DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a Final Office Action in response to the arguments and/or amendments filed on 29 July 2025.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 is/are amended.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “generate a first audience dataset based on the one or more features, and store the first audience dataset as one of the plurality of audience datasets in the database.” The claim subsequently recites in the second to last limitation “in response to generating the first audience dataset, storing the first audience dataset in the plurality of audience datasets.” This second limitation appears redundant with the first limitation’s storing step. However, it would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that there is an alternate interpretation that the “in response” limitation is meant to refer to the generation of the first audience dataset in the limitation “execute an audience definition algorithm associated with the definition to re-generate the first audience dataset.” One of ordinary skill in the art would not know which alternative interpretation is correct, and as such would not be able to determine the boundaries of the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. Claims 8 and 15 are similarly 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 8, which is representative of claims 1 and 15, recites: a the plurality of segments of the first audience stored segment datasets [sending] [entity]
The preceding recitation of the claim has had strikethroughs applied to the additional elements beyond the abstract idea to more clearly demonstrate the limitations setting forth the abstract idea. The remaining limitations describe a concept of receiving a request for audience data, analyzing and updating audience information, and providing the audience data. This concept is plainly a marketing or advertising activity or behavior. As such the claims are determined to set forth a method of organizing human activity, and thus the claims are determined to recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106, reflecting the 2019 PEG, directs examiners at Step 2A Prong Two to consider whether the additional elements of the claims integrate a recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 8 describes the method as “computer-implemented”. Claim 1 recites a system comprising at least one processor and a non-transitory memory. Claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium. These elements are all recited at an extremely high level of generality, and are interpreted as generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing device does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims recite the additional elements of a database, data being stored in that database, and obtaining data from that database. This additional element does not reflect any improvement to technology, does not require any particular machine, does not effect a transformation, and does not meaningfully limit the implementation of the abstract idea. Instead, this additional element, individually and in combination with the prior computing device additional elements, only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of a computing device. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims recite the additional elements of receiving data from a first computing device and obtaining server data. These limitations may be interpreted as collecting from external computing devices. These additional elements do not reflect any improvement to technology, do not require any particular machine, do not effect a transformation, and do not meaningfully limit the implementation of the abstract idea. Instead, these additional elements, individually and in combination with the prior computing device additional elements, only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices. As such, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims recite the additional element of transmitting data to a device. This additional element does not reflect any improvement to technology, does not require any particular machine, does not effect a transformation, and does not meaningfully limit the implementation of the abstract idea. Instead, this additional element, individually and in combination with the prior computing device additional elements, only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
There are no further additional elements. When considered as a combination, the additional elements only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices. Because the additional elements, when considered individually and as a combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of the Mayo/Alice analysis, examiners are to consider whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite additional elements which may be interpreted as generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea. However, per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing does not add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more.
As previously noted, the claims recite an additional element of a database, where data is stored in that database, and data is obtained from that database. However, per MPEP 2106.05(d), storing and retrieving information in a memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function. As such, this additional element, individually and in combination with the prior computing device additional elements, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite the additional element of receiving data from a first computing device and obtaining server data. However, per MPEP 2106.05(d), receiving data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function. As such, this additional element, individually and in combination with the prior computing device additional elements, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite the additional element of transmitting data to a device. However, per MPEP 2106.05(d), transmitting data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function. As such, this additional element, individually and in combination with the prior computing device additional elements, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
There are no further additional elements. As previously noted, when considered as a combination, the additional elements only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices. Therefore the additional elements of the independent claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 only further narrow the abstract ideas set forth by the claim, but these claims are determined to continue to recite an abstract idea, albeit narrowed. The previously identified additional elements fail to either integrate the narrowed abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the narrowed abstract idea. Because the dependent claims remain directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument Regarding Claim Priority: The claims have been amended herein to clarify certain language as discussed during the interview. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that, at least as amended, claim 1 is fully supported by the Parent Application.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's amendments filed 29 July 2025 have been fully considered and they resolve the identified issue.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 112(a) Rejections of claims 1-20: Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner notes that Claims 1, 8, and 15 were rejected under 112(a). However, Applicant's amendments filed 29 July 2025 have been fully considered and they resolve the identified issue.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 103 Rejections of claims 1-20: The cited portions of Kumar and Gorjiara, alone or in any proper combination, fail to teach these features.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 29 July 2025 have been fully considered and they are persuasive. The rejections under 103 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 101 Rejections of claims 1-20:
Under the 2019 Guidance, the Office may establish that a claim recites an abstract idea only when the claim elements recite, on their own or per se, subject matter that is either a “mathematical concept,” “certain methods of organizing human activity,” or “mental processes.”
Here the above reproduced features of claim 1 do not recite “receiving a request for audience data, analyzing and updating audience information, and providing the audience data” on their own or per se.
Prior art systems include a technical problem of consuming significantly amounts of processing time and having low accuracy resulting in false-positive and false-negative identifications. The above features of amended claim 1 provide a technical solution to this technical problem by enabling the building of audience definition more efficiently and reliably.
Applicant’s claims recite subject matter that is neither anticipated, nor rendered obvious by, the references of record, alone or in combination. Thus Applicant’s independent claims involve an “inventive concept” under 35 U.S.C. 101 at least because the claims recite features that exceed “well-understood, routine, conventional activities” already known in industry.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 29 July 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner notes that the “on their own or per se” language referenced by Applicant from the 2019 Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance’s reporting in the Federal Register is not present in MPEP 2106. It is unclear whether the “on their own or per se” language describes a different standard than that of MPEP 2106, but in any case the directives of MPEP 2106 are controlling and whether the claims “recite, on their own or per se” is not.
MPEP 2106 states that “In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim.” The present claims describe a marketing or advertising activity, and as such are determined to recite an abstract idea.
Per MPEP 2106.05(a), “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification.” Here, the disclosure does not provide technical details of implementation regarding the claimed invention. As such, the present claims do not appear to provide a technical solution for “consuming significant amounts of processing time” or “having low accuracy resulting in false-positive and false negative identifications.”
Per MPEP 2106.05, “the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination.” Applicant’s argument is fundamentally contrary to the Mayo/Alice analysis and current USPTO subject matter eligibility guidance.
Additional Considerations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 of the prior office action dated 6 June 2024.
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 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 Bion A Shelden whose telephone number is (571)270-0515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12pm-10pm EST.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571) 272-6702. 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.
/Bion A Shelden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685 2025-08-27