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 .
Status of the Application
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/17/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 14, and 18 are currently amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending following this response.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/01/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
New matter
No new matter has been added to the amended claims.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
The arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 9-16
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claims can recite abstract ideas even if they are claimed to be performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimals to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer’).
Collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and storing that recognized data in a memory in Content Extraction is according to the court an abstract idea that is similar to other concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts. Present claim 1 is collecting and analyzing data using a generic computer processor. The core issue is that the claims appear to use generic databases and generic machine learning to collect user information, predict user behavior, classify the user, and tailor a communication. The present claims obtain demographic and behavioral information, combine/encode demographic information, use that information to predict future activity, categorize the person, adjust how to communicate with that person, and send the communication.
That can reasonably be characterized as analyzing information about individuals to predict behavior and tailoring communications based on the resulting classification.
There are several noted abstract-idea concepts involved, particularly mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Federal Circuit's Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One line of cases is particularly close to the claimed invention because the court has expressly characterized customizing information presented to users based on user characteristics as abstract.
Further, "inputting the behavioral data and the feature vector ... into a machine learning model" and "receiving ... an activity parameter characterizing a predicted activity" do not appear to specify a technological improvement to the ML model itself. It uses machine learning as the mechanism for performing prediction.
In Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. especially, the Federal Circuit held that merely applying generic machine learning to a new data environment, without claiming an improvement to the machine-learning technology itself, does not confer patent eligibility.
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude based on the similarity of the idea described in this claim to several abstract ideas found by the courts that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Further, the additional elements in the claims The "electronic communication management system" is claimed essentially at the result-oriented functional level. The claim doesn't tell us that the system's underlying communication technology is improved. Rather, the computer appears to implement the abstract decision: "For this type of user, communicate differently."
The USPTO's current guidance emphasizes examining whether the claim as a whole reflects an actual improvement to computer functionality or another technological field, rather than merely performing an abstract idea using computers. As a result, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, Step 2A Prong Two.
Because the Examiner has determined that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, the Examiner proceeds to Step 2B of the Eligibility Guidelines, which asks whether there is an inventive concept. In making this Step 2B determination, the Examiner must consider whether there are specific limitations or elements recited in the claim “that are not well - understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present” or whether the claim “simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.” Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 56 (footnote omitted). The Examiner must also consider whether the combination of steps perform “in an unconventional way and therefore include an ‘inventive step,’ rendering the claim eligible at Step 2B” Id. In this part of the analysis, the Examiner considers “the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine “whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354. The additional technological components are essentially: databases, feature vector, machine-learning model, and electronic communication management system.
Nothing in the claim itself requires those components to operate unconventionally.
As a result, claim 1 is likely directed to the abstract idea of analyzing demographic and behavioral information to predict and categorize user activity and tailoring a communication based on that categorization. The recitation of generic databases, feature-vector encoding, a machine-learning model, and an electronic communication management system does not appear to integrate that abstract idea into a technological improvement or otherwise provide significantly more.
In conclusion, the Examiner maintains the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 101 in the present office action.
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. Specifically, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements to integrate the claims into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1-20, even if the claims were directed to a process, machine, or manufacture (Step 1), however the claims are directed to the abstract idea of users’ segmentation based on profile and demographic data and product recommendation.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the frameworks, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes limitations for “A method comprising: retrieving behavioral data and demographic data of at least one user; retrieving demographic data for the at least one user; encoding the demographic data from the first profile database and the demographic data from the second profile database into a feature vector representing demographic data from the first and the second profile database; inputting the behavioral data and the feature vector representing demographic data from the first and the second profile database into a machine learning model, the machine learning model trained on a training set including demographic data and behavioral data; receiving, as an output from the machine learning model, an activity parameter characterizing a predicted activity occurring within a time window; determining, based on the activity parameter, a category to which the behavioral data and the demographic data belong; adjusting a communication setting of an electronic communication management system based on the determined category; and transmitting, by the electronic communication management system, a communication to the at least one user based on the adjusted communication setting.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the limitations above recite certain methods of organizing human activity associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the element describe a process for users’ segmentation and product recommendation. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 14 and 18 recite substantially similar limitations to those presented with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 14 and 18 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Similarly, claims 2-13, 15-17, and 19-20 recite certain methods of organizing human activity associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the claimed elements describe a process for users’ segmentation and recommend product. As a result, claims 2-13, 15-17, and 19-20 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “from a first profile database” and “from a second profile database”. When considered in view of the claim, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the step of “retrieving” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because “retrieving” is an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. With respect to the use of machine learning techniques, it is common practice that such computational models/techniques and algorithms are per se of an abstract mathematical nature, irrespective of whether they can be “trained” based on training data. Hence, a mathematical method may contribute to the technical character of an invention, if it serves as technical purpose or if it regards as specific technical implementation motivated by the internal function of a computer. Elements in the present claims do not solve a technical problem, but an administrative/business method, i.e. users’ segmentation and product recommendation. Since the mathematical algorithms or models used in the present application do not serve a technical purpose, but a business purpose, and their implementation does not go beyond generic technical implementation, the use of the artificial intelligence techniques, do not contribute to a technical character and they are to be part of the abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 14 and 18 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 14 further recites “A system comprising: an activity parameter generator” and claim 18 further recites “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium and a processor”, when considered in view of the claims as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 14 and 18 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-13, 15-17, and 19-20 include additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 14, and 18. The additional elements in the dependent claims include “encoding” as in claims 3, “receiving” as in claim 4. When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the step of “receiving” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because “receiving” is an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. As a result, claims 2-13, 15-17, and 19-20 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “from a first profile database” and “from a second profile database”. The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. The step of “retrieving” does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because “retrieving” is well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll). As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 14 and 18 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 14 further recites “A system comprising: an activity parameter generator” and claim 18 further recites “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium and a processor”, the recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 14 and 18 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-13, 15-17, and 19-20 include additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 14, and 18. The additional elements in the dependent claims include “encoding” as in claims 3, “receiving” as in claim 4. The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. The step of “receiving” does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because “receiving” is well-understood, routine and conventional. As a result, claims 2-13, 15-17, and 19-20 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Paprocki (US 20140032265 A1). Paprocki teaches systems and methods of aggregating consumer data. The data may be acquired from numerous sources so that small portions of reliable data may be gathered into a single data set. Furthermore, by aggregating and analyzing such data, new insights and information about consumers may be discovered.
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to Abdallah El-Hagehassan whose contact information is (571) 272-0819 and Abdallah.el-hagehassan@uspto.gov The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-3734.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the patent application information retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information of published applications may be obtained from either private PAIR or public PAIR. Status information of unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the electronic business center (EBC) at (866) 271-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO customer service representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (in US or Canada) or (571) 272-1000.
/ABDALLAH A EL-HAGE HASSAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights