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 05/04/2026.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 11, 15 and 19-20 have been amended..
4. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/04/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative claim 1, recites a computer-implemented system for targeting electronic communications, the system comprising: a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
determine a response to electronic communications for each user of a group of users, by:
receiving interaction data indicating interactions with a first set of electronic communications via a first user device, associated with the user, in a first set period of time;
receiving purchase data indicating purchases made by the user in the first set period of time;
determining a metric representing a first response of the user to the first set of electronic communications based on the received interaction data and the received purchase data; and
comparing the metric to a threshold to determine a response associated with the user regarding electronic communications;
generate first instructions for users with a determined positive response to electronic communications to receive electronic communications;
generate second instructions for a test group of users with a determined negative response to not receive electronic communications;
generate third instructions for a control group of users with a determined negative response to receive electronic communications;
send electronic communications by executing the first and third instructions, wherein executing the first and third instructions comprises:
updating, in a searchable table stored in the memory, identifiers associated with users that are to receive the electronic communications, and
updating one or more advertisement display parameters for a platform associated with an advertising channel to cause the electronic communications to be displayed to users with the determined positive response and to users in the control group, the one or more advertisement display parameters comprising at least one of: identifiers of users to receive advertisements, identifiers of devices to receive advertisements, or conditions under which users receive advertisements; and
repeatedly re-assign user identifiers associated with the users in the test group to the control group after each increment of a second set period of time, by:
comparing purchasing behavior of each user in the test group to purchasing behavior of the control group; and
removing user identifiers of one or more users in the test group and assigning the removed one or more users to the control group to receive electronic communications when the comparison indicates the purchasing behavior of the one or more users has declined relative to the purchasing behavior of the control group.
The steps of,
determine a response to electronic communications for each user of a group of users, by:
receiving interaction data indicating interactions with a first set of electronic communications via a first user device, associated with the user, in a first set period of time;
receiving purchase data indicating purchases made by the user in the first set period of time;
determining a metric representing a first response of the user to the first set of electronic communications based on the received interaction data and the received purchase data; and
comparing the metric to a threshold to determine a response associated with the user regarding electronic communications;
generate first instructions for users with a determined positive response to electronic communications to receive electronic communications;
generate second instructions for a test group of users with a determined negative response to not receive electronic communications;
generate third instructions for a control group of users with a determined negative response to receive electronic communications;
send electronic communications by executing the first and third instructions, wherein executing the first and third instructions comprises:
updating, in a searchable table stored in the memory, identifiers associated with users that are to receive the electronic communications, and
updating one or more advertisement display parameters for a platform associated with an advertising channel to cause the electronic communications to be displayed to users with the determined positive response and to users in the control group, the one or more advertisement display parameters comprising at least one of: identifiers of users to receive advertisements, identifiers of devices to receive advertisements, or conditions under which users receive advertisements; and
repeatedly re-assign user identifiers associated with the users in the test group to the control group after each increment of a second set period of time, by:
comparing purchasing behavior of each user in the test group to purchasing behavior of the control group; and
removing user identifiers of one or more users in the test group and assigning the removed one or more users to the control group to receive electronic communications when the comparison indicates the purchasing behavior of the one or more users has declined relative to the purchasing behavior of the control group,
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 targeting electronic communications. The above identified method steps recite commercial interactions such as sales activities and/or tailored personalized marketing relating to improving timeline of events for product location pairs.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interaction such as commercial interaction, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As for Independent claim 20: Claim 20 recites a computer-implemented system for targeting electronic communications, the system comprising: a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
determine a response to electronic communications for each user of a group of users, by:
receiving click data indicating interactions with a first set of electronic communications via a first user device, associated with the user, in a first set period of time;
receiving data from the user device indicating at least one characteristic of the user;
utilizing a model to correlate a purchasing tendency with the at least one characteristic and the received interaction data, wherein the model comprises at least one of a linear regression model or neural network:
receiving a user purchase amount in the first set period of time; determining a portion of the user purchase amount allocated the first set of electronic communications using the model; and
comparing the portion of user purchase amount allocated to the first set of electronic communications to a threshold to determine a response associated with the user regarding electronic communications;
generate first instructions for users with a determined positive response to electronic communications to receive electronic communications;
generate second instructions for a test group of users with a determined negative response to not receive electronic communications;
generate third instructions for a control group of users with a determined negative response to receive electronic communications;
