DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 15 are currently amended.
Claims 1-18 are currently pending and examined below.
Priority
The Examiner notes that the independent claims as currently amended contain subject matter that is not reasonable disclosed in the parent application (12/30/2014). Therefore, the claims are given priority to the filing date of the instant application (06/09/2023).
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 1-18 is/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 nature phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-18 is/are directed towards a statutory category (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (Step 1, Yes).
Step 2A Prong One:
Claim 1 recites (additional elements underlined):
An apparatus for dynamically optimizing digital communication campaigns, the apparatus comprising:
a processor;
a memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to:
receive, via a user interface, a campaign goal and a campaign strategy comprising content promotion and increasing content viewership, respectively;
receive campaign configuration parameters specifying at least one of a target audience segment, a campaign size, and metadata;
ingest engagement signals for the digital communication campaigns, including information about timing of recipient responses, duration of recipient interactions, and prior campaign outcomes;
store interaction data for each recipient as structured records in a database configured to organize the interaction data by engagement type and timing information;
execute a trained machine learning model, configured to determine, for each potential campaign interaction, a likelihood that the campaign interaction will be successful based on stored historical interaction data and the engagement signals;
construct a campaign queue in which potential campaign interactions are ordered based at least in part on the determined likelihoods;
render, via a graphical interface, editable campaign interactions with associated context information and editable tokens;
receive user modifications via an interface module bound to the structured campaign data;
update a state of the campaign queue in response to changes in the engagement signals; and
deploy approved interactions to intended recipients based on the determined likelihoods and the campaign configuration parameters.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations outlined above that describe or set forth the abstract idea, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s). That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified below, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed in the mind. These limitations are considered a mental process because the limitations include an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. These limitations are also similar to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” and/or “collecting and comparing known information” which were determined to be mental processes in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified above do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Therefore, the claim recite a mental process (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth an advertising/marketing activity. Advertising/marketing fall within the certain method of organizing human activity enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a fundamental economic principle or practice because advertising/marketing is related to commerce and economy, a commercial interaction (e.g., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations), and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., between advertisers and recipients). Therefore, the claim recites a certain method of organizing human activity (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
Step 2A Prong Two:
In Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) outlined above are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional element(s) amount adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) does not integrate the judicial exception similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. The Examiner notes that “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter" (see pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., in a computer environment). The courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, improves any other technology or technical field, applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, applies the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation (Step 2A Prong Two, No).
Step 2B:
In Step 2B, the additional elements also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong Two. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A Prong Two overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation (Step 2B, No).
Claims 2-6 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 1 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes).
Claim 2 recites the additional elements “dynamically” and “wherein the processor is further configured to”. Claim 3 recites the additional elements “wherein the processor is further configured to”, “via a graphical customization interface”, and “within the database”. Claim 4 recites the additional elements “wherein the apparatus includes”. Claim 5 recites the additional element “within the database”. Claim 6 recites the additional elements “via the graphical customization interface, the processor is configured to” and “storage”. However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 7 recites (additional elements underlined):
A method for creating and updating campaign interactions, the method comprising:
obtaining a campaign goal, the campaign goal specifying an objective that a digital communication campaign intends to achieve, wherein the goal comprises content promotion;
obtaining a campaign strategy specifying how to achieve the campaign goal, wherein the campaign strategy comprises increasing content viewership;
receiving and processing a set of campaign configuration parameters, the parameters specifying at least one of a target audience segment, a campaign size, or metadata;
analyzing engagement metrics, including timing of user responses, and historical campaign success rates;
selecting a campaign type based on the campaign goal and strategy, wherein the campaign type comprises a messaging campaign;
identifying intended recipients based on the audience segment;
storing structured historical interaction data for each recipient, the data comprising profile information, engagement history, behavioral metrics, and relationship indicators, in a structured database configured for predictive analysis;
executing a trained machine learning model to assign, for a candidate campaign interaction, a likelihood that the campaign interaction will be successful;
generating a campaign interaction based on the campaign type and configuration parameters, the campaign interaction corresponding to at least one intended recipient;
displaying the campaign interaction and associated context via a customization interface;
receiving user customization input and updating the campaign interaction accordingly, wherein updates are reflected in the structured database; and
deploying the campaign interaction when deployment conditions determined by the system are satisfied, the deployment conditions being based at least in part on the assigned likelihood for the campaign interaction.
