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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 1-9 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/9/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-9 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.
Claim 1 is directed towards a method, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 1 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations) /fundamental economic practice, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: receiving, electronic access metrics for a plurality of website visitors to a website that is associated with a first enterprise, the electronic access metrics for each website visitor including a respective IP address associated with the website visitor and respective website interaction data about electronic interaction activities by the website visitor including one or more of: (i) number of web-pages viewed, (ii) identification of the web-pages viewed; (iii) duration of website visit; and (iv) number of visits to the website; for each of the plurality of website visitors: determining, if the respective website interaction data for the website visitor corresponds to a predetermined electronic activity threshold, the predetermined electronic activity threshold including one or more of (i) a minimum number of web-pages viewed, (ii) viewing of specific web-pages; (iii) a minimum duration of the website visit; and (iv) a minimum number of visits to the website with a defined time period; and responsive to determining that the respective website interaction data for the website visitor corresponds to the predetermined electronic activity threshold:
(i) providing, a first query , the first query requesting entity- identifying information for a first entity associated with the website visitor based on the respective IP address associated with the website visitor; (ii) receiving, a first response , the first response including the entity-identifying information; (iii) providing, a second query for account relationship data that corresponds to the first entity, the account relationship data indicating: (a) one or more individual users associated with the first enterprise that are identified in the data storage system as having pre-existing relationships with one or more individual contacts associated with the first entity and (b) one or more individual contacts associated with the first entity that are identified as having pre-existing relationships with the one or more individual users associated with the first enterprise; and
(iv) when the account relationship data that corresponds to the first entity is received, causing, a notification to be automatically generated and electronically communicated to an electronic address associated with at least one of the one or more individual users associated with the first enterprise, the notification including information identifying the first entity and at least one of the one or more individual contacts associated with the first entity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the additional elements of a first computer system / external computer system / communications network / data storage system, which represent generic computing elements. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 6, 9 are directed to a system and method, respectively, for performing similar claimed limitations to those of claim 1; the claims recite the same abstract idea as Claim 1. Claims 6, 9 perform the method of claim 1 using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claims 6, 9 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 1.
Remaining dependent claims 2-5, 7-8 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of independent claims 1/6. The claims further recite the additional elements of a communication processing module / mail server / computer automated service comprising a visitor listening module , which represent generic computing elements that are recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination with the other additional elements, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims above do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of claims 1-9. Costache (20170124595) describes generating a segment of tracked entities from a collection of profiles merged from different sources; it teaches tracking users who view a website for a particular/minimum amount of time. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims. Chourey (20130124259) describes analyzing visitors’ interactions with a website, with the aim of turning the visitors into qualified leads, as well as storing predetermined relations between businesses and a plurality of interests. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims. When taken as a whole, the claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see the relevant prior art noted above.
Costache (20170124595) describes generating a segment of tracked entities from a collection of profiles merged from different sources; it teaches tracking users who view a website for a particular/minimum amount of time. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims.
Chourey (20130124259) describes analyzing visitors’ interactions with a website, with the aim of turning the visitors into qualified leads, as well as storing predetermined relations between businesses and a plurality of interests. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandru Cirnu whose telephone number is (571) 272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, 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).
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
12/17/2025
Prosecution Insights