DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 18, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 13, and 19 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant states, “Claim 13 similarly requires machine-collected event records generated by user interactions in a software application, structured fields (i.e., timestamps, device/user IDs, and navigation sources/destinations), database storage, and interval-based access based on the timestamp data. These are computer telemetry and database operations, as opposed to steps that a human can practically perform in their mind for real application traffic at scale.” (Page 13 of Applicant’s response) The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Aside from the general use of a processor/processing system, memory, and/or a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising processor system-executable instructions, a monitoring human user can visually detect navigation events by monitoring a monitored user’s interactions with a processor/processing system to navigate between webpages of a website. URLs corresponding to webpages that are navigated to and from by the monitored user may be visible on a screen and may be noted by a monitoring human user (e.g., thereby qualifying as navigation source data and navigation destination data). User or device identification data may simply note the identification of the user or the type of device being used by the user, which a monitoring human user can confirm as well. A timestamp may be noted by the monitoring human user monitoring at what specific time a monitored user navigates from one webpage to another. The monitoring user may also gather the information gleaned via monitoring and store the information for future reference, for example. The claims do not present any specific technical details as to how data is gathered. The additional elements are only generally recited at a high level as being used to facilitate the operations of the claims. The technical details behind HOW certain navigation data is detected and/or measured are not presented with any great level of specificity. Additionally, as explained above and in the rejection, as recited in the claims, a monitoring human user could visually detect the type of information presented in the claims, particularly in regard to which webpages and websites are navigated to/from by a monitored user and when.
On page 13 of the response, Applicant further argues that “[s]ubsequent to detecting an anomaly in the operation of the application based on the above conversion rate calculations, the calculation is executed again for a third time interval, and based on one of two particular conditions being met, it is determined that the anomaly has been corrected.” The Examiner notes that this reinforces the analysis in the rejection that explains that various calculating steps and calculations are recited throughout the claims and these are examples of mathematical concepts. Further noted is that, while the calculations are used to determine if the anomaly has been corrected, (1) there is no guarantee that the anomaly has been corrected and (2) technical details describing specifically how an anomaly is actively corrected from a technical perspective (e.g., by adjusting the webpages) are not incorporated in the claims.
Applicant argues that “the claim's ordered combination of method steps provides a concrete technical monitoring and remediation loop for rectifying anomalies in navigation operations of an application (e.g., bottlenecks), which is not a fundamental economic principle and does not merely organize human activity.” (Page 15 of Applicant’s response) As explained in Applicant’s Specification, a human operation may be notified of an anomaly (Spec: ¶ 34 – “In one or more embodiments, alerts or other messaging can be provided, such as to equipment of an entity managing the process, website or application, which indicate the detection of the anomaly and/or describe the anomaly (e.g., identifying the webpage where anomaly is detected).”; ¶ 67 – “The alert(s) can be provided to various recipients (e.g., operator of the software application or website) utilizing various modes of communication including email.”). ¶ 37 of Applicant’s Specification states, “In one or more embodiments, the results of the methodology can then be utilized to adjust one or more of the webpages such as a position of a button/link, an instruction as to navigation, and so forth.” In other words, Applicant’s Specification does not present any specific technical details about how the adjustments are made in response to an anomaly; therefore, based on a broadest reasonable interpretation, the fact that a human operator is notified of anomalies, and the fact that adjustments are described as made in response to detected anomalies (Spec: ¶ 37), the human operator can be instructed to make an adjustment decision based on alerts regarding detected anomalies. Dependent claims 8 and 20 further bolster this interpretation since these claims explicitly recite that the alert is provided to an entity managing operations of the website (claim 8) or to an entity managing operations of the process (claim 20), albeit via equipment (which only generally applies the additional element, i.e., the equipment, to facilitate the ability of a human to send and receive information).
