DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant's amendments and arguments filed on January 28, 2026. Applicant has amended claims 1, 18, 19. Currently, claims 1, 6-16, 18-19 are pending. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendments
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1, 6-16, 18-19 are maintained in light of applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 18-19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks submitted on 1/28/26 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues on p. 6 of the remarks that the focus of the claims is on monitoring of a prediction score that is calculated based on the plurality of events represented in activity data that has been mapped to a company identifier of a known company and then applicant makes comparisons to anonymous data online and garbage in and garbage out. Examiner notes this is not tethered to the claims and the claims are not solving a problem necessarily rooted in technology but rather an abstract idea. Applicant argues that the claims are directed to improving the accuracy of a model. Examiner notes the claims are, at best, an improvement to a sales model which is an improvement to an abstract idea. Therefore, the 101 rejections are maintained.
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, 6-16, 18-19 are clearly drawn to at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (method, system and non-transitory computer readable medium). Claims 1, 6-16, 18-19 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. Claims 1, 18-19 recite the abstract idea of for each of a plurality of anonymous visitors, collect activity data representing activity of the anonymous visitor and map the activity data to a company identifier of a known company, wherein the activity data represents plurality of events and store the activity data in association with the contact identifier without aggregating the plurality of events and monitor a prediction score to detect a spike in the prediction score, wherein the spike is detected when a relative increase in the prediction score over prior prediction scores satisfies a threshold, wherein the prediction score represents one or both of a relative degree of interest from the known company in a product of a client company or a relative intent by the known company to purchase the product of the client company wherein the prediction score is calculated based on the plurality of events represented in the activity data for all of the plurality of anonymous visitors that have been mapped to the company identifier of the known company wherein calculating the prediction score comprises weighting each of the plurality of events according to a predictive model, wherein the predictive model defines weightings for at least one of the plurality of events based on a likelihood of the at least one event to precede a purchase, wherein the predictive model weights one or more types of the plurality of events differently than other types of the plurality of events and wherein, during calculation of the prediction score, more recent ones of the plurality of events are weighted higher than less recent ones of the plurality of events and, in response to detecting the spike in the prediction score for the known company, identify the known company, whose company identifier has been mapped to the activity data representing the plurality of anonymous visitors, to at least one recipient, wherein identifying the known company to at least one recipient comprises initiating an alert to one or more personnel of the client company that indicates that the one or more personnel should contact the known company. The claims are directed to using scores for predictions related to spikes for interest and using personnel of the client company to contact the known company. Under prong 1 of Step 2A, these claims are considered abstract because the claims are certain methods of organizing human activity such as certain methods of organizing human activity including commercial interactions (including marketing or sales activities). The claims are a type of organizing human activity because the claims show managing (organizing) sales activity (spikes in interest which is also human activity) and this information is being used to be communicated by personnel (more human activity) to contact the known company. Under prong 2 of Step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims (the judicial exception and any additional elements individually or in combination such as using at least one hardware processor, visitor at one or more websites, a system comprising at least one hardware processor and at least one memory storing one or more software modules, wherein the one or more software modules are configured to, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, to perform steps and a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform steps) are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing nor do the claims apply 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. These limitations at best are merely implementing an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements individually or in combination such as using at least one hardware processor, visitor at one or more websites, a system comprising at least one hardware processor and at least one memory storing one or more software modules, wherein the one or more software modules are configured to, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, to perform steps and a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform steps (as evidenced by para [0020], [0023]-[0024], [0065]-[0083] and Fig 9 of applicant’s own specification) are well understood, routine and conventional in the field. Dependent claims 7, 13, also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself by further showing wherein identifying the known company to at least one recipient comprises adding contact information, associated with the known company, to at least one telemarketing list and wherein the plurality of events comprises one or more price requests. Dependent claims 6, 8-12, 14-16 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements individually or in combination such as wherein the at least one recipient comprises one or both of a customer relationship management system and a marketing automation system and wherein the plurality of events comprises visits to one or more webpages of the one or more websites and wherein the plurality of events comprises one or more searches performed on the one or more websites and wherein the plurality of events comprises one or more click events and wherein at least one of the one or more click events comprises selecting an online advertisement and wherein the plurality of events comprises filling out one or more online forms and wherein the plurality of events comprises one or more downloads of an electronic document and wherein the plurality of events comprises one or more interactions with an email offer and wherein the one or more interactions comprise one or more of opening an email offer or responding to an email offer (as evidenced by para [0020], [0023]-[0024], [0065]-[0083] and Fig 9 of applicant’s own specification) are well understood, routine and conventional in the field.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 6-16, 18-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bateni et al. (US 2010/0235225 A1), a method for measuring the relative significance of the systematic versus random components of product sales data where this determination can be used to improve product demand forecast and product seasonal profile determinations
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUJAY KONERU whose telephone number is (571)270-3409. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 AM to 5 pm.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached on 571- 270-5396. 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.
/SUJAY KONERU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624