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 May 15, 2026 has been entered. The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1 and 10.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to abstract ideas, as they require:
Accessing a record of a user’s visit…
Generating a machine-readable probability vector derived from website visit histories,
Determining a minimum amount of time on a website…
Calculating an estimated demographic profile…
Selecting and transmitting information based on the assignment.
The Examiner notes that the steps employ mental processes to:
Observe which websites are visited, and by whom; evaluating how long a visitor remains on a site and if it satisfies a minimum amount of time (the setting of a minimum of time is also an abstract idea requiring judgment and opinion);
Calculate an estimated demographic profile (where estimating is a process of observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion); and selecting and transmitting information requires observing the assignment, evaluating both the assignment and which user is to receive the transmitted data;
Generate a vector which requires observing the history of visits to websites, deriving a probability from a website history, which requires evaluating information about the website visitor who visited the site and making a judgment of which recipient should be sent the information concerning the assignment.
The Applicant’s arguments against the claims being directed to an abstract idea each clearly illustrate actions that are fundamentally composed of abstract ideas, as illustrated above. As a result, the arguments in favor of the claims not being directed to abstract ideas are not compelling.
The Applicant’s arguments that any abstract ideas are integrated into a practical application rely on the use of a probability vector, a computer-performed elapsed time calculation, an unspecified estimation and computation of a demographic profile, and selection of a user to receive the information. These steps illustrate computer-enabled calculations, but do not integrate abstract ideas into an additional element fundamental to the technology; do not illustrate a technological improvement to a computer; do not provide control or instructions to execute a process in a technology area, and do not teach, train, or advance knowledge in a machine learning model or artificial intelligence-based system. Based on this analysis, the arguments in favor of a practical application are not compelling.
The supplemental argument that the computer-generated information concerning the demographic profile, based on the histories and time calculations, amounts to “significantly more,” is not plausible. This computer-generated information presents itself as collected data, processed on a computer, analyzed and sorted, and provided to a designated user. This appears to be software applied to a computer and does not constitute significantly more or a practical application. The rejections based on 35 U.S.C § 101 will not be 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), 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, comprising: 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, judgment, opinion),
accessing a record of a visit by a website user to the website; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, 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, judgment, opinion),
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; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and
using the website profile and the record of the visit to calculate an
estimated demographic profile of the website user; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), and
providing a data or service based on the assignment, selecting and sending information to the user, (advertising, marketing or sales activities, social activities, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Additional limitations employ the method to obtain the plurality of probabilities from an internet marketing research company, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment- 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, judgment, 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, judgment, 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, judgment, opinion – claim 5), and actively access the web on a defined interval basis – (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, 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, judgment, opinion- claim 8), and calculating the probability using a weighted average formula – (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion - claim 9).
Each of these claimed limitations employ mental processes involving judgment, 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, the computer system, providing a data or service configured using the generated assignment to select and transmit information to the user, 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
Claims 1-5, 7-14, 16-18 were previously not rejected by prior art under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
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, (michael.borowski@uspto.gov). 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
Prosecution Insights