeling, which falls into the “mental processes” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106, as the functions can be performed mentally. Excluding data sets and starting a modeling process are just interactions with data. They do not need technology to be completed. The limitations reciting the abstract idea in independent claims are obtain total activity data structures from a database corresponding to a measured quantity of stimuli, execute a model to transform the total activity data structures to a total contributory effect, based on a decay rate and a saturation factor corresponding to the quantity of stimuli, exclude a first stimulus data structure from the quantity of stimuli to generate first activity data, re-execute the same model based on the first activity data to transform the first activity data to a first contributory effect based on a decay rate and a saturation factor corresponding to the quantity of stimuli without the first stimulus data structure, exclude a second stimulus data structure from the quantity of stimuli to generate second activity data, the second activity data associated with the first stimulus data structure, re-execute the same model based on the second activity data to transform the second activity data to a second contributory effect based on a decay rate and saturation factor corresponding to the quantity of stimuli without the second stimulus data structure, trigger generation of a revised stimuli data structure combination excluding at least the first stimulus data structure or the second stimulus data structure based on the first contributory effect and the second contributory effect, and apply the revised stimuli data structure combination to at least one object.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the MPEP 2106, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to interface circuitry, machine readable instructions, processor circuit, and non-transitory machine readable storage medium to implement the abstract idea. However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are directed to the use of generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the MPEP 2106) and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application. This is further evidenced by the method claims not utilizing any technology at all.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are directed to: interface circuitry, machine readable instructions, processor circuit, and non-transitory machine readable storage medium. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment, though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, and it is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of data corresponding to marketing activity, rates of return, and performance metrics, by way of example, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 AMANDA GURSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7am to 5pm EST.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 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.
/AMANDA GURSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625