DETAILED ACTION
This is in reference to communication received 28 July 2026. Claims 21 – 26, 28 – 37, 39 – 40 and 61 are pending for examination. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21 – 26, 28 – 37, 39 – 40 and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 32, representative of claims 21 and 40, in part is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim appears to be directed toward a judicial exception namely an abstract idea. Claim 21 recites invention directed to monitoring and adjusting channel allocation model weights. An advertising campaign is launched on at least two channels; user characteristic (e.g., membership, demographics, etc.) is tracked; at least one user interaction is tracked using additional tracked data; an allocation weight representing an impact of user interactions associated with the one channel on a probability of completing a transaction is determined, testing of the one channel based on the at least one testing parameter is performed by making changes to the advertising on the one channel according to the at least one testing parameter; a first total transaction value is determined when the advertising on the one channel is not reduced and a second total transaction value is determined when the advertising on the one channel is reduced; based on a comparison of the first total transaction value and the second total transaction value an overall impact of the one channel on the probability of completing a transaction is determined; determination is made whether the allocation weight attributable to the one channel deviates from the overall impact of the one channel by at least a threshold difference; if allocation weight deviates from the overall impact by at least the threshold difference, channel allocation model is modified to adjust a weighting of user interactions associated with the one channel and allocation weight attributable to the one channel is adjusted subsequent to receiving a new user interaction associated with the one channel and new transaction information; transaction amount is apportioned based on the adjusted allocation weight; and information indicating a portion of the transaction amount attributable to the one channel based on the apportionment is outputted, which, pursuant to MPEP 2106.04, is aptly categorized as a method of organizing human activity (i.e. advertising). Therefore, the claims recite a judicial exception.
The independent claims further recite the additional functional element of tracking of user’s interactions with the launched advertising campaign using a tracker, and, determining of effectiveness of the launched advertising campaign using a model which was created based on user’s characteristics and past interaction (e.g., historical data). Not only do these features fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, but it can also reasonably be seen as the conventional application of well-known machine learning concepts to build and train a model to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Represented claims 21 and 40, which do recite statutory categories (machine, product of manufacture, for example), the same analysis as above applies to these claims since the method steps are the same. However, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. These claims add the generic computer components (additional elements) of a system comprising one or more hardware processors and a memory (claim 21 and claim 40).
The processor, memory, and non-transitory machine-readable medium are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do 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 element of the processor, memory, and non-transitory machine-readable medium amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
When taken as an ordered combination, nothing is added that is not already present when the elements are taken individually. When viewed as a whole, the marketing activities amount to instructions applied using generic computer components.
As for dependent claims 22 – 31 and 33 – 39 dependent on the aforementioned independent claims, and include all the limitations contained therein. These claims do not recite any additional technical elements, and simply disclose additional limitations that further limit the abstract idea with details regarding defining components of user device, which type of interaction data will be considered, using user-clicks as an indicator to determine that there has been an interaction activity by the user, tracking of user characteristics, making a determination whether user activities on the launched campaign exceeds a minimum threshold, providing advertisements to user based upon their search keywords (search-query), identifying which channel is performing better, and removing the campaign from channel that has lower performance success. Thus, the dependent claims merely provide additional non-structural (and predominantly non-functional) details, and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of organizing certain methods of human activity related to advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors but for the recitation of generic computer components. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu et al. US Publication 2017/0091809 teaches system and method for tracking interaction with sponsored and unsponsored content.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Naresh Vig whose telephone number is (571)272-6810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 06:30a - 04:00p.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at 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 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.
/NARESH VIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
September 30, 2026