send electronic communications by executing the first and third instructions, wherein executing the first and third instructions comprises:
updating, in a searchable table stored in the memory, identifiers associated with users that are to receive the electronic communications, and
updating one or more advertisement display parameters for a platform associated with an advertising channel to cause the electronic communications to be displayed to users with the determined positive response and to users in the control group, the one or more advertisement display parameters comprising at least one of: identifiers of users to receive advertisements, identifiers of devices to receive advertisements, or conditions under which users receive advertisements; and
repeatedly re-assign user identifiers associated with the users in the test group to the control group after each increment of a second set period of time, by:
comparing purchasing behavior of each user in the test group to purchasing behavior of the control group; and
removing user identifiers of one or more users in the test group and assigning the removed one or more users to the control group to receive electronic communications when the comparison indicates the purchasing behavior of the one or more users has declined relative to the purchasing behavior of the control group.
The steps of
determine a response to electronic communications for each user of a group of users, by:
receiving click data indicating interactions with a first set of electronic communications via a first user device, associated with the user, in a first set period of time;
receiving data from the user device indicating at least one characteristic of the user;
utilizing a model to correlate a purchasing tendency with the at least one characteristic and the received interaction data, wherein the model comprises at least one of a linear regression model or neural network:
receiving a user purchase amount in the first set period of time; determining a portion of the user purchase amount allocated the first set of electronic communications using the model; and
comparing the portion of user purchase amount allocated to the first set of electronic communications to a threshold to determine a response associated with the user regarding electronic communications;
generate first instructions for users with a determined positive response to electronic communications to receive electronic communications;
generate second instructions for a test group of users with a determined negative response to not receive electronic communications;
generate third instructions for a control group of users with a determined negative response to receive electronic communications;
send electronic communications by executing the first and third instructions, wherein executing the first and third instructions comprises:
updating, in a searchable table stored in the memory, identifiers associated with users that are to receive the electronic communications, and
updating one or more advertisement display parameters for a platform associated with an advertising channel to cause the electronic communications to be displayed to users with the determined positive response and to users in the control group, the one or more advertisement display parameters comprising at least one of: identifiers of users to receive advertisements, identifiers of devices to receive advertisements, or conditions under which users receive advertisements; and
repeatedly re-assign user identifiers associated with the users in the test group to the control group after each increment of a second set period of time, by:
comparing purchasing behavior of each user in the test group to purchasing behavior of the control group; and
removing user identifiers of one or more users in the test group and assigning the removed one or more users to the control group to receive electronic communications when the comparison indicates the purchasing behavior of the one or more users has declined relative to the purchasing behavior of the control group,
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 targeting electronic communications. The above identified method steps recite commercial interactions such as sales activities and/or tailored personalized marketing relating to improving timeline of events for product location pairs.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interaction such as commercial interaction, 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 a processor, memory, a first user device, a second user device, a model. The user device is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions of determine a response to electronic communications: receiving click data; receiving data; utilizing a model: receiving a user purchase amount; and comparing the portion of user purchase amount; generate first instructions for users; generate second instructions for a test group of users; generate third instructions for a control group of users; send electronic communications; and repeatedly re-assign user identifiers associated with the users in the test group, comparing purchasing behavior of each user in the test group; and removing user identifiers of users in the test group and assigning them to the control group) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As for the limitation utilizing a model to correlate a purchasing tendency with the at least one characteristic and the received interaction data, wherein the model comprises at least one of a linear regression model or neural network, this feature is considered math, and therefore is a part of the abstract idea. Because the model in this claim is used as a tool for improving the abstract idea, rather than improving any technical feature or function, it is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 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
a processor, memory, a first user device, a second user device, a model 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); generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the menu to the second location as performed by a generic computer components (Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1243-44). 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 already present when the steps are considered separately. That is, a processor, memory, a first user device, a second user device, a model, performing commercial interactions including: determine a response to electronic communications: receiving click data; receiving data; utilizing a model: receiving a user purchase amount; and comparing the portion of user purchase amount; generate first instructions for users; generate second instructions for a test group of users; generate third instructions for a control group of users; send electronic communications; and repeatedly re-assign user identifiers associated with the users in the test group, comparing purchasing behavior of each user in the test group; and removing user identifiers of users in the test group and assigning them to the control group, amount to mere instructions to apply the steps to a computer comprising of a processor.
