DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's Communication received on 08/27/2023 for application number 18/238,498.
Claims 1-19 are presented for examination. Claims 1 and 17 are independent claims.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “through testing, comprising;” – the semicolon should be replaced with colon. Also, “the estimates of a success rate” has no antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: in this claim “each of the planned mobile message recipients are selected” should be “each of the planned mobile message recipients is selected”. Also, claim 3 ends with a semicolon and it should be replaced with a period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: in this claim “the pre-selected amount of time” should be “the preselected amount of time” to be consistent. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: in this claim “the pre-set allocation” has no antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: in this claim “sever” should be “server”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-19 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 17 recite “selected at least based on legal restrictions.” The phrase does not identify whose law, which jurisdictions, or which body of regulation supplies the restriction. The specification [0070] and [0084] state only that “there can be legal restrictions on send times, which influence the times the server selects for the first and second send times” and [0051] states “legal restrictions on send times of mobile messages”. It is a subjective term; because the governing law differs by jurisdiction and changes over time, the meets and bounds of the claim would change with it, and person of ordinary skill in the art could not determine whether a given pair of send times falls inside or outside the claim.
Claims 2-16 and 18-19, which depend from independent claim 1 and 17 respectively, are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for depending on an indefinite parent claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 and 14-23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,783,122 B1, in view of Haggerty (US 11,102,622 B1).
In the table below, the left side contains claims in the instant application while the right side contains claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,783,122 B1:
18/238,498 (Instant application)
US 11,783,122 B1 (Patent '122)
(Claim 1) A computer-implemented method for testing of a mobile message, comprising:
generating, by a server, at least a first template of the mobile message and a second template of the mobile message, each of the first template and the second template having at least a different send time, wherein the first template has a first send time and the second template has a second send time, wherein the first and second send times are selected at least based on legal restrictions;
assigning, by the server, a respective group of mobile message recipients of planned mobile message recipients to the first template of the mobile message and to the second template of the mobile message;
determining automatically, by the server, whether the first template of the mobile message having the first send time has a statistical advantage over the second template of the mobile message having the second send time through testing, comprising;
collecting test data from testing including mobile message recipient actions of the first template of the mobile message and the second template of the mobile message;
generating estimates of mobile message recipient actions for the first template and the second template including applying an analysis method to the collected test data to determine a win probability difference between a win probability for the first template and a win probability for the second template, and determine that the win probability difference is greater than a selected win threshold;
determining that a precision of the estimates of a success rate is greater than a precision threshold comprising comparing a fraction of credible intervals that are overlapping, wherein credible intervals include a range of values that the success rate is likely to fall within after accounting for random chance; and
sending the mobile message of the first template to a remainder of the planned mobile message recipients when the first template of the mobile message is determined to have the statistical advantage over the second template of the mobile message.
(Claim 1) A computer-implemented method for testing of a mobile message, comprising:
generating, by a server, at least a first template of the mobile message and a second template of the mobile message, each of the first template and the second template having at least a different send time, wherein the first template has a first send time and the second template has a second send time, wherein the first and second send times are selected at least based on prior behavior of mobile message recipients;
assigning, by the server, a respective group of mobile message recipients of planned mobile message recipients to the first template of the mobile message and to the second template of the mobile message, wherein each of the planned mobile message recipients are selected based on a combination of a geolocation of the planned mobile message recipient, a purpose of the mobile message, and a recency of a last marketing mobile message received by the planned mobile message recipient;
determining automatically, by the server, whether the first template of the mobile message having the first send time has a statistical advantage over the second template of the mobile message having the second send time through testing, comprising:
collecting test data from testing including mobile message recipient actions of the first template of the mobile message and the second template of the mobile message;
generating estimates of mobile message recipient actions for the first template and the second template including applying an analysis method to the collected test data to determine a win probability difference between a win probability for the first template and a win probability for the second template, and determine that the win probability difference is greater than a selected win threshold;
determining that a precision of the estimates of a success rate is greater than a precision threshold; and
sending the mobile message of the first template to a remainder of the planned mobile message recipients when the first template of the mobile message is determined to have the statistical advantage over the second template of the mobile message,
wherein determining that the precision of the estimates of the success rate is greater than a precision threshold comprises: comparing a fraction of credible intervals that are overlapping, wherein credible intervals include a range of values that the success rate is likely to fall within after accounting for random chance.
(Claim 2) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first and second send times are additionally selected at least based on prior behavior of mobile message recipients.