At best, the claims present only the general concept of improving a website without presenting any specific technical details that would actively achieve such an improvement. “Modifying the position of a button, a position of a link, a navigation instruction, a link not working, a design obscuring a link, or a combination thereof” (as recited in independent claims 1, 13, and 19) is an operation that a human could perform with the general assistance of a website management tool, for example. MPEP § 2106.05(a) states, “An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107.” Applicant’s claims, at best, merely claim the idea of a solution and not the technical details of a particular technical solution to a technical problem.
On pages 16-17 of the response, Applicant argues the following:
Example #47 from the USPTO's July 2024 eligibility guidance supports this conclusion. Example #47 distinguishes between (1) claims that merely compute/analyze and output anomaly data (which are ineligible) and (2) claims that integrate anomaly detection into a practical application by improving a technical field and performing remedial actions (which are eligible).
Example #47's claim 3 is eligible at Step 2A, Prong Two because it detects anomalies in network traffic and then takes technical remedial actions such as detecting a source address, dropping packets, and blocking future traffic, in order to improve network security. Claim 13 of the instant application is similar in that it uses machine-collected navigation telemetry and a defined pairwise conversion metric over distinct time intervals to detect an operational anomaly, performs remediation by adjusting application screens (including fixing a non-working link or removing UI obstruction), and then verifies correction via recalculation on updated traffic data.
Like Example #47, claim 13 does not merely detect an anomaly and report a result. Rather, claim 13 integrates the analysis into a closed-loop computerized process that improves the operation and reliability of the application's navigation. In other words, claim 13 is directed to improving the operation of an application by detecting an anomaly of the operation of an application, rectifying an underlying cause of the anomaly, and subsequently verifying the anomaly has been rectified.
The Examiner points out that the analysis of claim 3 of Example #47 acknowledges that a human may observe network traffic data (in regard to the step of “detecting one or more anomalies in network traffic”). See page 11 of the USPTO’s “July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples” (which currently may be accessed via https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-AI-SMEUpdateExamples47-49.pdf)). On pages 12-13 of the USPTO’s “July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples,” it is explained that “[t]he claimed invention reflects this improvement in the technical field of network intrusion detection. Steps (d)-(f) provide for improved network security using the information from the detection to enhance security by taking proactive measures to remediate the danger by detecting the source address associated with the potentially malicious packets. Specifically, the claim reflects the improvement in step (d), dropping potentially malicious packets in step (e), and blocking future traffic from the source address in step (f). These steps reflect the improvement 12 described in the background. Thus, the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application such that the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. The additional elements in steps (d)-(f), when considered in combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim improves the functioning of a computer or technical field.” Even though Applicant’s claims adjust one or more webpages of the websites, as explained above, Applicant’s Specification does not present any specific technical details about how the adjustments are made in response to an anomaly; therefore, based on a broadest reasonable interpretation, the fact that a human operator is notified of anomalies, and the fact that adjustments are described as made in response to detected anomalies (Spec: ¶ 37), the human operator can be instructed to make an adjustment decision based on alerts regarding detected anomalies. Dependent claims 8 and 20 further bolster this interpretation since these claims explicitly recite that the alert is provided to an entity managing operations of the website (claim 8) or to an entity managing operations of the process (claim 20), albeit via equipment (which only generally applies the additional element, i.e., the equipment, to facilitate the ability of a human to send and receive information).
A processor/processing system may facilitate this process at a high level, but the claims do not present any specific technical approaches for implementing the webpage adjustments, much less as a constant closed-loop process managed predominantly by the additional elements. This alone is insufficient to demonstrate that the additional elements integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. As explained on page 12 of the USPTO’s “July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples,”[i]n limitation (a), the computer is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In limitation (b), use of a trained ANN does not integrate the abstract idea of limitation (b) into a practical application for similar reasons as explained above in limitation (d) of Claim 2. Additionally, the recitation of ‘network traffic’ generally links the abstract idea recited in limitation (b) to a particular field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).” Similarly, in Applicant’s claims, the processor/processing system, memory, and non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising processor system-executable instructions are used to perform the abstract ideas, thereby presenting no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions using the additional elements. Additionally, the fact that the detected and evaluated navigation events correspond to webpage and website activity simply links the abstract ideas to a particular field of use.
