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 Amendment
This Action is in response to the Amendment filed September 18, 2025. Claims 8 and 11 are canceled. Claims 1 and 20-21 are amended. Claims 1-7, 9-10 and 12-21 are pending and have been examined in this application.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application No. 63/501,191, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Application No. 63/501,191 at least does not disclose, determining, based on the attribute, that the content item is associated with a first group type, wherein the first group type comprises of a plurality of audience segments; determining, using performance data of the communication campaign of the client account, a first performance value of a first audience segment in the plurality of audience segments; generating, using a machine-learned asset generation pipeline, a suggested asset based on the first audience segment; determining, based on the first performance value transcending a performance threshold value, that the content item has an audience gap associated with the first audience segment; and performing an action based on the determination that the content item has the audience gap associated with the first audience segment. Although Application No. 63/501,191 generally discusses a content item for a communication campaign it does not provide support for the features specifically claimed in the present application.
Therefore, as the present application is a nonprovisional of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/501,191; and the claims are not supported by the disclosure of the application, the current claims, 1-7, 9-10 and 12-21 of present application do not receive priority to the filing date of Application No. 63/501,191.
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 1-7, 9-10 and 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-7, 9-10 and 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-21 are directed toward at least abstract idea without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP § 2106, the rationale for this determination is explained below.
Representative claim 1 is directed towards a method, claim 20 is directed towards a system, claim 21 is directed towards a non-transitory computer readable media, which are statutory categories of invention.
Although, claim 1 is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim, however is directed toward a judicial exception namely an abstract idea. The limitations that set forth the abstract idea recites: obtaining data indicating a content item for a communication campaign of a client account, the content item having an attribute; determining, based on the attribute, that the content item is associated with a first group type, wherein the first group type comprises of a plurality of audience segments; determining, using performance data of the communication campaign of the client account, a first performance value of a first audience segment in the plurality of audience segments; generating, a suggested asset based on the first audience segment; determining, based on the first performance value transcending a performance threshold value, that the content item has an audience gap associated with the first audience segment; processing the suggested asset and the first audience segment, to determine an uplift estimation value; and performing an action based on the determination that the content item has the audience gap associated with the first audience segment, wherein the action performed includes a presentation of the suggested asset and the uplift estimation of the client account. These limitations, comprise commercial interactions including, advertising, marketing or sales activities and business relations, as well as managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions. As such, the limitations are directed towards the abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed as a whole under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements provided by the claim amount to mere use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. In particular the claim recites the additional elements using a machine-learned asset generation pipeline; using a machine-learned estimation model; on a graphical user interface, which are recited at a high level of generality and are merely the use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Simply applying the abstract idea by a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements a machine-learned asset generation pipeline, a machine-learned estimation model; a graphical user interface, and one or more processors, computer-readable media (claims 20-21). Viewed individually, these limitations do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment1. Merely applying an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the limitations of the claims as a whole, when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
A review of dependent claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-19, likewise, do not recite any limitations that would remedy the deficiencies outlined above. The claims only further add to the abstract idea, with no elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more. For instance, claims 6-7, 9 and 12, use a machine-learned model to further apply the abstract idea. However, this is merely using the computer, via a machine algorithm, as a tool to apply the abstract idea. Thus, while the dependent claims may slightly narrow the abstract idea by further describing it, they do not make it less abstract and are rejected accordingly. Further still, claims 20-21 suffer from substantially the same deficiencies as outlined with respect to claim 1 and are also rejected accordingly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's filed arguments have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive.
A. Applicant’s argument regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that independent claim 1 along with claims 20 and 21 do not recite any judicial exceptions and are therefore patent eligible. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to the abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because they entail commercial interaction including advertising, marketing, sales activities and business relations, (facilitating/processing a client/user campaign); as well as managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions (monitoring client/user account performance). Processing of a digital asset like a video or interactive ad and a large audience segment, regardless if this might involve potentially millions of data points, is an abstract idea in and of itself. Using a machine learning model to process said abstract idea is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant submits that the claim 1 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements provided by the claim merely uses the computer as a tool to apply the abstract idea, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. It is well understood that simply applying abstract ideas by generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea, or an inventive concept that would amount to significantly more. See at least, TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea”).
Applicant contends that the claim recites a specific improvement by generating a suggested asset for a specific audience segment using a machine-learned asset generation pipeline. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Even assuming arguendo that such an improvement is made, an improvement to generating a suggested asset (videos or interactive ads) for specific users is an improvement to an abstract idea, which is still ineligible. See at least Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claims that improved an abstract idea, but not a computer’s performance, were held unpatentable). Furthermore, because a claim discloses a specific solution to a particular problem does not automatically render it patent eligible. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 599–601 (2010) (concluding that claims fell outside § 101 notwithstanding the fact that they disclosed a very specific method of hedging against price increases); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 593 (1978) (rejecting the argument “that if a process application implements a principle in some specific fashion, it automatically falls within the patentable subject matter of § 101”); and Alice v. CLS Bank, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358–60 (2014) (claims fell outside of 35 U.S.C. 101 even though they described a very specific method for conducting intermediated settlement).
Applicant argues that the claimed invention achieves a measurable improvement in the functioning of the computer. By using the specified pipeline, the system can generate tailored digital assets faster, more efficiently, and at a scale previously unattainable by human creators or generic software. This improves the computer's performance as a tool for digital marketing and content creation. The pipeline does not just produce a result; it enhances the underlying technological process of creating digital assets. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Generate tailored digital assets faster, more efficiently, and at a scale previously unattainable by human creators, is generally what a computer does. Even by using the specified pipeline tool this only improves the abstract idea and is therefore, still ineligible. Moreover, there is no technical support/technical description in Applicant’s specification that the claimed invention, when implemented, improves the functioning of the computing device itself, or that it improves another technology/technical field. Indeed, the specification states that the “system trains and utilizes machine-learned models to analyze audience demographics, behavior, and preferences, allowing for improved targeting of content. This leads to increased relevance of content to users, maximizing the effectiveness of campaigns” [0068].
As such, the claims as a whole, in view of Alice, do not connote an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is maintained.
B. In regards to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection the prior art do not teach the amended claim 1 limitations as claimed, in view of the priority date. If the priority date is removed Examiner would have to update the search to consider references applicable to Applicant’s May 9, 2024 filing date.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Errol CARVALHO whose telephone number is (571)272-9987. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30-7:00 Alt Fri
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571- 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (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 USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E CARVALHO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
1 See, Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2360 (2014) (noting that none of the hardware recited “offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,’ that is, implementation via computers” (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010))).