(Claim 1) ... wherein the first and second send times are selected at least based on prior behavior of mobile message recipients
(Claim 3) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein each of the planned mobile message recipients are selected based on a combination of a geolocation of the planned mobile message recipient, a purpose of the mobile message, and a recency of a last marketing mobile message received by the planned mobile message recipient;
(Claim 1) ... wherein each of the planned mobile message recipients are selected based on a combination of a geolocation of the planned mobile message recipient, a purpose of the mobile message, and a recency of a last marketing mobile message received by the planned mobile message recipient
(Claim 4) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the statistical advantage is declared for the first template when the selected win threshold and the precision threshold are both met after a preselected amount of time has passed.
(Claim 2) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the statistical advantage is declared for the first template when the selected win threshold and the precision threshold are both met after a preselected amount of time has passed.
(Claim 5) The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the generating of the estimates and determining the precision are performed simultaneously after the pre-selected amount of time has passed.
(Claim 3) The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the generating of the estimates and determining the precision are performed simultaneously after the pre-selected amount of time has passed.
(Claim 6) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the analysis method includes generating a win probability, wherein the win probability represents a probability that a template variation currently leading the testing has a higher mobile message recipient action than other variations after accounting for random chance.
(Claim 4) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the analysis method includes generating a win probability, wherein the win probability represents a probability that a template variation currently leading the testing has a higher mobile message recipient action than other variations after accounting for random chance.
(Claim 7) The computer-implemented method of claim 6, further comprising determining that a conversion rate is similar to mobile message recipient actions of marketing mobile messages as opposed to other marketing messages sent.
(Claim 5) The computer-implemented method of claim 4, further comprising determining that a conversion rate is similar to mobile message recipient actions of marketing mobile messages as opposed to other marketing messages sent.
(Claim 8) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein assigning a respective group of the mobile message recipients to the first template of the mobile message and the second template of the mobile message, comprises: randomly assigning the mobile message recipients to the first template and the second template based on the pre-set allocation; and sending mobile messages according to the first template or the second template to the mobile message recipients as randomly assigned.
(Claim 6) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein assigning a respective group of the mobile message recipients to the first template of the mobile message and the second template of the mobile message, comprises: randomly assigning the mobile message recipients to the first template and the second template based on the pre-set allocation; and sending mobile messages according to the first template or the second template to the mobile message recipients as randomly assigned.
(Claim 9) The computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the assignment of each of the mobile message recipients is included within information attached to a profile of the mobile message recipient, wherein the information allows actions by the mobile message recipient to be tracked.
(Claim 7) The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the assignment of each of the mobile message recipients is included within information attached to a profile of the mobile message recipient, wherein the information allows actions by the mobile message recipient to be tracked.
(Claim 10) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein each of the first template and the second template further include different behavior, wherein the different behavior includes at least one of changes of the mobile messages over time, movement of the mobile messages, or changing color or intensity of the mobile messages.
(Claim 14) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein each of the first template and the second template further include different behavior, wherein the different behavior includes at least one of changes of the mobile messages over time, movement of the mobile messages, or changing color or intensity of the mobile messages.
(Claim 11) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein selected win threshold is adaptively selected based on input or feedback from the mobile message recipients.
(Claim 15) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein selected win threshold is adaptively selected based on input or feedback from the mobile message recipients.
(Claim 12) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein selected win threshold is changed over time based on a detected anomaly, or pattern in the collected test data.
(Claim 16) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein selected win threshold is changed over time based on a detected anomaly, or pattern in the collected test data.
(Claim 13) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein precision threshold is preselected based on predicted or simulated false positive and false negative rates based on a number of received messages and successes.
(Claim 17) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein precision threshold is preselected based on predicted or simulated false positive and false negative rates based on a number of received messages and successes.
(Claim 14) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein precision threshold is adaptively selected based on data from data of a particular website.
(Claim 18) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein precision threshold is adaptively selected based on data from data of a particular website.
(Claim 15) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein determining automatically whether the first template of the mobile message has a statistical advantage over the second template of the mobile message through testing further comprises determining a volume threshold, wherein the volume threshold is preselected based on predicted or simulated false positive and false negative rates based on a number of message recipients and successes.
(Claim 19) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein determining automatically whether the first template of the mobile message has a statistical advantage over the second template of the mobile message through testing further comprises determining a volume threshold, wherein the volume threshold is preselected based on predicted or simulated false positive and false negative rates based on a number of message recipients and successes.
(Claim 16) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein determining automatically whether the first template of the mobile message has a statistical advantage over the second template of the mobile message through testing further comprises determining a volume threshold, wherein the volume threshold is adaptively selected based on data from data of a particular website.
(Claim 20) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein determining automatically whether the first template of the mobile message has a statistical advantage over the second template of the mobile message through testing further comprises determining a volume threshold, wherein the volume threshold is adaptively selected based on data from data of a particular website.