The rejection is 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claimed invention is directed to “managing and evaluating processes and conversion rates” (Spec: ¶ 1) without significantly more.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes – The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Process (claims 13-18), Apparatus (claims 1-12), Article of Manufacture (claims 19-20)
Independent claims:
Step
Analysis
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes – Aside from the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, the claims recite:
[Claim 1] detecting navigation events by a group of users, wherein the navigation events are triggered by user-initiated navigation between different webpages of a website and are associated with user traffic data comprising timestamp data, user or device identification data, navigation source data, and navigation destination data;
storing in a database the user traffic data;
accessing from the database the user traffic data for first and second non-overlapping time intervals each having a same duration based on the timestamp data;
identifying a conversion point for the website, wherein the conversion point is one of the webpages;
identifying a number of navigation steps before the conversion point that is to be analyzed; and
calculating, for each of first and second non-overlapping time intervals, first and second conversion rates, respectively, for user traffic flowing between a pair of the webpages consisting of a first webpage and a second webpage that are within the number of navigation steps and that are along a first path to the conversion point, wherein the calculating of each of the first and second conversion rates comprises:
determining, from the user traffic data, a first number of users that navigated to the first webpage,
determining, from the user traffic data, a second number of users that navigated from the first webpage to the second webpage,
determining, from the user traffic data, a third number of users that navigated from the first webpage to one or more other webpages that are different from the second webpage, and
dividing the second number of users by a differential between the first and third number of users,
wherein user traffic flowing from the first webpage to the one or more other webpages is along one or more second paths to the conversion point;
detecting an operational anomaly pertaining to the website based on the second conversion rate being below a predetermined threshold or the second conversion rate being lower than the first conversion rate;
adjusting, in response to the detecting the operational anomaly, one or more webpages of the website by modifying a position of a button, a position of a link, a navigation instruction, a link not working, a design obscuring a link, or a combination thereof;
subsequent to the adjusting, accessing updated user traffic data that is representative of navigation by a subsequent group of users between webpages of the website;
calculating, for a third time interval having the same duration as the first and second non-overlapping time intervals, a third conversion rate for user traffic flowing between the pair of the webpages consisting of the first webpage and the second webpage that are within the number of navigation steps and that are along the first path to the conversion point, wherein the calculating of the third conversion rates comprises:
determining, from the updated user traffic data, a fourth number of users that navigated to the first webpage,
determining, from the updated user traffic data, a fifth number of users that navigated from the first webpage to the second webpage,
determining, from the updated user traffic data, a sixth number of users that navigated from the first webpage to one or more other webpages that are different from the second webpage, and
dividing the fifth number of users by a differential between the fourth and sixth number of users,
wherein user traffic, among the updated user traffic data, flowing from the first webpage to the one or more other webpages is along one or more second paths to the conversion point; and
determining that the operational anomaly pertaining to the website has been corrected based on either the third conversion rate not being below the predetermined threshold or the third conversion rate not being lower than the first conversion rate.