Thus, independent claims 1, 11 and 20 are not eligible.
As for dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea in claims 1 and 11. 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 1-20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed on 05/04/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
9. Applicant argued that “A. The Claims Are Not Directed to an "Abstract Idea"
The § 101 rejection should be withdrawn because Applicant's claims, as presently amended, are not "directed to" an abstract idea under Step 2A of the 2019 PEG. The Office alleges that the claims are directed to "certain methods of organizing human activity," namely targeted marketing or commercial interactions involving determination of responses to electronic communications and sending communications to selected users. Office Action at 4-12. Applicant respectfully disagrees with this characterization because it overgeneralizes the claims and fails to account for the specific computer-implemented mechanisms recited in the claims…” Remarks pages 18-20
10. Examiner notes that for abstract idea directed to "Certain Methods of organizing
Human Activity" and specifically abstract idea that fall within the subgrouping of
commercial and legal activities namely advertising, marketing and sales activities, the
courts have determined that steps directed to gathering data, analyzing data,
determining results generating tailored content, and transmitting the tailored content are
all part of the abstract idea itself. In the instant case, the argued limitation are all
directed to analyzing data and determining results in the process of performing
advertising, marketing of sales activities. As such, the argued limitations are clearly part
of the identified abstract idea and fall squarely within the "Certain Method of Organizing
Human Activity." Thus, the rejection has been maintained."
11. Applicant argues that “B. The claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Prong 2
Further, even if the claims involve an abstract idea, which the Applicant does not
concede, the claims nevertheless integrate the alleged abstract idea(s) into a practical application and are patent-eligible under Step 2A Prong Two. See 2019 PEG at 54.
The Office alleges that additional elements are "recited at a high level of generality," such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Office Action at 11-14.
Without conceding to the Office's analysis, Applicant further amends claim 1 to recite even more additional elements that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. For example, amended claim 1 further recites "send electronic communications by executing the first and third instructions, wherein executing the first and third instructions comprises: updating, in a searchable table stored in the memory, identifiers associated with users that are to receive the electronic communications, and updating one or more advertisement display parameters for a platform associated with an advertising channel to cause the electronic communications to be displayed to users with the determined positive response and to users in the control group, the one or more advertisement display parameters comprising at least one of: identifiers of users to receive advertisements, identifiers of devices to receive advertisements, or conditions under which users receive advertisements…" Remarks pages 20-22
12. Examiner notes that aside from the "a processor, memory, a first user device, a second user device, a model” which are "additional elements', the remainder of
the claims have been identified as part of the abstract idea itself which is merely applied
using a general-purpose computer (i.e., processing device coupled to a data storage
device executing software). In order to overcome a 35 USC 101 rejection under Step
2a, Prong 2 the purported improvement must be rooted in the "additional elements'.
Additional elements are defined as those elements outside of the identified abstract idea
itself. Thus, the "additional elements" as a whole are just a processing device coupled to a data storage device executing software upon which an abstract idea is merely being applied which is insufficient to transform the abstract idea into a practical application. Any purported improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matter. Thus, the rejection has been maintained.
13. Applicant argues that “C. The Claims Amount To "Significantly More" Than an Abstract Idea
As explained above, Applicant submits that the claims are not "directed to" an abstract idea and qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, and further analysis under Step 2B is not required. Nevertheless, solely to advance prosecution, Applicant presents the following analysis of the claims under Step 2B.
