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 .
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.
Rejection:
Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) steps which are considered a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception -- See analysis below.
Analysis:
Step 2A prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon)?
The claimed “recite generating a message based on predefined template content including an audience identifier, deploying the message, receiving a user identifier for a user consuming the message, sending the user identifier to an audience integrator and receiving an audience identifier, receiving user interaction based on the template content, regenerating the message based on the audience identifier and the user interaction, and deploying the regenerated message” is an evaluation which is considered a mental process. See (MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2)(III).
The steps could be practically performed by a human using pen and paper, e.g., identifying a reader, classifying the reader into an audience, modifying a template based on the classification and feedback, and redistributing the modified message. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). As result, the limitation recites a mental process.
Step 2A, prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application?
The additional elements are:
Generating a message from a template.
Receiving a user identifier, an audience identifier and user interaction based on the template content.
Regenerating the message.
Deploying the regenerated message.
The generating, receiving, deploying (outputting ) steps merely perform data generation, data reception, data processing, and data output using generic computer functionality. Such activities amount to insignificant extra-solution activity and data manipulation. See MPEP §2106.05(g) (insignificant extra-solution activity such as data gathering and output does not integrate the exception into a practical application).
Accordingly, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP §2106.04(d)
Step 2B- Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception?
The examiner believes, no, the claims do not detail enough to amount to significantly more than inventive concept.
The additional elements when reconsidered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because these elements represents generic computer functions of data generation, data collection, data analysis, modification of information, and output of results. For example, the courts have indicated These elements in addition to the abstract idea perform only well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, such as transmitting identifiers, receiving data, processing user input, modifying content, and outputting information. These are generic computer operations that are commonly performed in content delivery and messaging systems. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims directed to gathering, analyzing, and displaying information lacked an inventive concept where they relied on conventional computer functions); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367–68 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (tailoring information based on user data implemented on a generic computer is not inventive); Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1270–71 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (customized content delivery using conventional components does not supply an inventive concept).
Claim groupings of 1, 8, 15 -- are regenerating the message which do not cite significantly more on generic computers that are claimed.
Claims 2, 9, 16 – “the components formatted….” is considered data processing using generic computer functionality and thus an insignificant extra solution activity under step 2A, prong two. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 4, 11, 18 – “selecting a message link, submitting form values, or inputting a command….” is considered organizing human activity thus an insignificant extra solution activity under step 2A, prong two. See MPEP 2106.05 (g).
Claims 5, 13, 19 – “a web production tool, a communications messaging tool, a collaboration tool, or a testing tool” are all generic computer components. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claims 6-7,13-14, 20-21 – “redesigning the message further based on the plurality of user interactions….” is considered data gathering and thus an insignificant extra solution activity under step 2A, prong two. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BAIK et al. Pub. No.: US 2021/0125235 (Hereinafter “Baik”) in view of Liao et al. Patent No.: US 10,687,105 (Hereinafter “Liao”).
Regarding Claim 1, Baik discloses a method for message content design and generation using an audience integrator, comprising:
generating a message based on a template, the template comprising predefined template content comprising an audience identifier to format the template content (see paragraphs [0081]);
deploying the message and receiving a user identifier for a user consuming the message (see paragraph [0108]);
receiving a user interaction based on the template content (see paragraph [0047]);
Baik fails to explicitly disclose:
sending the user identifier to an audience integrator and receiving, based on the user identifier, the audience identifier;
regenerating the message, the regenerating at least in part based on the received audience identifier and the user interaction; and
deploying the regenerated message.
In analogous art, Liao teaches:
sending the user identifier to an audience integrator and receiving, based on the user identifier, the audience identifier (see col.12, lines 35-51);
regenerating the message, the regenerating at least in part based on the received audience identifier and the user interaction (see col.2, lines 19-31 and col.4, lines 51-60); and
deploying the regenerated message (see col.2, lines 19-31 and col.4, lines 51-60);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Baik with the teaching as taught by Liao in order to enable content providers to deliver content to their desired users more precisely while avoiding including users in the audience who are less valuable to the content providers.
Regarding Claim 2, Baik in view of Liao teach the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Baik further teaches wherein the template content comprises a plurality of components, at least one of the components formatted based on the audience identifier (see paragraph [0016]).