[Claim 13] A method, comprising:
detecting navigation events by a group of users, wherein the navigation events are triggered by user-initiated navigation between different screens of an application and are associated with user traffic data comprising timestamp data, user or device identification data, navigation source data, and navigation destination data;
storing in a database, the user traffic data;
accessing from the database the user traffic data for first and second non-overlapping time intervals each having a same duration based on the timestamp data;
calculating a conversion rate for user traffic flowing between a pair of the different screens consisting of a first screen and a second screen that are along a first path to a conversion point of the application,
wherein the calculating is based on a first number of users that navigated to the first screen, a second number of users that navigated from the first screen to the conversion point via the second screen, and a third number of users that navigated from the first screen to the conversion point without traversing the second screen,
wherein the calculating comprises dividing the second number of users by a differential between the first and third number of users,
wherein the conversion rate is calculated for each of the first and second non-overlapping time intervals, thereby generating a first conversion rate and a second conversion rate, respectively;
detecting an operational anomaly pertaining to the application based on the second conversion rate being below a predetermined threshold or the second conversion rate being lower than the first conversion rate;
adjusting, in response to the detecting the operational anomaly, one or more screens of the application by modifying a position of a button, a position of a link, a navigation instruction, a link not working, a design obscuring a link, or a combination thereof,
subsequent to the adjusting, accessing, by the processing system, updated user traffic data that is representative of navigation by a subsequent group of users between different screens of the application;
calculating, by the processing system, a third conversion rate for user traffic among the updated user traffic data flowing between the pair of the different screens consisting of the first screen and the second screen that are along the first path to the conversion point of the application,
wherein the calculating the third conversion rate is based on a fourth number of users that navigated to the first screen, a fifth number of users that navigated from the first screen to the conversion point via the second screen, and a sixth number of users that navigated from the first screen to the conversion point without traversing the second screen,
wherein the calculating the third conversion rate comprises dividing the fifth number of users by a differential between the fourth and sixth number of users,
wherein the third conversion rate is calculated for a third time interval having the same duration as the first and second time intervals; and
determining that the operational anomaly pertaining to the application has been corrected based on either the third conversion rate not being below the predetermined threshold or the third conversion rate not being lower than the first conversion rate.
[Claim 19] (i) detecting navigation events by a group of users, wherein the navigation events are triggered by user-initiated navigation between different nodes of a process and are associated with user traffic data comprising timestamp data, user or device identification data, navigation source data, and navigation destination data;
(ii) storing in a database the user traffic data;
(iii) accessing from the database the user traffic data for first and second non-overlapping time intervals each having a same duration based on the timestamp data;
(iv) calculating a conversion rate for user traffic flowing between a pair of the different nodes consisting of a first node and a second node that are along a first path to a conversion point of the process which is a third node, wherein the calculating is based on a first number of users that navigated to the first node, a second number of users that navigated from the first node to the conversion point via the second node, and a third number of users that navigated from the first node to the conversion point without traversing the second node,
wherein the calculating comprises dividing the second number of users by a differential between the first and third number of users;
(v) determining whether an operational anomaly exists at the first node based on a comparison of the user traffic and the conversion rate for the pair of nodes;
(vi) in response to determining an operational anomaly exists:
adjusting one or more nodes of the process by modifying a position of a button, a position of a link, a navigation instruction, a link not working, a design obscuring a link, or a combination thereof,
subsequent to the adjusting, accessing updated user traffic data that is representative of navigation by a subsequent group of users between different nodes of the process,
calculating an updated conversion rate for user traffic among the updated user traffic data flowing between the pair of the different nodes consisting of the first node and the second node that are along the first path to the conversion point of the process which is the third node, wherein the calculating the updated conversion rate is based on a fourth number of users that navigated to the first node, a fifth number of users that navigated from the first node to the conversion point via the second node, and a sixth number of users that navigated from the first node to the conversion point without traversing the second node,
wherein the calculating the updated conversion rate comprises dividing the fifth number of users by a differential between the fourth and sixth number of users, and
determining whether the operational anomaly at the first node has been corrected based on a comparison of the user traffic among the updated user traffic data and the updated conversion rate for the pair of nodes; and
(vii) in response to determining an operational anomaly does not exist:
continuously monitoring for the existence of an operational anomaly by repeating operations (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), and (v).
