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 .
Response to Amendment
This Action is in response to the Amendment filed December 2, 2025. Claims 1, 4-7, 9-16 and 19-20 have been amended. Claim 8 is cancelled. Claims 1, 4-7, 9-16 and 19-25 are pending. Claim 21 is withdrawn. Claims 1, 4-16, 19-20 and 22-25 have been examined in this application.
Claim Objections
Claims 16 and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 16, “first user account is associated a virtual electronic communication device” should be “first user account is associated with a virtual electronic communication device”
In claims 19-20, “an electronic electronic messaging campaign” should be “an electronic messaging campaign”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-7 16, 19-20 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 1 the limitation “upon determining that the first user account is associated with the physical device identify a SMS number associated with the physical device; identify a response to the communication; send the response to the first user account; and track the communication and response in the database,” is not support by the original disclosure. The specification states that “a second user account of the user accounts may be provided where: its email account is associated with an actual user; its device contact number is an SMS number associated with the actual user; and its device is a physical device” [0006] and that the “system may further: receive a communication sent from the first user account to the system; identify a response to the communication; send the response to the first user account; and track the communication and response in the database” [0007]. This does not describe that identifying a response to the communication; sending the response to the first user account; and tracking the communication and response in the database is based on determining that the first user account is associated with a physical device. The claims draftsman has conflated two separate notions. Accordingly, the limitation constitutes impermissible new matter. Claims 4-7 and 9-15 by being dependents of claim 1 are also rejected.
In claim 16 the limitation “determine whether an order status with the first user account for the campaign is an incomplete order and whether privileges of the first user account violate any restrictions of the first messaging campaign, and then upon determining that the first user account is associated a virtual electronic communication device identify a SMS number associated with the virtual account; upon determining that the order status is an incomplete order identify a response providing an order inquiry to the first user account to the communication; send the response to the first user account; track the communication and response in the database,” is not support by the original disclosure. The specification states that “email account is selected from a reserved set of email accounts from a list of virtual email accounts; its SMS number is selected from a reserved set of SMS numbers from a list of virtual SMS numbers; and its device is a virtual electronic device” [0040] and that for “incomplete and complete orders, platform 102 will track response messages and their timing for each scenario, which may highlight gaps or deficiencies in the campaign for both successful and abandoned orders” [0071]. This does not describe that a SMS number associated with the virtual account is identified based on the first user account being associated with a virtual communication device. The specification, also does not describe that identifying a response to the communication; sending the response to the first user account; and tracking the communication and response in the database is based on determining that the order status is an incomplete order. The claims draftsman has conflated two separate notions. Accordingly, the limitation constitutes impermissible new matter. Claims 19-20 and 22-25 by being dependents of claim 16 are also rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-7 16, 19-20 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the physical device.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claims 4-7, 9-15 by being dependents of claims 1 are also rejected.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the physical electronic communication device.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. Claims 4-7, 9-15 by being dependents of claims 1 are also rejected.
Claims 1 and 16 recite the limitation “upon determining that a contravening user account contravenes the restriction criteria, providing a message to the contravening user account indicating that the restriction criteria are is contravened for the order.” The claims do not positively recite determining a contravening user account contravenes restriction criteria. As such the claim is missing a step showing that the contravening user account has been determined. Claims 4-7, 9-15 and 19-25 by being dependents of claims 1 and 16 respectively are also rejected.
Claims 13 and 14 recite the limitation “The communications analysis system as claimed in claim 8.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claims. Claim 15 by being dependent of claim 14 is also rejected. For examination purposes Examiner has interpreted “as claimed in claim 8” to mean as claimed in claim 1.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “and then upon determining that the first user account is associated [sic] a virtual electronic communication device.” The claim does not positively recite a determination associating a user account with a virtual electronic communication device. As such the claim is missing a step showing that a user account associated with a virtual electronic communication device has been determined. Claims 19-20 and 22-25 by being dependents of claim 16 are also rejected.
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, 9-16, 19-20 and 22-25 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.
Specifically, claims 1, 4-16 and 19-20 are directed toward at least one abstract idea without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP 2106, the rationale for this determination is explained below:
Representative claim 1 is directed towards a system, which is a statutory category of invention.
Although, claim 1 is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim, however, is directed towards an abstract idea. The limitations that recite the abstract ideas are: manage a messaging campaign and users receiving messages in the campaign; manage user accounts relating to the users to be exposed to a first messaging campaign of the messaging campaign, the user accounts of the messaging campaign including user details, email accounts and device contact numbers; for the first messaging campaign track the email accounts for email messages received relating to the first messaging campaign; analyze the user accounts of the email accounts against criteria associated with the first messaging campaign; upon determining that a contravening user account contravenes the restriction criteria, providing a message to the contravening user account indicating that the restriction criteria are contravened for the order; track the device contact numbers for messages received relating to the first messaging campaign; and analyze the user accounts of the messages received against parameters associated with the first messaging campaign; identify a response message to be sent to a target user account when a message received from the user account matches a criteria; send the response message to the target user account; receive a communication sent from a first user account of the user accounts; determine whether the first user account is associated with a physical device; and upon determining that the first user account is associated with the physical device identify a SMS number associated with the physical device; identify a response to the communication; send the response to the first user account; and track the communication and response; and associate the user accounts with a second messaging campaign; track the email accounts for email messages received relating to the second messaging campaign; analyze the users accounts of the email accounts against parameters associated with the second messaging campaign; track the SMS numbers for SMS messages received relating to the second messaging campaign; analyze the user accounts of the SMS messages received against parameters associated with the second messaging campaign; and generate data relating to performance criteria for the first and second messaging campaigns. These limitations, describe commercial interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations; as well as managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions. And are thus, directed towards the abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements provided by the claim as a whole are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to generally instructions to “apply” the abstract idea in a computer environment. In particular the claim recites the additional element referring to: a processor executing instructions that, electronic messages; the processor further executing instructions that, in the database; the processor further executing campaign restriction analysis instructions that; the processor further executing criteria matching analysis instructions that, electronic message the processor further executing instructions that, to the system, in the database; the processor further executing response message instructions that; the processor further executing SMS tracking analysis instructions to complement responses with the physical electronic communication devices that, which are recited at a high level of generality and are merely the use of a computer as a tool to apply/perform the abstract idea and instructions to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Simply using generic computer components to apply the abstract idea is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation amounts to merely applying the abstract idea on a computer. Viewing the limitations individually, the processor, database, electronic message, virtual email, virtual contact numbers, virtual electronic device do not constitute significantly more because they simply are an effort to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment1. Viewing the limitations as a combination, the claims merely instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with a high-level of generality executing basic computer functions. Merely applying an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See at least, TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept). Therefore, the limitations of the claim as a whole, when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
A review of dependent claims 4-7, 9-15, likewise, do not recite any limitations that would remedy the deficiencies outlined above as they do not add any elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more. While they may slightly narrow the abstract idea by further describing it, they do not make it less abstract and are rejected accordingly. Further still, claims 16, 19-20, 22-25 suffer from substantially the same deficiencies as outlined with respect to claims 1, 4-7, 9-15 and are also rejected accordingly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection have been fully considered and the rejections have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Applicant’s amendments of claims 1, 13-14 and 16.
Applicant's other filed arguments have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive.
A. Applicant submits regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that claim 1 as presented is not abstract, as it specifies a specific means or method for producing that result, namely providing a specific communication response to a specific event on an online ordering platform, namely the non- completion of an order and tracking of that order. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to abstract ideas grouped under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because they set forth a messaging campaign, which set forth commercial interactions, including advertising, sales activities, business relations, and managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions (managing, tracking analyzing account related to user participating in a messaging/advertising campaign). Whereas, additionally the limitations that identify and analyze email/user accounts can also be grouped under Mental Processes. Implementing the abstract ideas via computer components does not provide additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract ideas into a patent-eligible application. See at least, TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea”). Moreover, specifying a specific means or method for providing a specific communication response to non-completion of an order and tracking of that order, does not automatically render it patent eligible. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 599–601 (2010) (concluding that claims fell outside § 101 notwithstanding the fact that they disclosed a very specific method of hedging against price increases); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 593 (1978) (rejecting the argument “that if a process application implements a principle in some specific fashion, it automatically falls within the patentable subject matter of § 101”); and Alice v. CLS Bank, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358–60 (2014) (claims fell outside of 35 U.S.C. 101 even though they described a very specific method for conducting intermediated settlement).
Applicant contends that the claims do not entail managing personal behavior because a human cannot act as a virtual electronic device that instantaneously provisions a unique SMS number from a reserved set to create a discrete, machine-readable signal path for a single incomplete order. However, Applicant misconstrues the extent of the abstract idea, as it also includes managing, tracking and analyzing accounts related to users participating in the messaging/advertising campaign, to the extent that the claims check to see if the user is following rules or instruction, i.e., whether they are contravening restriction criteria.
Applicant further contends its invention creates a network having a unique, temporary topology, which allows a computer to track responses based on a network routing architecture for virtual devices rather than based on content analysis of parsing text of messages in responses; and that this is a technical improvement to the computer's efficiency, reducing the processing load required to match incoming signals to database records. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s claims do not proffer any such improvements, and furthermore, the specification does not provide any technical description that it improves computer efficiency, or reduces processing load.
Applicant argues that the claims recite several limitations that are enough to qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea; e.g., tracking electronic communications received from email accounts associated with physical and virtual devices relating to messaging campaigns and identifying responses to same. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tracking communications received from users and identifying a response to send, is an abstract idea in and of itself and not a limitation that provides a technical improvement, regardless if it is being tracked in an electronic environment; limiting the abstract idea to a particular technical environment is not indicative of significantly more. See MPEP 21060.05(h). Furthermore, it was made clear in Alice, the recited claim step using a computer to “track multiple transactions” was considered a computer function that was a “‘well-understood, routine, conventional activity,” and “does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions”2. Even assuming arguendo, the claim limitations recite unconventional actions that confine the claims to a particular useful application of increasing efficiency in computing resources in identifying and providing specific, targeted communications in reaction to an incomplete order. The unconventional actions would still be ineligible as they are directed to abstract ideas. Applicant’s specification does not provide any technical support/evidence of how the particular claims improve any technology; for instance, efficiency in computing resources, improves a computer itself, or improves electronic messaging.
Based on the foregoing, the claims as a whole, in view of Alice, do not connote an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Errol CARVALHO whose telephone number is (571)272-9987. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30-7:00 Alt Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571- 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E CARVALHO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
1 See, Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2360 (2014) (noting that none of the hardware recited “offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,’ that is, implementation via computers” (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010))).
2 See, Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60 (2014).
Prosecution Insights