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 .
This Office action is response to Application 19/200,136 filed on 05/06/2025 which is a continuation of 18/372,821 (now US Patent No. 12,321,964) which is a continuation of 17/974,530 (now US Patent No. 11,810,157).
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and addressed below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation “inputting the features vectors into an the ensemble classification model.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19 recites the limitation “wherein the system of further operable to.” The Examiner suggest changing the word “of” to “is” to overcome the objection. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 19-20 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.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "via an ensemble classification model" in line 7 of claim 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is the same or different ensemble classification model as the one recited in claim 11.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the ensemble model" in line 1 of claim 20. It is unclear if this is the same as the ensemble classification model recited in claim 11.
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 is/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 nature phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-20 is/are directed towards a statutory category (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (Step 1, Yes).
Step 2A Prong One:
Claim 1 recites (additional elements underlined):
A computer-implemented method for electronic message management, the method comprising:
preparing a dataset of electronic messages by labeling the electronic messages by characteristic tags;
training an ensemble classification model to predict a characteristic tag based on the dataset of labelled electronic messages;
receiving, at a campaign management server, exemplary electronic messages in a first order, wherein the exemplary electronic messages comprise metadata, image or text components, and performance metrics;
initiating, by the campaign management server, a consent process to obtain consent for displaying a previous generator's electronic messages;
generating layout data by extracting size, location, and visibility data of the image or text components of the exemplary electronic messages;
translating the layout data into a series of textual representations;
transforming the textual representations into feature vectors;
inputting the feature vectors into an the ensemble classification model;
predicting, via the ensemble classification model, a characteristic tag associated with each of the exemplary electronic messages based on the feature vectors;
sorting the exemplary electronic messages based on the characteristic tags and a performance metric into a second order, and excluding any electronic messages lacking consent from the previous generator; and
displaying the sorted electronic messages in the second order, and excluding any electronic messages lacking consent from the previous generator.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations outlined above describe or set forth an advertising/marketing activity. Advertising/marketing fall within the certain method of organizing human activity enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a fundamental economic principle or practice because advertising/marketing is related to commerce and economy. The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a commercial interaction (e.g., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations). The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth the managing of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Therefore, the claim recites a certain method of organizing human activity (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations outlined above that describe or set forth the abstract idea, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s). That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified below, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed in the mind. These limitations are considered a mental process because the limitations include an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. These limitations are also similar to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” and/or “collecting and comparing known information” which were determined to be mental processes in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified above do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Therefore, the claim recite a mental process (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations outlined above that describe or set forth the abstract idea are also considered mathematical concepts at least because the above limitations transform the textual representations into feature vectors; input feature vectors into a model; predict a characteristic tag associated with each of the exemplary messages based on the feature vectors, and sort the exemplary messages based on the characteristics tag and a performance metric into a second order. These limitations are similar to “organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations” which was determined to be a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical concept (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
Step 2A Prong Two:
In Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) outlined above are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional element(s) amount adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) does not integrate the judicial exception similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. The Examiner notes that “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter" (see pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., in a computer environment). The courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, improves any other technology or technical field, applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, applies the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation (Step 2A Prong Two, No).
Step 2B:
In Step 2B, the additional elements also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong Two. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A Prong Two overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation (Step 2B, No).
Claim(s) 2-10 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 1 (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes).
Claim 2 recites the additional elements “electronic.” Claim 3 recites the additional elements “electronic” and “email.” Claim 4 recites the additional element “email.” Claim 5 recites the additional elements “iteratively,” “electronic,” and “email.” Claim 6 recites the additional element “wherein the ensemble classification model comprises a plurality of base model.” Claim 7 recites the additional elements “dynamically” and “electronic.” Claim 10 recites the additional element “electronic.” However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 8-9 do not recite any other additional elements. Therefore, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claims 8-9 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 11 recites (additional elements underlined):
A system for electronic message management comprising:
a memory storing instructions that are executable; and
one or more processing devices to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising:
receiving exemplary email messages in a first order;
initiating a consent process to obtain consent for displaying a previous generator's email message;
generating layout data by extracting size, location, and visibility data of image or text components of the exemplary email messages;
predicting, via an ensemble classification model, a characteristic tag associated with each of the exemplary email messages at least partially based on the generated layout data;
sorting the exemplary email messages based on the one or more characteristic tags to generate a list of sorted exemplary email messages in a second order and excluding any email messages lacking consent from the previous generator; and
displaying the list of sorted exemplary email messages to a prospective campaign generator.
For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 11 also recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One. For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 11 also does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim(s) 12-20 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 11 (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes).