(Claim 19) The system of claim 17, wherein at least one of the plurality of mobile devices includes a location sensor and one or more motion sensors, and wherein the at least one of the plurality of mobile devices tracks locations and motions of a user of the at least one of the plurality of mobile devices, and the locations and motions of the user are included in the collected test data from the testing including the mobile message recipient actions of the first template of the mobile message and the second template of the mobile message.
(Claim 23) The system of claim 21, wherein at least one of the plurality of mobile devices includes a location sensor and one or more motion sensors, and wherein the at least one of the plurality of mobile devices tracks locations and motions of a user of the at least one of the plurality of mobile devices, and the locations and motions of the user are included in the collected test data from the testing including the mobile message recipient actions of the first template of the mobile message and the second template of the mobile message.
Regarding Claim 1, in the same field of endeavor, Haggerty teaches wherein the first and second send times are selected at least based on legal restrictions (column 1, lines 5 to 20 - the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( “ CFPB ” ) has proposed new rules governing activities of debt collectors that impose various communication limitations; utilize sending limited - content text messages to parties are often concerned with the best time to send such text messages; column 2, lines 15 to 16 - identifying the best time to send a limited - content text message to a party; column 20, lines 15 to 30 - the texting list identifies the best contact period for each account with respect to each optimization window; the texting list identifies a first contact period ( e.g. , best time to text ) between 8:00 a.m. and 1:59 p.m. for each account in which a first text message should be sent to the account and a second contact period ( e.g. , best time to text ) between 2:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. for each account in which a second text message should be sent to the account - thus, the send times are based on legal restrictions).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated wherein the first and second send times are selected at least based on legal restrictions, as taught by Haggerty. Doing so would be desirable because it would ensure the best chance of reaching the party and getting the desired outcome and / or result (Haggerty, column 7, lines 15 to 16).
Claims 17-18 of the instant application are system claims similar to the method claims 1 and 6 of the instant application and recite similar limitations as claims 21-22 of Patent '122 and are likewise 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-16 are directed to a method and Claims 17-19 are directed to a system. Thus, the claims fall within one of the statutory categories (process, machine) and are eligible under Step 1.
Step 2A Prong 1
Independent Claims
Claims 1 and 17 recite:
generating at least a first template of the mobile message and a second template of the mobile message, each of the first template and the second template having at least a different send time, wherein the first template has a first send time and the second template has a second send time, wherein the first and second send times are selected at least based on legal restrictions; assigning a respective group of mobile message recipients of planned mobile message recipients to the first template of the mobile message and to the second template of the mobile message; determining whether the first template of the mobile message having the first send time has a statistical advantage over the second template of the mobile message having the second send time through testing, comprising;
collecting test data from testing including mobile message recipient actions of the first template of the mobile message and the second template of the mobile message; generating estimates of mobile message recipient actions for the first template and the second template including applying an analysis method to the collected test data to determine a win probability difference between a win probability for the first template and a win probability for the second template, and determine that the win probability difference is greater than a selected win threshold; determining that a precision of the estimates of a success rate is greater than a precision threshold comprising comparing a fraction of credible intervals that are overlapping, wherein credible intervals include a range of values that the success rate is likely to fall within after accounting for random chance; the first template of the mobile message is determined to have the statistical advantage over the second template of the mobile message - these limitations encompass certain methods of organizing human activities (advertising and marketing), mathematical concepts (statistical calculations), and mental processes (evaluation and judgement), such as preparing two versions of advertising/ marketing messages that differ in when they are sent, choosing the times based on legal restrictions, dividing a list of customers between two versions, tallying how each group responded, computing win probability of the versions, and determining which version is better.
Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea that falls under “certain methods of organizing human activity”, “mental process”, and “mathematical concepts” grouping.
Step 2A Prong 2
Independent Claims
Additional elements
Claims 1 and 17 recites:
sending the mobile message of the first template to a remainder of the planned mobile message recipients - these limitations amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 1 recites:
a computer-implemented method for testing of a mobile message; automatically, by the server - these limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amount to no more than using generic computer components to apply the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). This limitation can also be viewed as generally linking the use of a judicial exception to the field of generic computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. These claims are directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Independent Claims
Additional elements
Claims 1 and 17 recites:
sending the mobile message of the first template to a remainder of the planned mobile message recipients - these limitations amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d), “receiving/ transmitting data”).
Claim 1 recites:
a computer-implemented method for testing of a mobile message; automatically, by the server - these limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amount to no more than using generic computer components to apply the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). This limitation can also be viewed as generally linking the use of a judicial exception to the field of generic computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, these claims are patent ineligible.
Step 2A Prong 1
Dependent Claims
Claim 2:
the first and second send times are additionally selected at least based on prior behavior of mobile message recipients - these limitations encompass certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes.