Regarding Claim 3, Baik in view of Liao teach the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Liao further teaches wherein the audience identifier comprises a plurality of unique audience identifiers, the audience integrator generates a plurality of audiences, each characterized by one of the unique audience identifiers (see col.12, lines 35-51), the plurality of audiences comprising audience parameters (see col.11, lines 39-60), further comprising: modifying the audience parameters based at least in part on the user interaction (see col.13, lines 35-46).
Regarding Claim 4, Baik in view of Liao teach the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Baik further teaches wherein the user interaction comprises a user behavior, the user behavior comprising: selecting a message link, submitting form values, or inputting a command (see paragraph [0061]).
Regarding Claim 5, Baik in view of Liao teach the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Baik further teaches wherein the message is generated using at least one of a plurality of message generation tools comprising: a web production tool, a communications messaging tool, a collaboration tool, or a testing tool (see paragraph [0067]).
Regarding Claim 6, Baik in view of Liao teach the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 5. Liao further teaches wherein the audience identifier comprises a plurality of unique audience identifiers, the audience integrator generates a plurality of audiences, each characterized by one of the unique audience identifiers (see col.12, lines 35-51), the plurality of audiences comprising audience parameters and wherein regenerating the message further comprises: requesting audience parameters for the plurality of audience and receiving the audience parameters (see col.11, lines 39-60); On the other hand, Baik teaches, and redesigning the message using at least one of the message generation tools and based on the received audience parameters (see paragraph [0074]).
Regarding Claim 7, Baik in view of Liao teach the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 6. Baik further teaches wherein the user interaction is a plurality of user interactions, the redesigning the message further based on the plurality of user interactions (see paragraph [0074]).
Regarding Claim 8, Baik in view of Liao disclose a system, comprising: a processor (see fig.17 of Baik and col.14. line 65 of Liao); a non-transitory computer readable medium (see fig.17 and paragraph [0114] of Baik and col.14. lines of 46-65 of Liao), comprising instructions to perform the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim is being analyzed with respect to the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim is being analyzed with respect to the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim is being analyzed with respect to the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim is being analyzed with respect to the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding Claim 13, the claim is being analyzed with respect to the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim is being analyzed with respect to the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding Claim 15, the claim is directed toward embody the method of claim 1 in “non-transitory computer readable medium”. It would have been obvious to embody the procedures of Baik in view of Liao discussed with respect to claim 1 in “non-transitory computer readable medium” in order that the instructions could be automatically performed by a processor.
Regarding Claim 16, the claim is directed toward embody the method of claim 2 in “non-transitory computer readable medium”. It would have been obvious to embody the procedures of Baik in view of Liao discussed with respect to claim 2 in “non-transitory computer readable medium” in order that the instructions could be automatically performed by a processor.
Regarding Claim 17, the claim is directed toward embody the method of claim 3 in “non-transitory computer readable medium”. It would have been obvious to embody the procedures of Baik in view of Liao discussed with respect to claim 3 in “non-transitory computer readable medium” in order that the instructions could be automatically performed by a processor.
Regarding Claim 18, the claim is directed toward embody the method of claim 4 in “non-transitory computer readable medium”. It would have been obvious to embody the procedures of Baik in view of Liao discussed with respect to claim 4 in “non-transitory computer readable medium” in order that the instructions could be automatically performed by a processor.
Regarding Claim 19, the claim is directed toward embody the method of claim 5 in “non-transitory computer readable medium”. It would have been obvious to embody the procedures of Baik in view of Liao discussed with respect to claim 5 in “non-transitory computer readable medium” in order that the instructions could be automatically performed by a processor.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim is directed toward embody the method of claim 6 in “non-transitory computer readable medium”. It would have been obvious to embody the procedures of Baik in view of Liao discussed with respect to claim 6 in “non-transitory computer readable medium” in order that the instructions could be automatically performed by a processor.
Regarding Claim 21, the claim is directed toward embody the method of claim 7 in “non-transitory computer readable medium”. It would have been obvious to embody the procedures of Baik in view of Liao discussed with respect to claim 7 in “non-transitory computer readable medium” in order that the instructions could be automatically performed by a processor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alazar Tilahun whose telephone number is (571)270-5712. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, From 9:00 AM-6:00 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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/ALAZAR TILAHUN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/A.T/February 14, 2026