Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Claims 1-20 are present for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is not statutory because these claims lack the necessary physical articles or objects to constitute a machine or a manufacture within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 101. These claims are, at best, functional descriptive material (i.e., software) per se.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
It should be noted that the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) has incorporated the 2019 Revised Guidance and subsequent updates at § 2106. Under the 2019 Revised Guidance “Step 2A” the office looks to whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas; and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, the examiner then (pursuant to the 2019 Revised Guidance “Step 2B”) evaluates the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Claims 1:
Step
Analysis
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitations of determining user inputs; accessing a contacts database; using a large language model (LLM) module to generate a query data object;
providing the query data object as an input to a search engine to generate a proposed campaign content dataset and/or a proposed set of targets associated with the one or more target computer systems; modifying the query data object using a controlling module to form a modified query data object; running the modified query data object as a query to a search engine; and executing the proposed campaign content dataset to generate a set of messages representing a corresponding campaign.
The determining user inputs; accessing a contacts database; OR using a large language model (LLM) module to generate a query data object limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is nothing in the claim precludes the determining user inputs; accessing a contacts database; OR using a large language model (LLM) module to generate a query data object step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, the claim encompasses the user manually determining user inputs; accessing a contacts database; OR using a large language model (LLM) module to generate a query data object. This limitation is a mental process.
The using a large language model (LLM) module to generate a query data object; OR providing the query data object as an input to a search engine to generate data limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is nothing in the claim precludes the using a large language model (LLM) module to generate a query data object; OR providing the query data object as an input to a search engine to generate data step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, the
claim encompasses the user manually using a large language model (LLM) module to generate a query data object;
providing the query data object as an input to a search engine to generate a proposed campaign content dataset and/or a proposed set of targets associated with the one or more target computer systems. This limitation is a mental process.
The modifying the query data object using a controlling module to form a modified query data object limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is nothing in the claim precludes the modifying the query data object using a controlling module to form a modified query data object step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, the
claim encompasses the user manually modifying the query data object using a controlling module to form a modified query data object. This limitation is a mental process.
The executing the proposed campaign content dataset to generate a set of messages representing a corresponding campaign limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is nothing in the claim precludes the executing the proposed campaign content dataset to generate a set of messages representing a corresponding campaign step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, the claim encompasses the user manually executing the proposed campaign content dataset to generate a set of messages representing a corresponding campaign. This limitation is a mental process.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim does not recite even generic computer hardware. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the same analysis applies here in 2B, Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims further recite the steps of adding more conditions to the ‘rule’ in order to complete the task under certain rules without amounting to a significantly more than the abstract idea as they do not provide steps that confine the claims toward a particular field of application or apply judicial exception to a particular field.
In view of the above reasons, claims 2-20 are not in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 101 statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitations of “providing the query data object as an input to a search engine to generate a proposed campaign content dataset and/or a proposed set of targets associated with the one or more target computer systems” (emphasis added) and “executing the proposed campaign content dataset to generate a set of messages representing a corresponding campaign” (i.e., lines 6-8 and 12-13). In view of the above providing step, when the search engine is used to “generate a proposed set of targets associated with the one or more target computer systems,” it appears that the claimed invention doesn’t require “campaign content dataset”; then the above execution step wouldn’t be applicable because there would be no “campaign content dataset” to perform the execution step. Clarification is required.
Additionally, this claim recites the limitations of “a search engine” [emphasis added] (i.e., line 11). It is unclear whether or not this search engine is related to the phrase of “a search engine” [emphasis added] (i.e., line 6). Are they referring to the same search engine? If so, then it appears that there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Clarification is required.
Regarding claims 4 and 10, the term “sufficient” recited in lines 2 and 4 of claim 4 and line 3 of claim 10 which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. In addition, claim 10 recites the term “satisfactory” in line 4 of claim 10 and this term is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “sufficient” and “satisfactory” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 12, the term “efficacy” recited in lines 2 and 4 which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “efficacy” is not defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 18, the term “effectiveness” recited in line 3 which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “effectiveness” is not defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim not specifically mentioned above is rejected by virtue of its dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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.
9. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
10. Claims 1, 3, 9, 11-13, 15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. 2025/0086403 (hereinafter Pitkin).
Regarding claims 1 and 19-20, as far as the claim is understood, Pitkin discloses a computer-implemented method for generating electronic communication messages to one or more target computer systems, the method comprising:
determining user inputs ([0026]; “…Alternatively, a campaign recommendation may be determined based on user input…”);
accessing a contacts database; using a large language model (LLM) module to generate a query data object ([0028]; “A campaign brief is determined at 102 based on a campaign recommendation determined based on data stored in a database system. In some embodiments, the campaign brief may include a collection of information such as a key message, a target audience, a messaging channel (e.g., email, text, etc.), orchestration information (e.g., frequency and timing of recommended content), and one or more messages for communicating with the target audience about one or more opportunities. The campaign recommendation may be determined at least in part by applying a large language model to complete a prompt that includes some or all of the campaign recommendation…”);
providing the query data object as an input to a search engine to generate a proposed campaign content dataset and/or a proposed set of targets associated with the one or more target computer systems; modifying the query data object using a controlling module to form a modified query data object ([0029-0031, 0048 and 0058]; figs. 5-6; “At 104, an updated campaign brief is determined based on one or more campaign brief refinements. In some embodiments, campaign brief refinement may include textual user input…”; “A request to refine a campaign brief is received at 502. In some embodiments, the request may be generated automatically, for instance after a campaign has been generated. Alternatively, the request may be generated when user input is received”);
running the modified query data object as a query to a search engine; and executing the proposed campaign content dataset to generate a set of messages representing a corresponding campaign ([0029, 0049-0050 and 0058]; “…For instance, a user may provide one or more instructions via a chat interface indicating how to refine the campaign brief. Such instructions may be processed by a large language model to determine how to update the campaign brief based on the refinement. The refinement may be executed when so indicated by a user…”; “…Following that system-generated message, the visual chat log 604 includes a message 612 reflecting user input asking how to expand the reach of the campaign”).