It is noted that a database may simply be a collection of data.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify the abstract idea(s) of a mental process (since the details include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). As explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(1)(III), “[t]he courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” The limitations reproduced above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the respectively recited steps/functions of the claims, as drafted and set forth above, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or with the use of pen and paper. A human user can access user traffic data, evaluate the data, perform the various determining and assessing operations, perform the various recited calculations, etc. (including data related to website activity). Human users may also provide and receive alerts. Also, aside from the general use of a processor/processing system, memory, and/or a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising processor system-executable instructions, a monitoring human user can visually detect navigation events by monitoring a monitored user’s interactions with a processor/processing system to navigate between webpages of a website. URLs corresponding to webpages that are navigated to and from by the monitored user may be visible on a screen and may be noted by a monitoring human user (e.g., thereby qualifying as navigation source data and navigation destination data). User or device identification data may simply note the identification of the user or the type of device being used by the user, which a monitoring human user can confirm as well. A timestamp may be noted by the monitoring human user monitoring at what specific time a monitored user navigates from one webpage to another. The monitoring user may also gather the information gleaned via monitoring and store the information for future reference, for example. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify a method of organizing human activity (since the details include examples of commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). More specifically, the evaluated process is related to managing and evaluating processes and conversion rates (Spec: ¶ 1), which (under its broadest reasonable interpretation) is an example of managing personal behavior and evaluating business relations (i.e., organizing human activity); therefore, aside from the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the limitations identified in the more detailed claim listing above encompass the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
Additionally, the act of adjusting, in response to the detecting the operational anomaly, one or more webpages of the website by modifying a position of a button, a position of a link, a navigation instruction, a link not working, a design obscuring a link, or a combination thereof is an example of instructions that can be followed and performed by a human user, which is another example of organizing human activity. As explained in Applicant’s Specification, a human operation may be notified of an anomaly (Spec: ¶ 34 – “In one or more embodiments, alerts or other messaging can be provided, such as to equipment of an entity managing the process, website or application, which indicate the detection of the anomaly and/or describe the anomaly (e.g., identifying the webpage where anomaly is detected).”; ¶ 67 – “The alert(s) can be provided to various recipients (e.g., operator of the software application or website) utilizing various modes of communication including email.”). ¶ 37 of Applicant’s Specification states, “In one or more embodiments, the results of the methodology can then be utilized to adjust one or more of the webpages such as a position of a button/link, an instruction as to navigation, and so forth.” In other words, Applicant’s Specification does not present any specific technical details about how the adjustments are made in response to an anomaly; therefore, based on a broadest reasonable interpretation, the fact that a human operator is notified of anomalies, and the fact that adjustments are described as made in response to detected anomalies (Spec: ¶ 37), the human operator can be instructed to make an adjustment decision based on alerts regarding detected anomalies. Dependent claims 8 and 20 further bolster this interpretation since these claims explicitly recite that the alert is provided to an entity managing operations of the website (claim 8) or to an entity managing operations of the process (claim 20), albeit via equipment (which only generally applies the additional element, i.e., the equipment, to facilitate the ability of a human to send and receive information).
Various calculating steps and calculations are recited throughout the claims and these are examples of mathematical concepts. Examples of calculations include dividing the second number of users by a differential between the first and third number of users (claims 1, 19), calculating conversion rates (claims 1, 13, 19), comparing a conversion rate to a predetermined threshold (claims 1, 13).
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No – The judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites a device, comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate general performance of the recited operations.
Claim 13 recites a processing system including a processor to generally perform the recited operations.
Claim 19 recites a non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate general performance of the recited operations.
The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea(s) in a computer environment. The claimed processing elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s). Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s); Applicant’s specification discloses that the invention may be implemented using general-purpose processing elements and other generic components (Spec: ¶¶ 71-97).
The use of a processor/processing elements (e.g., as recited in all of the claims) facilitates generic processor operations. The use of a memory or machine-readable media with executable instructions facilitates generic processor operations.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processing elements performing generic computer functions) such that the incorporation of the additional processing elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using generic computer components. There is no indication in the Specification that the steps/functions of the claims require any inventive programming or necessitate any specialized or other inventive computer components (i.e., the steps/functions of the claims may be implemented using capabilities of general-purpose computer components). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas 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(s).
The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
There is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing recited in the claims.
Additionally, even when considering the operations of the additional elements as an ordered combination, the ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than what is present in the claims when each operation is considered separately.
2B: Claim(s) Provide(s) an Inventive Concept?