For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 7 also recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One (i.e., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity). For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 7 also does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 8-14 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 7 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes).
Claims 8 and 13-14 recites the additional element “by the system”. Claim 11 recites the additional elements “trained”. Claim 12 recites the additional elements “via a graphical customization interface” and “by the system”. However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 9-10 do not recite any other additional elements. Therefore, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 7, claims 9-10 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 15 recites (additional elements underlined):
A system for building and optimizing a messaging campaign queue with contextualization, the system comprising:
an interactive display; and
one or more processors configured to:
obtain a campaign goal and a campaign strategy, the goal content promotion and the strategy comprising increasing content viewership;
receive campaign configuration parameters, specifying at least one of a target segment, a campaign size, or campaign metadata;
analyze engagement metrics, including timing of user interactions, and historical engagement success rates, to adjust campaign prioritization;
select a campaign type based on the campaign goal and the campaign type comprising a messaging campaign;
determine a set of intended recipients based on the specified target segment;
store structured interaction context data for each recipient, the data comprising profile attributes, behavioral history, and engagement information, in a structured database configured to support predictive modeling based on the stored data;
execute a machine learning model trained using historical interaction data to determine, for each candidate campaign interaction, a likelihood that the candidate campaign interaction will be successful;
create a campaign queue including a prioritized set of campaign interactions based at least in part on the determined likelihoods and the configuration parameters, each campaign interaction being linked to a specific intended recipient;
display, via the interactive display, the interaction context associated with each campaign interaction; and
receive customization input through the display and update one or more campaign interactions accordingly;
wherein the customization input is used to update the campaign queue or stored interaction data.
For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 15 also recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One (i.e., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity). For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 15 also does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 16-18 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 15 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes).
Claim 16 recites the additional element “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to”. Claim 18 recites the additional elements “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to”, “via the interactive display” and “in a structured database”. However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 17 does not recite any other additional elements. Therefore, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 15, claim 17 also does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Prior Art
The Examiner notes that after an exhaustive search on the claims as currently amended, the claims currently overcome prior art. While the prior art teach some of the elements of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have arrived at Applicant’s claimed invention unless one was using Applicant’s claims and specification as a roadmap, thus using impermissible hindsight. The closest prior art found to date are the following:
Law et al. (US 2016/0189238 A1) discloses a system for building a messaging campaign queue with contextualization includes a processor, an interactive display, and a memory module. The memory module includes stored computer-executable program code that, along with the memory module and the processor is configured to carry out a number of operations to create and customize a set of campaign interactions. One such operation involves creating a campaign queue based on a campaign type and a set of campaign parameters. The campaign queue includes a set of campaign interactions, each of which is associated with an intended recipient. Another such operation involves providing, via the interactive display, interaction context associated with the campaign interactions. An additional operation involves customizing the campaign interactions based on customization input received via the interactive display. However, Law et al. does not appear to explicitly teach ingesting engagement signals for the digital communication campaigns, including information about timing of recipient responses, duration of recipient interactions, and prior campaign outcomes; storing interaction data for each recipient as structured records in a database configured to organize the interaction data by engagement type and timing information; execute a trained machine learning model, configured to determine, for each potential campaign interaction, a likelihood that the campaign interaction will be successful based on stored historical interaction data and the engagement signals; construct a campaign queue in which potential campaign interactions are ordered based at least in part on the determined likelihoods; and receiving user modifications via an interface module bound to the structured campaign data in the context of the claims.
Goodsitt et al. (US 2021/0312502 A1) disclose a system and method for customizing an advertisement to be displayed on a web page accessed by a user. Goodsitt et al. also discloses the use of a machine learning model that uses historical interaction data for advertisement personalization. However, Goodsitt also does not appear to explicitly disclose the above limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Argument A: “At Step 2A, Prong One, the claims are not directed to a method of organizing human activity or to a mental process. The Examiner characterizes the claims as "creating and updating a marketing campaign queue," but that characterization omits the specific technical mechanisms now recited.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, the limitations that describe or set forth the abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One, describe or set forth a mental process and a certain method of organizing human activity. These limitations, which exclude the additional elements, can be practically performed in the human mind because they include an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. These limitations are also considered a certain method of organizing human activity because they describe or set forth advertising/marketing. Therefore, the claims do recite an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One.
Argument B: “Claims 7 and 15 recite corresponding method and system limitations. These are concrete data structures and control flows that define how the system processes interaction data. They are not generic "receive, store, and display" functions and cannot reasonably be performed in the human mind.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, “eligibility should not be evaluated based on whether the claim recites a ‘useful, concrete, and tangible result” (MPEP 2106(I)). Second, “both product and process claims may recite a ‘mental process’, the phrase ‘mental process’ should be understood as referring to the type of abstract idea, and not the statutory category of the claim. The courts have identified numerous product claims as reciting mental process-type abstract ideas” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Argument C: “At Step 2A, Prong Two, even if an abstract idea were implicated, the additional elements integrate any such idea into a practical application. The claims recite a particular arrangement of components that improves the operation of digital communication systems…. This arrangement reduces redeployment latency, enables scalable handling of large recipient sets, and permits adaptive behavior based on measured engagement. The claimed system is not a mere statement to "apply marketing on a computer," but a specific technical solution for how the platform manages and updates digital communications.”
Unlike in Bascom in which the particular arrangement of known elements provided a technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering content, here looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, improves any other technology or technical field, applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, applies the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. The claims at issue do not require any non-conventional computer, network or display components, or even a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known conventional pieces. The claims at issue merely call for the performance of the claimed invention on a set of generic computer components and display devices.
With regard to the argument that the claimed invention reduces latency, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification is completely silent with regard to the claimed invention reducing latency.
Argument D: “At Step 2B, the claims recite significantly more than well understood, routine, or conventional computer activity. The Examiner treats the processor, database, and model as generic components, but the inventive concept lies in how they are combined. The claims do not simply automate a human marketing practice. They require a structured database configured to organize interaction data by engagement type and timing, a trained machine learning model that determines likelihoods of success for candidate interactions from that data, and queue logic that reorders and deploys interactions based on those likelihoods and evolving engagement signals. That ordered combination is not conventional and produces a new behavior at the system level: dynamic, prediction-driven queue management for time-sensitive digital communications.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, improves any other technology or technical field, applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, applies the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
In Step 2B, the additional elements also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong Two. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A Prong Two overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
Argument E: “The Examiner further asserts that the claimed operations can be treated as a ‘business practice’ or ‘mental process.’ Respectfully, the claims as now amended cannot reasonably be performed in the human mind. A human operator cannot practically ingest and correlate large volumes of timing data, interaction histories, and outcome records across many recipients, train a machine learning model on that data, determine a likelihood of success for each candidate interaction, and continuously update a prioritized queue as engagement signals change, all without the claimed database and model infrastructure. These steps require machine execution and structured data storage. They fit the pattern of McRO, where the court held that claims were directed to a specific improvement in computer animation, not to an abstract idea, because the claimed rules and data structures enabled automation beyond human mental capacity.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the claims do not require large volumes of timing data, interaction histories, and outcome records across many recipients. Second, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, and amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
Third, unlike in McRO in which the claimed invention allowed computers to produce accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expression in animated characters that previously could only be performed by human animators which provided an improvement to an existing technological process, here looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improve any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. “It is the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that ‘improved [the] existing technological process’ by allowing the automation of further tasks” (see p. 24 of McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The specification fails to provide a teaching about how the claimed invention improves a computer or other technology, nor do the claims recite a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome defined by the claimed invention. The claims here merely use the computer as a tool instead of an improved computer capability.
Argument F: “The Examiner also maintains that there is "no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology," and that any improvement is merely a business improvement in marketing. Applicant respectfully disagrees. The claims improve the functioning of digital communication systems themselves. In conventional tools, campaign content and queues are typically static once deployed. Changing prioritization or targeting at scale requires manual reconfiguration and redeployment, which is costly and slow. Here, the claimed system uses a structured database configured to organize interaction data by engagement type and timing, together with a trained model that produces likelihood values for candidate interactions, and queue logic that updates ordering and deployment decisions when new engagement signals arrive. This arrangement reduces redeployment latency, increases scalability for high-volume campaigns, and allows the system to respond to changing user behavior in near real time. These are technical improvements in how the system processes and manages digital communications, not simply a change in a business rule. This is the type of improvement to computer operation recognized as patent-eligible in Visual Memory and BASCOM.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the specification is completely silent with regard to the claimed invention reducing latency. Second, “’claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer’ does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept” (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Third, unlike in Bascom in which the particular arrangement of known elements provided a technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering content, or the improvement to computer memory systems in Visual Memory, here looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, improves any other technology or technical field, applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, applies the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Argument G: “The system does not simply ‘do marketing faster.’ It ingests engagement signals as specific data types, organizes them in a particular way, applies a trained model to produce likelihood values, and then uses those values within defined deployment and update conditions to govern the state of the campaign queue. That ordered combination is not a conventional computing pattern for marketing. As in BASCOM, the inventive concept lies in the non- generic arrangement of known components to achieve a new technical behavior at the system level. The Examiner also states that the specification is ‘silent’ as to any technical improvement and that the asserted benefits are business benefits only. Applicant respectfully disagrees. The specification describes that the system collects timing, interaction history, engagement, and relationship data for recipients; uses that data to train predictive models; and uses model outputs to prioritize and adapt campaign interactions. The description explains that this architecture allows the platform to manage large volumes of interactions more effectively and to adapt campaigns based on measured user behavior. That is an improvement in how the system processes and manages digital communications. It is not limited to a change in a human marketing plan. Under DDR Holdings, an invention that solves a problem rooted in computer network technology remains eligible even if deployed in a commercial context. Here, the problem of dynamically managing time-sensitive digital interactions at scale is a technical problem arising from networked communications, not a generic business abstraction.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other task (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Second, similar to the claimed invention in SAP, the advance here lies entirely in the realm of the abstract idea (i.e., improvement to the advertising/marketing), with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm.
Third, the claims do not require large volumes of timing data, interaction histories, and outcome records across many recipients.
Fourth, unlike in DDR in which the claimed invention solved the business challenge of retaining website visitors that is particular to the Internet, here the claimed invention amounts to merely reciting the performance of a business practice along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet.
Argument H: “Finally, the Examiner suggests that, because many of the claimed operations involve "collecting and analyzing data," they fall within the mental-process line of cases cited in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). That analysis does not account for the full claim context. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly distinguished between claims that merely collect and display data, and claims that impose specific requirements on how data is structured and processed to produce a technical effect. In this case, the claims do not stop at data analysis. They require that interaction data be stored in structured records in a database configured for predictive modeling, that a trained model compute likelihoods for campaign interactions, that a campaign queue be built and updated based on those likelihoods and changing engagement signals, and that deployment decisions be made according to system-determined conditions. Those steps define a particular way of using data and machine learning to control a digital communication workflow. That is a practical application of any alleged abstract concept under MPEP §2106.05 and Step 2A, Prong Two.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, all of the limitations of the claims have been addressed as can be seen from the rejection above. Second, storing interaction data in structured records is part of the abstract idea. Third, the claimed machine learning model is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to adding the words “apply it”. “[P]atents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101” (p. 18 of Recentive Analytics Inc. v. Fox Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2025)). Therefore, the claims still do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAM REFAI whose telephone number is (313)446-4822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
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.
/SAM REFAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621