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
Claims 1-20 are pending in this instant application per claim amendments and remarks filed on 06/09/2026, wherein Claims have been amended. Claims 1, 12 and 17 are independent claims reciting computer-implemented method, computer system and non-transitory computer-readable medium claims. Claims 2-11, 13-16 and 18-20 are respective dependent claims.
This Office Action is a final rejection in response to the claim amendments and the remarks filed by the Applicant on 09 JUNE 2026 for its original application of 06 NOVEMBER 2024 that is titled: “System and Method for Utilizing Event Data to Determine a User Persona”.
Accordingly, amended Claims 1-20 are now being rejected herein.
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 a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more, wherein Claims 1, 12 and 17 are independent computer-implemented method, computer system and non-transitory computer-readable medium claims respectively.
Exemplary Analysis.
Claim 1: Ineligible.
The claim recites a series of steps. The claim is directed to a computer-implemented method reciting a series of steps, which is a statutory category, method, of invention (Step 1 -- YES).
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites the limitations of a method for analyzing event data to determine an event pattern, and then determining a user persona based upon the event pattern, comprised of: receiving event data, wherein the event data includes a plurality of site events corresponding to a user; determining an event mapping based upon the event data, wherein the event mapping corresponds to the plurality of site events; converting the event mapping into an event numeric array; and converting the event numeric array into an event vector (as software). In other words, the claim describes a method for analyzing event data to determine an event pattern, and then determining a user persona are disclosed (per Abstract). These limitations, as drafted, are steps of a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via a method of organizing human activity such as commercial or legal interactions to include agreements in the form of contracts based on determining an event mapping based upon the event data, wherein the event mapping corresponds to the plurality of site events, and receiving one or more stored event vectors from one or more data stores; and/or managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people to include receiving event data, wherein the event data may include a plurality of site events corresponding to a user. These limitations fall under the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group (Step 2A1 -- YES).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of: one or more processors as part of one or more systems, and event vectors inputted into one or more trained machine-learning models, plus persona marker sent to a user device, as in --- converting, by the one or more processors, the event numeric array into an event vector (as hardware); receiving, by the one or more processors, one or more stored event vectors from one or more data stores; inputting, by the one or more processors, the one or more stored event vectors and the event vector into one or more trained machine-learning models; in response to the inputting, receiving, by the one or more processors, a predicted scenario vector from the one or more trained machine-learning models; receiving, by the one or more processors, one or more stored scenario vectors from the one or more data stores; inputting, by the one or more processors, the one or more stored scenario vectors and the predicted scenario vector into the one or more trained machine-learning models; in response to the inputting, receiving, by the one or more processors, a scenario embedding from the one or more trained machine-learning models; predicting, by the one or more processors, a persona marker for the user based upon the scenario embedding; and presenting, by the one or more processors, the persona marker to a user device. The processors, systems, vectors, machine learning models, persona markers and devices in the steps are hardware recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer/s functions of processing data. These generic processors are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. 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. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2 -- NO).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional elements in this claim that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer and/or computer components over a network cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Based on the additional elements described above in Step 2A, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are extra-solution activities. The disclosure does not provide any indication that these devices (processors) are anything other than generic processors and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner as it is here.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B -- NO), and the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of the invention including independent computer system Claim 12 and independent non-transitory computer-readable medium Claim 17, which perform the steps similar to those of the independent computer-implemented method Claim 1. Furthermore, the limitations of dependent method Claims 2-11, further narrow the independent method Claim 1 with additional steps and limitations (e.g., wherein the event numeric array includes a variable length, and wherein the event vector includes a standard length; enumerating, by the one or more processors, the event data; wherein the event mapping includes a plurality of nodes, and wherein each of the plurality of nodes corresponds to at least one of the plurality of site events; correlating, by the one or more processors, each of the plurality of nodes by identifying a connection between each of the plurality of nodes, wherein the correlating includes determining a node sequence, …….; deriving, by the one or more processors, one or more probability maps from the correlated plurality of nodes; utilizing, by the one or more processors, a Graph Neural Network to perform the predicting of the at least one label for each of the plurality of nodes; …… creating, by the one or more processors, an electronic communication based upon the persona template; and sending, by the one or more processors, the electronic communication to the user device; wherein the persona marker corresponds to a resistant marker, an ambivalent marker, a self-sufficient marker, or a receptive marker; etc.), and do not resolve the issues raised in rejection of the independent method Claim 1. Similarly, dependent computer system Claims 13-16 and dependent non-transitory computer-readable medium Claims 18-20 also further narrow their independent Claims 12 and 17 respectively, which are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks (pages 12--23) and claim amendments dated 09 JUNE 2026 with respect to the rejection of amended Claims 1-20 have been carefully considered, but they are not persuasive and do not put these amended claims in a condition ready for Allowance. Thus, the rejection of amended Claims 1-20 has been maintained as described above. Additionally, Examiner notes that the Applicant’s claim amendments and arguments are persuasive, and all of the previous rejections under 35 USC §103, have been withdrawn (because the combination of references would exceed five/5 references used in the last Office Action). Thus, the rejection of amended Claims 1-20, as described above, is being maintained herein with some modifications in this Office Action, with rejection under 35 USC §101 only.