No – The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the use of the additional elements to perform the steps identified in Step 2A – Prong 1 above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims:
Step
Analysis
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes – Aside from the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, the claims recite:
[Claim 2] wherein the operations further comprise repeating the calculating of the first and second conversion rates for the user traffic flowing between other pairs of the webpages that are within the number of navigation steps and along a path to the conversion point.
[Claim 3] wherein the other pairs of the webpages include all possible user traffic flows that are within the number of navigation steps and along a path to the conversion point.
[Claim 4] wherein the identifying the conversion point for the website is based on user input selecting a particular webpage.
[Claim 5] wherein the identifying the number of navigation steps before the conversion point that is to be analyzed is based on user input.
[Claim 6] wherein the determining the first, second and third number of users is based on identifying unique users.
[Claim 7] wherein the user traffic data is a subset of stored user traffic data that is selected according to a particular time window.
[Claim 8] wherein the operations further comprise providing an alert in response to the detecting the operational anomaly, wherein the alert comprises a message provided to an entity managing operations of the website.
[Claim 9] wherein the operations further comprise:
accessing browsing history data for the group of users; and
determining an alternate website that one or more of the group of users navigated to according to the browsing history data and the user traffic data.
[Claim 10] wherein the one or more of the group of users navigated to the alternate website after not reaching the conversion point.
[Claim 11] wherein the website is an e-commerce website, and wherein the conversion point is one of a purchase webpage or a confirmation webpage.
[Claim 12] wherein the operations further comprise, for each of the first and second time intervals, determining at least one of: a time to the conversion point for at least a portion of the group of users, a time viewing the first webpage before navigating to the second webpage for at least a portion of the group of users, a time viewing the first webpage before navigating to one or more other webpages for at least a portion of the group of users, a time viewing a previous webpage of the website before navigating to the first webpage for at least a portion of the group of users, or any combination thereof.
[Claim 14] wherein user traffic flowing from the first screen to the one or more other screens is along one or more alternative paths to the conversion point.
[Claim 15] wherein the user traffic data is limited to a number of navigation steps before the conversion point that is to be analyzed.
[Claim 16] further determining, for each of the first and second time intervals, at least one of: a time to the conversion point for at least a portion of the group of users, a time viewing the first screen before navigating to the second screen for at least a portion of the group of users, a time viewing the first screen before navigating to the one or more other screens for at least a portion of the group of users, a time viewing a previous screen of the application before navigating to the first screen for at least a portion of the group of users, or any combination thereof.
[Claim 17] further repeating, for each of the first and second time intervals, the calculating of the conversion rate for the user traffic flowing between other pairs of the screens that are within a number of navigation steps and along a path to the conversion point.
[Claim 18] wherein the other pairs of the screens include all possible user traffic flows that are within a number of navigation steps and along a path to the conversion point.
[Claim 20] wherein the process is implemented via the group of users, and wherein an alert is provided, based on the determining of the operational anomaly, to an entity managing operations of the process.
The dependent claims further present details of the abstract ideas identified in regard to the independent claims above.