Additionally, Pitkin discloses a system and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions, which when executed by at least one processor of a computer system
(fig. 17).
Regarding claim 3, Pitkin discloses the computer-implemented method wherein the proposed set of targets are members of an advertisement audience and the proposed campaign content dataset represents an advertising campaign ([0075]).
Regarding claim 9, Pitkin discloses the computer-implemented method further comprising using the LLM module to generate inbound elements, generate marketing elements from media other than an objective prompt, and/or generate campaign content ([0050-0051 and 0074]).
Regarding claim 11, Pitkin discloses the computer-implemented method further comprising generating a campaign data record ([0032-0033]).
Regarding claim 12, as far as the claim is understood, Pitkin discloses the computer-implemented method further comprising: collecting information about an efficacy of a campaign using the campaign data record; and modifying the proposed set of targets, and/or a campaign content dataset based on the efficacy of the campaign ([0032-0033 and 0054]).
Regarding claim 13, Pitkin discloses the computer-implemented method further comprising: detecting a triggering event; and generating additional proposed campaigns for the campaign content dataset in response to the triggering event ([0072-0074]).
Regarding claim 15, Pitkin discloses the computer-implemented method further comprising confirming with the user that a campaign should commence with specific targets and campaign content before initiating the campaign ([0095]).
Regarding claim 17, Pitkin discloses the computer-implemented method further comprising: receiving user interaction; modifying the campaign based on the user interaction; and providing additional guidance as to targets and content ([0095-0099]).
Regarding claim 18, as far as the claim is understood, Pitkin discloses the computer-implemented method further comprising dynamically changing the set of targets and/or the proposed campaigns based on the campaign's effectiveness ([0107 and 0117]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Claim 2, 4-8, 10, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pitkin.
Regarding claim 2, Pitkin discloses the computer-implemented method utilizing the proposed campaign content dataset ([0029-0031]). The reference does not explicitly disclose the features of wherein the proposed set of targets are job candidates and the proposed campaign content dataset represents a hiring recruitment campaign. However, the specific program configuration utilized for processing data would have been an obvious design choice to ordinary skill in the art in view of meeting designer’s programming requirements and achieving the particular desired performance.
Regarding claim 4, as far as the claim is understood, while Pitkin discloses the computer-implemented method further comprising: generating, using the controlling module, a subsequent prompt wherein the subsequent prompt is usable to direct the LLM module to refine its output ([0068, 0080 and 0082]). The reference does not explicitly disclose the features of determining, using the controlling module, whether results of the query are sufficient according to a search results criterium; and if the results of the query are not sufficient according to the search results criterium. However, the specific program configuration utilized for processing data would have been an obvious design choice to ordinary skill in the art in view of meeting designer’s programming requirements and achieving the particular desired performance.
Regarding claim 5, Pitkin discloses the computer-implemented method further comprising using the controlling module to modify the query data object generated by the LLM module according to user input ([0054-0056 and 0061]).
Regarding claim 6, Pitkin does not explicitly disclose the computer-implemented method further comprising analyzing external media to refine the LLM module's output. However, the specific configuration utilized would have been an obvious design choice to one with ordinary skill in the art depending on the needs of particular application and does no more than yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, Pitkin discloses the computer-implemented method further comprising determining a filter for the proposed set of targets and/or statistics of a filtered set of targets ([0094-0095]; fig. 11).
Regarding claim 8, while Pitkin discloses the computer-implemented method further comprising:
using target results and statistics to automatically refine the target; using the target and the statistics to generate prompts for requesting feedback from a user; and refining the target by changing the criteria for finding relevant people, and/or by taking in an objective prompt and applying the prompt to the LLM module ([0055, 0068, 0072 and 0107]).
The reference does not explicitly disclose the feature of automatically refine the target results by modifying search criteria for relevant targets. However, the specific program configuration utilized for the searching process would have been an obvious design choice to ordinary skill in the art in view of meeting designer’s programming requirements and achieving the particular desired performance.
Regarding claim 10, as far as the claim is understood, Pitkin discloses the computer-implemented method further comprising refining the target results based on user input to the LLM module by having the LLM module, generating a prompt for a content-generating LLM module to refine its output ([0054-0056 and 0061]). The reference does not explicitly disclose the feature of determining if the generated content is sufficient, if not, generating a prompt for a content-generating LLM module to refine its output until an evaluation LLM deems it satisfactory. However, the specific program configuration utilized within the LLM would have been an obvious design choice to one with ordinary skill in the art depending on the needs of particular application and involving only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 14, Pitkin does not explicitly disclose the computer-implemented method wherein the triggering event comprises changes to external media. However, the specific scheme utilized for triggering event would have been an obvious design choice to one with ordinary skill in the art depending on the needs of the particular application and does no more than yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 16, while Pitkin discloses the feature of deselecting the assets that do not submit for approval ([0096]; fig. 12), the reference does not explicitly disclose the computer-implemented method further comprising automatically sending a campaign on behalf of the user without asking for explicit permission. However, the specific technique and configuration utilized would have been an obvious design choice to one with ordinary skill in the art depending on the needs of particular application and does no more than yield predictable results.
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA M PYO whose telephone number is (571)272-8192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, APU MOFIZ can be reached at 571-272-4080. 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.
/MONICA M PYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161