DETAILED ACTION
The present application (Application No. 18/316,081), filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Application is a continuation of PCT/CN2022/099533, filed 06/17/2022.
This Office action is in reply to communications by Applicants responding to first office action on the merits, received 12 May, 2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 16, 18, are amended. Claims 5-6, 21, were previously canceled. Therefore, claims 1-4, 7-20, 22, are pending and addressed below.
Claim Construction/ Glossary of Terms
The instant application uses terminology for which “the applicants are being their own lexicographers” (see MPEP § 2111.01(IV), and MPEP § 2173.05(a)).
With reliance in the original written description, the following glossary of terms is hereinafter applied in this office action.
- service data = targeted content, advertisement content.
- service object = a service object is the end user who clicks and/or converts advertisement data.
- target service object = When a certain service object clicks and plays a certain piece of delivered service data, but a conversion behavior is not generated, the service object may be referred to as the target service object, and the delivered service data may be referred to as unconverted advertisement data (also referred to as unconverted service data).
- service output state = the service object “a1” that is clicked (has the click behavior for) the delivered advertisement data.
- data group = a data group for the service object “a1” and the delivered advertisement data 2001 may be: [a1, 2001, 1, 0, 14:00].
- conversion = an order or a purchase.
- sequenced service data = sequence advertisement data = the sequence comprising the various ranked (sorted) pieces of advertisement data.
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, 7-20, 22, 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.
Step 1: As now amended, claims 1-4, 7-15, 22, are directed to a method, claims 16-17, are directed to a system, and claims 18-20, are directed to a product, therefore the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A- Prong 1: Independent claim 1 comprises steps of: delivering N pieces of service data to service objects of a service object set based on a first sequence ; acquiring real-time feedback information of each piece of the delivered service data to generate a delivery log of data (i.e., service output states and service conversion states of a service object set; establishing unconverted browsing behavior; determining a ranking factor corresponding to both the target service object and the unconverted item according to the unconverted browsing behavior features; and ranking service data comprising the unconverted item to obtain sequenced service data with a second sequence according to the ranking factor, wherein compared with the first sequence, a probability that a piece of service data including the unconverted item being arranged before a piece of service data including a non-outputted item in the second sequence is increased; selecting target service data from the sequenced service data according to ranking order and delivering the target service data to the target service object.
These are steps of: collecting/tracking data (transmitting, receiving, storing, gathering), analyzing data, making determinations/correlations, and displaying/presenting data. In the absence of any particular algorithm beyond merely being general purpose computer functions, these steps represent a process that under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
As now amended, independent claim 1 further recites a mathematical formula, wherein the claimed concept of “determining a ranking factor” performed using a mathematical formula and calculation falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping.
The independent claims are directed to a method for selecting and delivering target service data. The claimed invention tracks user engagement with content, and tracks content viewed but not converted, and also tracks content viewed and converted. The claims correlate (i) user preferences, with (ii) viewed/not converted content, and (iii) with viewed/converted content, and further rank this correlation (calculate a ranking factor of this correlation), and use this ranking factor for the purpose of more selectively and accurately target users with content
As now amended, the invention is directed to retargeting the user who engaged with content but did not convert, with a second sequence/list in which the order of the target service data has been altered according to the calculated ranking factor. Using the instant lingo, the invention as now amended, is directed to retargeting the target service object with a second sequence of newly ranked target service data.
Accordingly, the claimed steps represent a method of organizing commercial interactions comprising advertising, marketing and sales activities, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea grouping, wherein all the claim steps can be seen as being part of the abstract idea of providing target service data.
Claims 16 and 18, recite substantially similar subject matter and the same subsequent analysis should be applied thereto.
Step 2A- Prong 2: Additional elements include: an electronic device, comprising a processor, a memory and a network interface further configured to provide a network communication function, and further as now amended: “a product of the total number of outputs of the target service object for the unconverted item Px and a reciprocal of an exponential function of a time difference between a current timestamp and the earliest record timestamp”.
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and the steps that they execute represent generic functions which can be performed by a general-purpose computer without any novel programming or improvement in the operation of the computer itself. These additional elements are merely invoked as tools to perform an abstract idea (mere instructions to apply the exception) as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The internet/network features of the invention only represent a particular technological environment, merely a particular technical field of use to which the judicial exception is linked to, and this technological environment is used to merely transmit, receive, store, gather, analyze, make determinations/correlations with, and display data.
The claimed invention addresses a marketing problem of evaluating how different factors may impact the promotion and selecting the promotion that better matches these combinations of factors. This selecting a promotion (content) that better matches these combinations of factors, is a business determination unrelated to technology. Based on the calculated ranking, a piece of service data that was in the previous sequence not presented at the top may now be presented at the top. However, this second sequence still presents the same amount of service data, and therefore it does not really improve computer resources. It is inconsequential to computer resource efficiency.