The Office asserts that the additional elements are recited generically and do not provide an inventive concept, either individually or as an ordered combination. Office Action at 13-15. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
As explained above, amended claim 1 recites specific, non-generic mechanisms such as updating, in a searchable table stored in memory, identifiers associated with users that are to receive the electronic communications, and updating one or more advertisement display parameters for a platform associated with an advertising channel to cause the electronic communications to be displayed to users with the determined positive response and to users in the control group, where the display parameters comprise identifiers of users to receive advertisements, identifiers of devices to receive advertisements, or conditions under which users receive advertisements. These limitations are not merely "extra-solution activity" or a generic instruction to apply a business rule using a computer. Rather, they define how the computer stores, updates, and applies recipient control information in memory and in platform display settings to govern delivery of electronic communications. Accordingly, the ordered combination
provides an inventive concept that is more than the alleged abstract idea and more than the use of a generic computer as a tool…” Remarks pages 22-25
14. Examiner notes that in order to overcome a 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2b
it is the "additional elements" that must be considered "significantly more". Additional
elements are defined as those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. In
the instant case, the only "additional elements" found in the claim are a processor, memory, a first user device, a second user device, a model, which is merely a general-purpose computer upon which the abstract idea is being applied. Thus, the additional elements cannot be considered significantly more than the abstract idea. The purported
improvement of the technology of "concrete implementation for controlling distribution of electronic communications on specific advertising infrastructure" in the manner claimed is part of the abstract idea itself and, as such, cannot be considered "significantly more" than the abstract idea under Step 2b. The amended limitation is an improvement to the abstract and an improvement to business. Thus, the rejection has been maintain.
15. Applicant’s arguments filed on 05/04/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102/103(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102/103(a) has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
17. Kirkham et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0339901) discloses determining one or more success metrics indicative of an efficiency of the current configuration of graphical representations, generating, using an optimization technique, a modified configuration of graphical representations based on the usage signals and the one or more success metrics, and presenting, in the user interface, at least a portion of the modified configuration of graphical representations (see at least the Abstract).
18. Updated Search for prior art found:
19. Kakani et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,990,650) discloses the server system receives (838), from the client device, a response corresponding to one of the predefined answers to the question. In some circumstances, the received response is considered an “impression” (e.g., the received response is received by the server system's impression tracker, such as impression tracking sub-module 213, FIG. 2). The server system updates (840), based on the response to the question, the branding profile corresponding to the client device (see at least column 27 line 52 through column 28 line 53).
20. Pandey (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0372355) discloses the payment network server 108 may be configured to update the database 112 when completing a current transaction. This helps to keep the transaction data relevant and updated. The payment network server 108 may also be configured to update the database 109 when a payer or a payee registers an account at the payment network server 108 or when a payer or a payee registers an account with a bank or a financial institution associated with an issuer server 110 or a bank or a financial institution associated with an acquirer server 106 respectively (see at least paragraph 0103).
21. Yan et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,222,268) discloses generating data, the client devices 112a-112c communicate with the third-party network server(s) 116 for a variety of purposes. For example, in one or more embodiments, the client devices 112a-112c communicate with the third-party network server(s) 116 to request a webpage, upload a file, update a profile, download a game, and so forth. Accordingly, in some embodiments, the third-party network server(s) 116 include or support a web server, a file server, a social networking system, a program server, an application store, or a content provider. When the third-party network server(s) 116 include web server(s) to support an ecommerce business, for example, the client device 112a may communicate with the web server by requesting webpages from the web server for display via a web browser operating on the client device 112a (see at least column 6 line 65 through column 7 line 12).
22. The above reference do not explicitly teach the amended claim limitations “updating one or more advertisement display parameters for a platform associated with an advertising channel to cause the electronic communications to be displayed to users with the determined positive response and to users in the control group, the one or more advertisement display parameters comprising at least one of: identifiers of users to receive advertisements, identifiers of devices to receive advertisements, or conditions under which users receive advertisements.”
23. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
24. 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 07/15/2026
Prosecution Insights