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 Claims
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 08/05/2025.
Claims 4-5 and 11-12 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 6, 8 and 13 have been amended.
New claims 14-15 have been added.
6. Claims 1-3, 6-10 and -13-15 are currently pending and are considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-3, 6-10 and -13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative claims 1 and 8, recites a method performed in a system, a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium and a system for supporting collaboration for a campaign, the system comprising one or more processors and the method comprising the steps of:
by the one of more processors, acquiring data associated with the campaign executed on at least one medium via an API or by scraping:
by the one or more processors, causing at least a part of the acquired data to be shared, via a dashboard in real-time, with a plurality of users belonging to at least one group associated with the campaign,
by the one or more processors, providing a collaboration tool for managing and analyzing the shared data via the dashboard:
by one or more processors, generating a tabular representation of the shared data,
by the one or more processors, receiving first comments regarding the shared data, via the collaboration tool, from a first device belonging to a first user among the plurality of users,
by the one or more processors, sharing the first comments on a second device belonging to a second user among the plurality of users;
by the one or more processors, receiving second comments, via the collaboration tool, from the second device:
by the one or more processors, generating a first customized view of the tabular representation and presenting the first customized view within a first widget of the dashboard on the first device;
by the one or more processors, generating a second customized view of the tabular representation and presenting the second customized view within a second widget of the dashboard on the second device;
by the one or more processors, generating alarm date in response to the data associated with the campaign satisfying a condition, and
by the one of more processors, switching a material of the campaign between active and inactive status in response to an input received from the first device or the second device via the dashboard.
The steps of
by the one of more processors, acquiring data associated with the campaign executed on at least one medium via an API or by scraping:
by the one or more processors, causing at least a part of the acquired data to be shared, via a dashboard in real-time, with a plurality of users belonging to at least one group associated with the campaign,
by the one or more processors, providing a collaboration tool for managing and analyzing the shared data via the dashboard:
by one or more processors, generating a tabular representation of the shared data,
by the one or more processors, receiving first comments regarding the shared data, via the collaboration tool, from a first device belonging to a first user among the plurality of users,
by the one or more processors, sharing the first comments on a second device belonging to a second user among the plurality of users;
by the one or more processors, receiving second comments, via the collaboration tool, from the second device:
by the one or more processors, generating a first customized view of the tabular representation and presenting the first customized view within a first widget of the dashboard on the first device;
by the one or more processors, generating a second customized view of the tabular representation and presenting the second customized view within a second widget of the dashboard on the second device;
by the one or more processors, generating alarm date in response to the data associated with the campaign satisfying a condition, and
by the one of more processors, switching a material of the campaign between active and inactive status in response to an input received from the first device or the second device via the dashboard,
as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites a method for supporting collaboration for an advertising campaign. The above identified method steps recite commercial interactions such as sales activities and/or tailored personalized marketing relating to providing data associated with the person.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interaction such as tailored personalized marketing, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of one or more processors, memory, a first device and a second device. The processors, the memory, a first device and a second device are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions of acquiring data associated with a campaign executed on at least one medium; and causing at least a part of the acquired data to be shared with users belonging to at least one group associated with the campaign) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is 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 additional elements of one or more processors, memory, a first device and a second device amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional elements are similar to the additional elements found by courts to be mere instructions to apply an exception because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery to perform an existing process such as: a common business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 US 208, 223; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. That is, one or more processors, memory, a first device and a second device, performing commercial interactions including: acquiring data associated with a campaign executed on at least one medium; and causing at least a part of the acquired data to be shared with users belonging to at least one group associated with the campaign, amount to mere instructions to apply the steps to a computer comprising of a processor.
Thus, claims 1, 7 and 8 are not eligible.
As for dependent claims 2-3, 6, 9-10 and 13-15, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in claims 1 and 8. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 1-4, 6-10 and 13-15 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant’s arguments, filed on 08/05/2025, with respect to the Claim Interpretation have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amendment of claim 8 has been acknowledged.
10. Applicant's arguments filed on 08/05/2025 with respect to the rejection of now amended claims 8-13 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and they are persuasive. The rejection of claims 8-13 under 35 U.S.C. 101 (software per se) are therefore withdrawn.
11. Applicant's arguments filed on 08/05/2025 with respect to the rejection of amended claims 1-3, 6-10 and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See new rejection above
12. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of amended claims 1-3, 6-10 and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been withdrawn. The following prior art teaches:
13. Lee BYoung Moo (KR 10-2020-0045789) discloses supporting collaboration for an advertising campaign, the method comprising the steps of: a data collection window generating unit that receives a type input in the big data collection window (See al feast page 2 paragraph 7).
14. Hoffman et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0122251) discloses a system may receive identification information associated with profiles and electronic devices that were exposed to a certain piece of targeted content. The demographic and device data associated with the individuals who were exposed to the targeted content are used to create a control group of individuals who were not exposed to that targeted content. The real-world visit rates of the exposed group and the control group to one or more locations may be monitored over a period of time (or campaign) and evaluated to assess the effectiveness of the targeted content (see at least the Abstract).
15. Vijayan et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11/227,3220 discloses the management system creates customer profiles of the automotive dealership systems’ customers using features of the customers obtained via various sources. The management system assigns a customer category to a customer based on the features included in the customer profile and may generate a customized recommendation of a product and/or service for the customer to purchase at the dealership based at least in part on the customer category (see at least the Abstract).
16. Although these references teaches the limitations of claim 1, the prior art does not specifically teach the limitations of the amended claim such as “generating a first customized view of the tabular representation and presenting the first customized view within a first widget of the dashboard on the first device; generating a second customized view of the tabular representation and presenting the second customized view within a second widget of the dashboard on the second device; generating alarm date in response to the data associated with the campaign satisfying a condition, and
switching a material of the campaign between active and inactive status in response to an input received from the first device or the second device via the dashboard.
17. Upon further search and consideration, the Examiner notes that no prior art has been found that teaches the amended limitations noted above.
Conclusion
18. 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 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.
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARILYN G MACASIANO whose telephone number is (571)270-5205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12:00-9:00 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, llana Spar can be reached at 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 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.
/MARILYN G MACASIANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622 11/09/2025