Claim 3:
each of the planned mobile message recipients are selected based on a combination of a geolocation of the planned mobile message recipient, a purpose of the mobile message, and a recency of a last marketing mobile message received by the planned mobile message recipient - these limitations encompass certain methods of organizing human activities in marketing/ advertising.
Claim 4:
the statistical advantage is declared for the first template when the selected win threshold and the precision threshold are both met after a preselected amount of time has passed - these limitations encompass mental processes and/or mathematical concepts.
Claim 5:
the generating of the estimates and determining the precision are performed simultaneously after the pre-selected amount of time has passed - these limitations encompass mathematical concepts.
Claims 6 and 18:
the analysis method includes generating a win probability, wherein the win probability represents a probability that a template variation currently leading the testing has a higher mobile message recipient action than other variations after accounting for random chance - these limitations encompass mathematical concepts.
Claim 7:
determining that a conversion rate is similar to mobile message recipient actions of marketing mobile messages as opposed to other marketing messages sent - these limitations encompass mental processes and/or mathematical concepts.
Claim 8:
randomly assigning the mobile message recipients to the first template and the second template based on the pre-set allocation - these limitations encompass certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mathematical concepts.
Claim 9:
the assignment of each of the mobile message recipients is included within information, wherein the information allows actions by the mobile message recipient to be tracked - these limitations encompass certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes.
Claim 10:
each of the first template and the second template further include different behavior - these limitations encompass certain methods of organizing human activities.
Claim 11:
selected win threshold is adaptively selected based on input or feedback from the mobile message recipients - these limitations encompass mental processes and/or mathematical concepts.
Claim 12:
selected win threshold is changed over time based on a detected anomaly, or pattern in the collected test data - these limitations encompass mental processes and/or mathematical concepts.
Claim 13:
precision threshold is preselected based on predicted or simulated false positive and false negative rates based on a number of received messages and successes - these limitations encompass mathematical concepts.
Claim 14:
precision threshold is adaptively selected based on data - these limitations encompass mental process and/ or mathematical concepts.
Claim 15:
determining a volume threshold, wherein the volume threshold is preselected based on predicted or simulated false positive and false negative rates based on a number of message recipients and successes - these limitations encompass mathematical concepts.
Claim 16:
determining a volume threshold, wherein the volume threshold is adaptively selected based on data - these limitations encompass mental process and/ or mathematical concepts.
Claim 19:
the locations and motions of the user are included in the collected test data from the testing including the mobile message recipient actions of the first template of the mobile message and the second template of the mobile message - these limitations encompass certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes.
Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
Dependent Claims
Additional elements
Claim 8:
sending mobile messages according to the first template or the second template to the mobile message recipients as randomly assigned- these limitations amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 9:
attached to a profile of the mobile message recipient - these limitations amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of merely storing/ retrieving data (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Claim 10:
the different behavior includes at least one of changes of the mobile messages over time, movement of the mobile messages, or changing color or intensity of the mobile messages - these limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to a display environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 14:
from data of a particular website - these limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to the field of webpages (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 16:
from data of a particular website - these limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to the field of webpages (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 19:
at least one of the plurality of mobile devices includes a location sensor and one or more motion sensors, and wherein the at least one of the plurality of mobile devices tracks locations and motions of a user of the at least one of the plurality of mobile devices - these limitations amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Dependent Claims
Additional elements
Claim 8:
sending mobile messages according to the first template or the second template to the mobile message recipients as randomly assigned- - these limitations amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d), “receiving/ transmitting data”).
Claim 9:
attached to a profile of the mobile message recipient - - these limitations amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of merely storing/ retrieving data , which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d), “Storing/ retrieving information in memory”).
Claim 10:
the different behavior includes at least one of changes of the mobile messages over time, movement of the mobile messages, or changing color or intensity of the mobile messages - these limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to a display environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 14:
from data of a particular website - these limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to the field of webpages (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 16:
from data of a particular website - these limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to the field of webpages (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim 19:
at least one of the plurality of mobile devices includes a location sensor and one or more motion sensors, and wherein the at least one of the plurality of mobile devices tracks locations and motions of a user of the at least one of the plurality of mobile devices - these limitations amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d), “receiving/ transmitting data”).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, the claims are patent ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 CFR § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Peltier et al. (US 2020/0252365 A1) teaches: messaging platform generates a text message associated with a client, the message being generated for transmission to a plurality of users via one or more messaging services; when sending a message to a large audience, first send variations of the message to smaller sample sets and measure the performance of each variation against target metrics; the system automatically performs analytics on the metrics for statistical significance and hitting goals, and allows the sender to send the best variation of a message to the entire audience, or to send different variations to different large subsets based on audience targeting/demographics (see [0037], [0059]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REJI KARTHOLY whose telephone number is (571)272-3432. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Welch, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7212. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/REJI KARTHOLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2143
Prosecution Insights