However, even if the particular abstract idea as now amended, of: “determining a ranking factor (by using the particular mathematical formula now rolled from claim 21 into the independent claims), selecting certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying the results of the analysis”, is taken to represent an improvement or innovation, “the claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter. That is, the innovation lays in the marketing abstract idea itself.
This “innovation” is achieved by evaluating how different factors may impact the promotion and selecting the promotion that better matches these combinations of factors, which as indicated above, merely involve steps of collecting/tracking data, analyzing data, making determinations/correlations, and displaying/presenting data, said steps being general purpose computer functions. Yet, the performance of these claimed steps does not improve any technical capabilities.
Accordingly, the additional elements when the claim elements are viewed individually and as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Based on the reasoning provided under Step 2A- Prong 2, the claims under Step 2B do not recite “significantly more” than the abstract idea. At this point, either under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping scenario where all the claim steps can be seen as being part of the abstract ideas, or under the “Mental Processes” grouping scenario, the analysis is terminated because the same analysis with respect to Step 2A Prong Two applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
That is, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and the steps that they execute represent conventional functions which can be performed by a general-purpose computer without any improvement to the programming technique or improvement in the operation of the computer itself.
The dependent claims have been considered. Dependent claims 2-4, 7-15, 17, 19-20, and as now amended claim 22, recite steps of further organizing the data, including mapping, ranking, sorting, labeling, and steps of predicting, but without reciting any particular algorithm beyond generally just adding limits to collecting/tracking data (transmitting, receiving, storing, gathering), analyzing data, making determinations/correlations, and displaying/presenting data. When considered as a whole, the same analysis with respect to Step 2A Prong Two and step 2B, apply to these additional elements. They cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/2025 have been fully considered.
Typographic error acknowledgement:
The examiner acknowledges typographic errors in the provisions of the AIA statement at the beginning of the action. The examiner inadvertently wrote an incorrect Application No. in that AIA statement. All other information was correctly examined and treated.
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant argues:
The technical problem in the field is identified in para. [0004] of the specification, with emphases added: "platform's resources (computing resources such as processor threads, communication resources such as bandwidth) are greatly wasted, which not only increases the cost of data processing, but also makes it difficult to improve the delivery accuracy of the service data."
The technical improvement achieved by the claimed limitations is explained in para. [0096] of the specification, with emphases added: "the unconverted service data that is in the outputted state and unconverted state for the target service object can be determined according to the real-time feedback data of the target service object on the delivered service data in one embodiment, and these pieces of unconverted service data can indicate the potential preferences of the target service object, and the service data including the unconverted item is ranked and delivered according to the preferences, such that the delivered service data conforms to the preferences of the target service object. As a result, the accuracy can be improved, and the data transmission cost can be reduced. Moreover, since the delivered data conforms to the preferences of the target service object, the probability that the target service object generates the conversion behavior can be increased, thus improving the conversion rate. To sum up, the delivery accuracy of the service data can be improved, the data transmission cost is reduced, and the conversion rate of the service data is improved in one embodiment."
In response:
As now amended, the invention is directed to retargeting the user who engaged with content but did not convert, with a second sequence/list in which the order of the target service data has been altered according to the calculated ranking factor. Using the instant lingo, the invention as now amended, is directed to retargeting the target service object with a second sequence of newly ranked target service data.
It is noted, the claimed second sequence merely changes the order in which the service data is presented. It does not really alter the number of service data items in the sequence/list. The list of service data remains the same, only that now, based on the calculated ranking, a piece of service data that was in the previous sequence not presented at the top may now be presented at the top. However, this second sequence still presents the same amount of service data, and therefore it does not really improve computer resources. It is inconsequential to computer resource efficiency.
Even if the second sequence represents an improved targeting list (an improved sequenced service data), in the sense that the ranking improves the targeting or the likelihood of converting, i.e., “the delivery accuracy of the service data can be improved and the conversion rate of the service data is improved in one embodiment”, the idea of different ways to target is still abstract.
The invention is directed to an intended result whereas it is expected that a particular service data boosted by the ranking factor and now presented in a better position in the sequence, will increase the likelihood of a conversion. However, in the claimed invention, the rest of the sequence is still presented (it is not that the claimed invention transmits a reduced sequence) and consequently no network resources are improved and there is no basis to assert that “the data transmission cost is reduced”.
The claimed invention addresses a marketing problem of evaluating how different factors may impact the promotion and selecting the promotion that better matches these combinations of factors. This selecting a promotion (content) that better matches these combinations of factors, is a business determination unrelated to technology.
The benefits stated in instant par. [96] are business benefits, which do not improve any technical capabilities. The claimed steps merely implement a business strategy through conventional internet enabled communications and conventional computer functions, by merely executing steps of collecting/tracking data, analyzing data, making determinations/correlations, and displaying/presenting data. These steps are not technology improvements.
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 MARIO IOSIF whose telephone number is (571) 270-7785. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Wed, 9:00am-4:00pm teleworking.
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 on 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.
/Mario C. Iosif/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621