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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/22/25 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This office action is submitted in response to the RCE filed on 8/22/25.
Examiner notes Applicant’s foreign priority date of 4/15/22, which stems from 2022-067434.
Examiner further notes the previous withdrawal of prior art on 5/22/25.
Claims 2-3, 8, 10, and 12 have been cancelled.
Claims 1 and 9 have been amended.
Therefore, claims 1, 4-7, 9, and 11 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 .
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, 9, and 11 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.
Independent claim 1, in part, describes an invention comprising: analyzing an ad campaign to determine a meaning of the promotional content; acquiring information related to a target recipient of the ad campaign; acquiring information related to a service to be supplied to the target recipient; further analyzing the ad campaign by using syntactic analysis or NLP to derive generalized characteristics of a targeted recipient of the ad; obtaining generalized ad campaign information including derived elements related to a target recipient; categorizing stored attributes of profile information; extracting a plurality of recipient characteristics for each of the categorized attributes; generating recipient information that indicates the extracted characteristics of the recipient; determining a first model target recipient for the ad campaign based on the generalized element(s) that were extracted from the ad campaign; determining a second model target recipient based on the recipient information; determining one or more of the second target models to a target model of the ad campaign; and analyzing the campaign results. As such, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of targeting ads to users based on the collection and analysis of user information and ad campaign information, which, pursuant to MPEP 2106.04(a), is aptly categorized as a method of organizing human activity (i.e., advertising and marketing activities). Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Next, the aforementioned claims recite additional elements that include: acquiring ad campaign data via a communication device; storing ad campaign information and recipient profile information; acquiring recipient attribute and action history information, storing the recipient attribute and action history information, and receiving ad campaign results. Examiner understands these limitations to be insignificant extrasolution activity. (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Cf. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-192 (1981) ("[I]nsignificant post-solution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle in to a patentable process.”).
The aforementioned independent claim further recites the use of a “learning-based target model deriving algorithm” to derive a plurality of target recipients. Claim 1 also describe a process for training the target models, and using the models to obtain an updated target model (user) of the ad campaign. These limitations generally recite the use of machine learning to create a model that serves as the basis for determining a plurality of users to target in an ad campaign. It also amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The aforementioned claims also recite additional elements including a “communication device” for transmitting data, a “storage device” for storing data, a “processor” to analyze the data, a “supplier apparatus” for providing the ad campaign data, and a “recipient apparatus” for providing user information to the system. Dependent claim 6 further discloses the aforementioned recipient apparatus, supplier apparatus, communication device, and processor. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and appear to be nothing more than generic computer components. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 134 S. Ct. at 2389, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Furthermore, looking at the elements individually and in combination, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they fail to: improve the functioning of a computer or a technical field, apply the judicial exception in the treatment or prophylaxis of a disease, apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Rather, the claims merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s), and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (e.g., generic computers connected to a network).
Next, under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Simply put, as noted above, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer (or any other technology), and their collective functions merely utilize generic computer implementation.
Additionally, pursuant to the requirement under Berkheimer, the following citations are provided to demonstrate that the additional elements, identified as extra-solution activity, amount to activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
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); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
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; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); 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).
Thus, taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea), and are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 4-5, 7, 9, and 11 are dependent on the aforementioned independent claims, and include all the limitations contained therein. These claims do not recite any additional technical elements, and simply disclose additional limitations that further limit the abstract idea with details regarding target model traits, determining a time period for the targeted ad campaign, generalizing data from multiple sources, anonymizing the recipient information, and determining a time when the ads are to be sent to the user. Thus, the dependent claims merely provide additional non-structural details that fail to meaningfully limit the claims or the abstract idea(s).
Therefore, claims 1, 4-7, and 9-12 are not drawn to eligible subject matter, as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Relevant Prior Art
The following references are noted to be relevant to Applicant’s disclosures:
Ma et al. (20160027048), directed to a method for targeting ads to a recommended audience.
Gratz et al. (11687973), directed to a method for cross-application targeted advertising.
Ramer et al. (20110015994), directed to a method for managing sponsored content based on usage history.
Bao et al. (20230068465), directed to a method for automating customer targeting algorithms that are optimized to maximize commercial value.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the sufficiency of the arguments under 35 USC 101 remain unpersuasive.
First, Applicant argues that the claims are not directed an abstract idea because they describe instances of training learning-based target models. Examiner notes that these features are additional elements that are considered independently of the abstract idea. In this case, the invention is clearly directed to a method of targeted advertising.
Next, Applicant argues that the claims recite significantly more under Step 2B due to the aforementioned machine learning techniques. Examiner disagrees. Rather, the invention discloses a number of results-based limitations that are construed as high-level “apply it” features. Contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the invention merely selects a pre-existing ML model that receives data input, analyzes the data, and provides results of the analysis in order to generate more effective targets.
Next, Applicant’s arguments that these features provide a technical solution to a technical problem are unpersuasive. Indeed, the background of the invention discusses the need for more relevant content. This is hardly a technical problem. Rather, the claims disclose a business improvement rather than an improvement to a technological or technical field. Furthermore, Applicant has not provided any evidence that the programming related to their “solution” would entail anything atypical from conventional programming. And, as the Federal Circuit clearly stated, “after Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Furthermore, there is no indication in the specification that any technologically novel or inventive hardware is required to perform the method. See Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Enfish, 822 F.3d. at 1336 (focusing on whether the claim is “an improvement to [the] computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity”). Simply put, “relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.” OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359); see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d at 1367 (“claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer [does not] provide a sufficient inventive concept”). Thus, in sum, “the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.” Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354.
Next, Applicant argues that the features of the claims are not “well-understood, routine, or previously known.” This represents an incorrect analysis of the claims. Rather, the Examiner is tasked with determining if the additional elements, individually and in combination, disclose features that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. As noted above, Examiner stated that some of the additional elements (such as transmitting and storing data) constituted extra-solution activity. This was substantiated by the Berkheimer analysis that followed. The other elements (such as the processor, communication device, storage device, etc.) were determined to be recited at a high level of generality, and are nothing more than generic computer components. This is further evidenced in paragraphs 19, 25, and 112-113 of Applicant’s specification, which describes generic features such as a CPU, RAM, ROM, PCs, smartphones, tablets, notebooks, etc.
Finally, whether or not the features of the claims were “previously known” represents an improper conflation of novelty and eligibility. The Supreme Court emphasizes: “[t]he ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188— 89 (1981) (emphasis added). The Federal Circuit further guides that “eligibility and novelty are separate inquiries.” Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that “even assuming” that a particular claimed feature was novel does not “avoid the problem of abstractness”). Even assuming arguendo that the claimed method is “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” which Examiner does not concede, it is not enough for eligibility. Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Therefore, for at least these reasons, the rejection under 35 USC 101 is sustained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BUSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-7953. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER C BUSCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3621
/WASEEM ASHRAF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3621