DETAILED ACTION
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
2. The Amendment filed on December 4, 2025, has been entered. The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 4, 10, 13, and the cancellation of claims 6, 15.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant argues the claims recite more than the abstract ideas. Applicant argues a technological method generating a machine-readable probability vector generated from website traversal histories, and aggregating digital interaction data, arguing that aggregating a vector is not a mental process. The Examiner counters that assigning probabilities that results in a probability vector is a mental process; binning/assigning digital interaction data from which to draw a conclusion on the website visitor demographic is a mental process; and the underlying assumption/opinion that time spent correlates to a demographic is also a mental process. Examiner contends that the aforementioned website tracking and data collection could easily be presented in a histogram with each bin of data representing a time interval from which probabilities are assigned, notionally by a human, and conclusions are drawn. The underlying basis for the determination is collected data interpreted, translated, reasoned, or coded, at some point, by a human. If there is something underlying the assignments hidden deeper in the analysis performed by the processor, that needs to be revealed.
Applicant argues that a practical application emerges from the probability vectors, website histories and generation of a demographic assignment (?) and a configuration of a data or service based on an assignment. If this is a practical application, the additional elements that deliver this application are taken from a computer having a memory and an application executing on the computer. In effect, the computer processes data and performs additional software functions. Enhancement to the computer is not evident and the computer output appears to be more information. This appears to be an instance of software functionality provided on a generic computer also known as “apply it.” Precedent states that the mere operation of software on a processor does not constitute a practical application, MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant’s arguments are not compelling and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 will not be withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant’s arguments concerning the machine- readable probability vector application and basis of total time spent on a website are compelling and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-5, 7-14, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims, 1-5, 7-14, 16-18 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea) without providing significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis per MPEP § 2106.03, required the claims to be a process, machine, manufacture or a composition of matter. Claims 1-5, 7-14, 16-18 are directed to a process (method), and machine (system), which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A
Claims 1-5, 7-14, 16-18 are directed to abstract ideas, as explained below.
Prong one of the Step 2A analysis requires identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and determining whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite the following limitations that are directed to abstract ideas, which can be summarized as being directed to a method, the abstract idea, of determining a website visitor’s demographic and presenting targeted information in the form of advertisements to those web browsers.
Claim 1 discloses a method of determining a profile of a user comprising:
determining a website profile of a website, wherein the website profile comprises a plurality of probabilities that a random user visiting the website is a member of one or more demographic subgroups; (advertising, marketing or sales activities, social activities, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
accessing a record of a visit by a website user to the website; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)
generating an assignment of the website user to one or more of the demographic subgroups based on the website profile; (advertising, marketing or sales activities, social activities, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and
providing a data or service based on the assignment, (advertising, marketing or sales activities, social activities, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Additional limitations employ the method to obtain the plurality of probabilities from an internet marketing research company, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement- claim 2), wherein the probabilities reflect a higher probability of the user being in one demographic subgroup than another of the same demographic category, (advertising, marketing or sales activities, social activities, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion- claim 3), where accessing the visit record comprises analyzing an aggregate website traversal history file full of histories, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 4), where generating the assignment of the user to a group comprises selecting a user with a travel history that satisfies predetermined criteria, (advertising, marketing or sales activities, social activities, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 5), and actively access the web on a defined interval basis – (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 7), and estimating a demographic of the user based on time spent by the user on the website and a skewness of the website towards a particular demography – (advertising, marketing or sales activities, social activities, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion- claim 8), and calculating the probability using a weighted average formula – (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion - claim 9).
Each of these claimed limitations employ mental processes involving judgement, observation, evaluation and opinion.
Claims 10-14, 16-18 recite similar abstract ideas as those identified with respect to claims 1-5, 7-9.
Thus, the concepts set forth in claims 1-5, 7-14, 16-18 recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A-Prong 2
As per MPEP § 2106.04, while the claims 1-5, 7-14, 16-18 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements such as a computer having a memory, and an application executing on the computer, these limitations are not sufficient to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract ideas since these elements are invoked as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract ideas in a specific technological environment. The mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
Evaluated individually, the additional elements do not integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application. Evaluating the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The claims do not amount to a “practical application” of the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1-5, 7-14, 16-18 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Claims 1-5, 7-14, 16-18 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The analysis above describes how the claims recite the additional elements beyond those identified above as being directed to an abstract idea, as well as why identified judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application. These findings are hereby incorporated into the analysis of the additional elements when considered both individually and in combination.
For the reasons provided in the analysis in Step 2A, Prong 1, evaluated individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Evaluating the claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. In addition to the factors discussed regarding Step 2A, prong two, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely amount to instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-5, 7-14, 16-18 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
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 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.
6. Claims 1, and 10, are not rejected by prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Dependent claims 2-5, and 7-9, 11-14, 16-18 are not rejected because of their inherent dependency on claims 1, and 10.
The closest prior art to the invention includes Paris, (US 20070198937A1), “Method for Determining A Profile of A User Of A Communication Network” and Law, (US 20080183557A1), “Probabilistic Inference Of Demographic Information Of A First Domain Using Accepted Demographic Information Of One Or More Source Domains And A Probability That A User Will Visit Both The Source Domain(s) And The First Domain.” None of the prior art alone or in combination teach the claimed invention as recited in this claim wherein the novelty is in the combination of all the limitations and not in a single limitation.
Regarding claim 1, A computer-implemented method of determining a
profile of a user comprising:
determining, in a computer system, a website profile of a website, Paris
teaches, (The profiling server 101 also determines profile P.sub.s of a given Web site of interest [0046]), wherein the website profile comprises a machine-readable probability vector, the vector generated from an aggregate of website traversal histories representing a plurality of probabilities that a random user visiting the website is a member of one or more demographic subgroups; although Paris does teach probabilities derived from website visits, he does not include machine-readable probability vectors. Machine-readable probability vectors were not discovered in prior art.
accessing, in the computer system, a record of a visit by a website user to the website; Paris teaches, (The purpose of the sensor software is to record the navigation of the Internet user; that is, the various sites or parts of sites that he visited over time, [0037]),
generating, in the computer system, an assignment of the website user to one
or more of the demographic subgroups based on the website profile, wherein the generating the assignment further comprises determining, from the record of the visit, that the website user has spent a minimum predetermined amount of time in seconds over a defined time period on the website; Although Paris teaches the profile of an Internet user, composed of a series of attribute values associated to this Internet user. Attributes are data elements associated to each Internet user that are of interest to service providers, [0039]), Paris does not teach a minimum predetermined amount of time in seconds used to ascribe probability values, and
providing, by the computer system, a data or service based on configured using
the generated assignment.
These individually or in combination did not teach the complete scope of the claim.
Claims 2-5, and 7-9, 11-14, 16-18 are not rejected because of their inherent dependency on claims 1, and 10.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BOROWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MB/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624