Claim 12 recites the additional element “wherein the operations further comprise” and “email.” Claim 14 recites the additional elements “wherein the ensemble classification model comprises a plurality of trained base models, and is configured to” and “email.” Claim 15 recites the additional elements “wherein the operations further comprise selecting a default base model for” and “email.” Claim 16 recites the additional element “wherein the operations further comprise.” Claim 17 recites the additional element “wherein the ensemble classification model further comprises a logic-rule model, and wherein the logic-rule model is non-trainable.” Claim 18 recites the additional element “further comprising implementing a trained data labeling model to.” Claim 19 recites the additional element “wherein the system of further operable to,” “SMS,” “email,” and “via an ensemble classification model.” Claim 20 recites the additional element “wherein the ensemble model was trained,” “electronic,” and “into the ensemble classification model.” However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 13 does not recite any other additional elements. Therefore, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 11, claim 13 also does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Prior Art
The Examiner notes that after a comprehensive search on the claims as currently presented, the claims are found to recite novel and non-obvious subject matter. The closest prior art found to date are the following:
Brigham (US 2016/0217500 A1) discloses systems and methods for management of automated dynamic messages. In some embodiments, a data store is populated with one or more knowledge sets and one or more lead datasets in response to a user’s input. A campaign builder may be provided to a user for generating and initiating campaigns comprising a series of messages designed to satisfy one or more objectives. Brigham also discloses the concept of an advertiser selecting an industry for a campaign (Figure 14), enabling marketers and salespeople to follow up with leads via email (¶ 9), the sending of messages to users via email or SMS (¶ 77), the training of artificial intelligence with responses received from recipients (¶ 83), and a message generator that allows a user to define rules for messages (¶ 86).
Terry et al. (US 2018/0373696 A1) discloses system and methods for natural language processing and classification. In some embodiments, the systems and methods include a communication editor dashboard which receives messages, performs natural language processing to divide the messages into component parts.
Kakarlapudi et al. (US 2018/0114253 A1) discloses systems and methods providing for dynamic message creation. Circuitry may be configured to receive generic configuration data that references work chunks for message generation and time data indicating a message and send time. The work chunks may include references to message data, but not the actual message data. Based on the time data, the work chunks may be placed in a message queue. Circuitry may also be configured to retrieve a work chunk from the message queue and to generate one or more messages based on the retrieved work chunk. Kakarlapudi et al. also discloses that the configuration data for message generation includes time data and channel type (¶¶ 23-24), message type (¶ 24), and template configuration (¶ 25). Kakarlapudi et al. also disclose the concept of creating messages (e.g., promotional offers and/or advertisements) to multiple consumers over multiple electronic channels such as email, social networking messages, mobile applications, and SMS.
Hawit (US 2011/0246201 A1) discloses the concept of categorizing and prioritizing ads/messages based on ad targeting parameters and business rules.
Coe (US 2016/0210003 A1) discloses the concept of email messages being sorted by a sorter to create a sorted list of email messages.
Christianson et al. (US 2011/0055012 A1) discloses the concept of cross-platform targeted advertising.
While the prior art teach some of the limitations of the claimed invention, they do not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations when viewed in the context of the claimed invention as a whole: “A computer-implemented method for electronic message management, the method comprising: preparing a dataset of electronic messages by labeling the electronic messages by characteristic tags; training an ensemble classification model to predict a characteristic tag based on the dataset of labelled electronic messages; receiving, at a campaign management server, exemplary electronic messages in a first order, wherein the exemplary electronic messages comprise metadata, image or text components, and performance metrics; initiating, by the campaign management server, a consent process to obtain consent for displaying a previous generator's electronic messages; generating layout data by extracting size, location, and visibility data of the image or text components of the exemplary electronic messages; translating the layout data into a series of textual representations; transforming the textual representations into feature vectors; inputting the feature vectors into an the ensemble classification model; predicting, via the ensemble classification model, a characteristic tag associated with each of the exemplary electronic messages based on the feature vectors; sorting the exemplary electronic messages based on the characteristic tags and a performance metric into a second order, and excluding any electronic messages lacking consent from the previous generator; and displaying the sorted electronic messages in the second order, and excluding any electronic messages lacking consent from the previous generator” as recited in claim 1, or “A system for electronic message management comprising: a memory storing instructions that are executable; and one or more processing devices to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising :receiving exemplary email messages in a first order; initiating a consent process to obtain consent for displaying a previous generator's email message; generating layout data by extracting size, location, and visibility data of image or text components of the exemplary email messages; predicting, via an ensemble classification model, a characteristic tag associated with each of the exemplary email messages at least partially based on the generated layout data; sorting the exemplary email messages based on the one or more characteristic tags to generate a list of sorted exemplary email messages in a second order and excluding any email messages lacking consent from the previous generator; and displaying the list of sorted exemplary email messages to a prospective campaign generator” as recited in claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAM REFAI whose telephone number is (313)446-4822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. 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.
/SAM REFAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights