DETAILED ACTION
The communication is a First Action Non-Final on the merits. Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10 May 2024 was/were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-15 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.
Step 1: Claims 1-9 are directed towards a method. Claims 10-15 are directed towards a system. Thus, these claims, on their face, are directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A - Prong One: As per MPEP 2106.04, Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim(s) recites a judicial exception; that is, whether the claim(s) set forth or describe a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea.
Claim 1 is presented here as a representative claim for specific analysis (The underlined claim terms here are interpreted as additional elements beyond the abstract idea.):
A method for digital search optimization, the method comprising:
clustering a set of keywords into at least one cluster;
determining a target audience cohort for a corresponding one of the at least one cluster;
and generating a personalized advertisement (ad) copy corresponding to the determined target audience cohort,
wherein each personalized ad copy comprises a headline and a description, wherein the headline and the description have at least one keyword from the corresponding one of the at least one cluster,
and wherein generating the personalized ad copy corresponding to the determined target audience cohort comprises generating one or more paraphrases based on at least one interest summary keyword and a persona sentence.
The claims here are based on the recitation of an abstract idea (i.e. recitation other than the additional elements delineated here with underlining and further addressed per Step 2A - Prong Two and Step 2B). The claims recite the abstract idea of generating personalized advertisements based on keywords which falls within certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes.
The phrase "certain methods of organizing human activity" applies to fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk; commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions. Refer to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. A-C.
The phrase "mental processes" applies to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). Refer to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.A-C.
The Remaining Claims: The additional independent claims fail to recite any additional elements beyond those identified above except for the use of various “modules” in claims 10-15. The dependent claims recite fail to recite any additional elements beyond those already identified except: “receiving a user input” (claims 5, 12), “receive the set of keywords from a user” (claims 2, 11), and using an “AI module” (claims 10 and 15).
The dependent claims further reiterate the same abstract idea with further embellishments: indicating the source of the keywords (claims 2, 11); more details about the clustering of keywords (claim 3); assigning labels to clusters (claims 4, 13); user editing of keywords (claims 5, 12); adding further details of the interest summary keyword and persona sentence (claims 6, 14); performing the steps with an unspecified algorithm (claim 7); generating a recommendation for the cohort (claims 8, 9, 15). Therefore, the identified claims fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Step 2A - Prong Two: As per MPEP 2106.04.II.A.2, Prong Two determines if the claim(s) recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
As for the additional elements of: various software “modules”. To be patent-eligible, the elements additional to the identified abstract idea must amount to more than "an instruction to apply the abstract idea . . . using some unspecified, generic computer" to render the claim patent-eligible. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 226 (2014). Here, Applicant's Specification broadly describes support for well-known generic computer elements; the specification, in Ll. 2-3 of page 15, describes that the “modules” “may be a physical or a logical component”. It would have been readily apparent to one having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time the invention was filed that the additional elements represent generic computing devices. Therefore, the claims amount to no more than a mere method, system, and/or computer program product to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer system. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As for the additional element(s) of: “receiving a user input” and “receive the set of keywords from a user”. The gathering of data represents insignificant extra-solution activity that comprises mere data gathering. The gathering of data represents insignificant extra-solution activity that comprises mere data gathering. The additional element(s) represent insignificant extra-solution activity incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g).
As for using an “AI module” to perform calculations. The use of machine learning or artificial intelligence, without providing details of how the models themselves are improved, represents mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: As per MPEP 2106.05, the additional elements are analyzed, both individually and in combination, to determine whether an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As for the additional element(s):
“receiving a user input” and “receive the set of keywords from a user” represents receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);
Applying an “AI module” is the same as applying machine learning at a high level of generality and represents performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Artificial intelligence / machine learning is well-understood, routine and conventional as exemplified in "Approaches to Machine Learning" by Langley et al. (Langley, P. and Carbonell, J.G. (1984), Approaches to machine learning. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., 35: 306-316. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630350509 (Year: 1984)).
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-15, as currently written, have overcome the prior art. However, the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are currently pending and represent a barrier to allowability.
Reasons for Overcoming the Art of Record
The following is examiner's statement of reasons for overcoming the art of record: The allowed claims include a combination of limitations that result in a very specific set of steps that were not obvious in view of the art of record. At a high level the invention generates advertisement copy (i.e., text) comprising a headline and a description based on a cluster of keywords and based generating paraphrases based on an interest summary keyword and a persona sentence. The art of record discloses generating advertisement copy based on keywords related to a user and a user’s history (Gopinath, Thomas); discloses generating advertisement copy based on a user’s determined persona (Triantafyllou); and discloses determining disparate phrases that may be combined into ad copy (Thomas).
However, the claims offer an extremely high level of detail and specific limitations which are not found in a typical advertisement copy generation system. These limitations include clustering a set of keywords into at least one cluster, determining a target audience cluster based on the cluster of keywords, generating ad copy comprising a headline and a description that include at least one keyword from the cluster, generating the personalized ad copy corresponding to the determined target audience cohort comprises generating one or more paraphrases based on at least one interest summary keyword and a persona sentence. The prior art does not specify the specific elements of discrete headline and description that both contain a keyword from the cluster of keywords and that comprise one or more paraphrases based on one interest summary keyword and corresponding to a persona sentence. Thus, the high level of detail in combination with specific functions renders the claims allowable over the art of record.
Examiner sets forth the following references as being most pertinent to Applicant's invention:
Gopinath et al. (Pub. #: US 2011/0066497 A1) discloses a system for creation of personalized advertisements based on clustering of keywords in a recommendation engine.
Triantafyllou et al. (Pub. #: US 2021/0329320 A1) discloses a system for personalization of advertisements based on a derived persona of the user.
Thomas et al. (Pub. #: US 2018/0276718 A1) discloses a system for machine-generated advertisements utilizing disparate phrases that may be combined into a personalized advertisement.
Park (Pub. #: KR-20170141910-A) discloses a system for automatic ad text generation including creating multiple drafts of the advertisement copy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT SNIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-9604. The examiner can normally be reached M-W: 9:00-4:30 Mountain (11:00-6:30 Eastern).
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at (571)270-3948. 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.
/SCOTT SNIDER/Examiner, Art Unit 3621