It is noted that a database may simply be a collection of data.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify the abstract idea(s) of a mental process (since the details include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). As explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(1)(III), “[t]he courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” The limitations reproduced above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the respectively recited steps/functions of the claims, as drafted and set forth above, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or with the use of pen and paper. A human user can access user traffic data, evaluate the data, perform the various determining and assessing operations, perform the various recited calculations, etc. (including data related to website activity). Human users may also provide and receive alerts. Also, aside from the general use of a processor/processing system, memory, and/or a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising processor system-executable instructions, a monitoring human user can visually detect navigation events by monitoring a monitored user’s interactions with a processor/processing system to navigate between webpages of a website. URLs corresponding to webpages that are navigated to and from by the monitored user may be visible on a screen and may be noted by a monitoring human user (e.g., thereby qualifying as navigation source data and navigation destination data). User or device identification data may simply note the identification of the user or the type of device being used by the user, which a monitoring human user can confirm as well. A timestamp may be noted by the monitoring human user monitoring at what specific time a monitored user navigates from one webpage to another. The monitoring user may also gather the information gleaned via monitoring and store the information for future reference, for example. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify a method of organizing human activity (since the details include examples of commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). More specifically, the evaluated process is related to managing and evaluating processes and conversion rates (Spec: ¶ 1), which (under its broadest reasonable interpretation) is an example of managing personal behavior and evaluating business relations (i.e., organizing human activity); therefore, aside from the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the limitations identified in the more detailed claim listing above encompass the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
Additionally, the act of adjusting, in response to the detecting the operational anomaly, one or more webpages of the website by modifying a position of a button, a position of a link, a navigation instruction, a link not working, a design obscuring a link, or a combination thereof is an example of instructions that can be followed and performed by a human user, which is another example of organizing human activity. As explained in Applicant’s Specification, a human operation may be notified of an anomaly (Spec: ¶ 34 – “In one or more embodiments, alerts or other messaging can be provided, such as to equipment of an entity managing the process, website or application, which indicate the detection of the anomaly and/or describe the anomaly (e.g., identifying the webpage where anomaly is detected).”; ¶ 67 – “The alert(s) can be provided to various recipients (e.g., operator of the software application or website) utilizing various modes of communication including email.”). ¶ 37 of Applicant’s Specification states, “In one or more embodiments, the results of the methodology can then be utilized to adjust one or more of the webpages such as a position of a button/link, an instruction as to navigation, and so forth.” In other words, Applicant’s Specification does not present any specific technical details about how the adjustments are made in response to an anomaly; therefore, based on a broadest reasonable interpretation, the fact that a human operator is notified of anomalies, and the fact that adjustments are described as made in response to detected anomalies (Spec: ¶ 37), the human operator can be instructed to make an adjustment decision based on alerts regarding detected anomalies. Dependent claims 8 and 20 further bolster this interpretation since these claims explicitly recite that the alert is provided to an entity managing operations of the website (claim 8) or to an entity managing operations of the process (claim 20), albeit via equipment (which only generally applies the additional element, i.e., the equipment, to facilitate the ability of a human to send and receive information).
Various calculating steps and calculations are recited throughout the claims and these are examples of mathematical concepts. Examples of calculations include dividing the second number of users by a differential between the first and third number of users (claims 1, 19), calculating conversion rates (claims 1, 2, 13, 19), comparing a conversion rate to a predetermined threshold (claims 1, 13).
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No – The judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application.
The dependent claims incorporate the additional elements of the independent claims.
Claim 1 recites a device, comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate general performance of the recited operations.
Claim 8 recites wherein the alert comprises a message provided to equipment of an entity managing operations of the website.
Claim 13 recites a processing system including a processor to generally perform the recited operations.
Claim 19 recites a non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, facilitate general performance of the recited operations.
Claim 20 recites wherein the process is implemented via computing devices of the group of users, and wherein an alert is provided, based on the determining of the operational anomaly, to equipment of an entity managing operations of the process.
The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea(s) in a computer environment. The claimed processing elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s). Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s); Applicant’s specification discloses that the invention may be implemented using general-purpose processing elements and other generic components (Spec: ¶¶ 71-97).
The use of a processor/processing elements (e.g., as recited in all of the claims) facilitates generic processor operations. The use of a memory or machine-readable media with executable instructions facilitates generic processor operations.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processing elements performing generic computer functions) such that the incorporation of the additional processing elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using generic computer components. There is no indication in the Specification that the steps/functions of the claims require any inventive programming or necessitate any specialized or other inventive computer components (i.e., the steps/functions of the claims may be implemented using capabilities of general-purpose computer components). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas 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(s).
The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
There is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing recited in the claims.
Additionally, even when considering the operations of the additional elements as an ordered combination, the ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than what is present in the claims when each operation is considered separately.
2B: Claim(s) Provide(s) an Inventive Concept?
No – The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the use of the additional elements to perform the steps identified in Step 2A – Prong 1 above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUSANNA M DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-4:30 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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270-5389. 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.
/SUSANNA M. DIAZ/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625A
Prosecution Insights