In response to the Applicant’s latest arguments against the rejection under 35 USC 101, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Also, Examiner clarifies that the instant application is nothing more than an improvement of an abstract idea, wherein using technology/ computers to execute an abstract idea is at most an improvement to the abstract idea.
In further response to the Applicant’s arguments of 06/09/2026 against the rejection under 35 USC 101 about “The Claims do not recite a judicial exception” under Prong One”, and Examiner respectfully disagrees. Also, upon reviewing the Specification and the claim as whole, independent Claim 1 (exemplary) is at least directed to one of the ineligible “certain methods of organizing human activity” that include “commercial or legal interactions” (to include agreements in the form of contracts based on determining an event mapping based upon the event data, wherein the event mapping corresponds to the plurality of site events, and receiving one or more stored event vectors from one or more data stores); and/or “managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people” (to include receiving event data, wherein the event data may include a plurality of site events corresponding to a user). In other words, the claim describes a method for analyzing event data to determine an event pattern, and then determining a user persona are disclosed (per Abstract). Thus, like the concept of intermediated settlement in Alice, and the concept of hedging in Bilski, the concept of “generating a set of instructions sequences based on certain criteria from a user for image transaction processing” recited in exemplary independent Claim 1 “is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce.” Thus, it is clear that exemplary independent Claim 1 recites “commercial or legal interactions” and/or “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” that, under the Revised Guidance, fall under the category of abstract ideas related to “certain methods of organizing human activity.” 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Accordingly, independent Claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
In further response to the Applicant’s arguments of 06/09/2026 against the rejection under 35 USC 101 about “The claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application” under Prong Two, and Examiner respectfully disagrees. Also, under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea --- see MPEP 2106.05(f).
In further response to the Applicant’s arguments of 06/09/2026 about “Step 2B” analysis, Examiner notes that if the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, for Step 2B we must “look with more specificity at what the claim elements add, in order to determine ‘whether they identify an “inventive concept” in the application of the ineligible subject matter’ to which the claim is directed.” Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). We look to see whether there are any “additional features” in the claims that constitute an “inventive concept,” thereby rendering the claims eligible for patenting even if they are directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 221. Examiner notes that Applicant’s claims as a whole, including claim amendments of 06/09/2026, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The processor limitations in the instant application do not add significantly more, because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. A generic recitation of a processor performing its generic computer functions does not make the claims less abstract. Also, the use of a particular machine and transformation to a different state or thing are not relevant to the instant application, and don’t overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101.
In further response to Applicant’s arguments of 06/09/2026 about the Alice/Mayo framework, Examiner notes that it is termed a search for an “inventive concept,” and the analysis is not an evaluation of novelty or non-obviousness, but rather, a search for an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself. Further-more, tests for whether an element is conventional under Step 2B only applies to the additional elements recited and not to the abstract idea present within the claims. Also, an improvement of technology by virtue of novelty or non-obviousness is not a test of eligibility.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See at least 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, listed in Form 892, that is considered pertinent to the Applicant's disclosure and review for not traversing already issued patents and/or claimed inventions by the claims of the current invention of the Applicant. Examiner notes that Form 892 contains more references than those cited in the rejection above under 35 USC 103, and that all the references cited on the Form 892 are relevant to this application and form a part of the body of prior art.
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. The Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Sanjeev Malhotra whose telephone number is (571) 272-7292. The Examiner can normally be reached during Monday-Friday between 8:30-17:00 hours on a Flexible schedule.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The facsimile/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 & 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.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with an Examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP §502.03(II). All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record. The Examiner’s e-mail address is provided below at the end of this Office Action.
/S.M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3691
sanjeev.malhotra@uspto.gov
/ABHISHEK VYAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights