CTNF 19/219,881 CTNF 90844 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 1-18 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-18 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 method of organizing human activity – i.e. 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: accessing a plurality of content items from a content providing entity; transmitting a content item of the plurality of content items to a first receiving entity of a plurality of receiving entities associated with a user via one or more of a plurality of content outlets including: a linear content outlet, a persistent content outlet, and a digital content outlet, wherein: the content item of the plurality of content items is characterized with first metadata that corresponds to a first context of each of the content item and one or more content slots; each content slot of the one or more content slots is configured to receive at least one content item of the plurality of content items; each content slot of the one or more content slots is characterized by second metadata that is different than the first metadata; and the second metadata corresponds to a second context of content items adjacent to respective other content slots of the one or more content slots; analyzing content prepared to be adjacent to one or more potential digital content slots on a webpage; classifying, based on the analysis the content prepared to be adjacent to the one or more potential digital content slots on the webpage, into one or more categories; generating, based on the classification, third metadata for the one or more potential digital content slots, the third metadata being different than the first metadata and the second metadata, and the third metadata corresponding to the one or more categories of the content adjacent to the one or more potential digital content slots; receiving from the content providing entity, fourth metadata that indicates a third context, wherein the third context corresponds to a potential content to provide to the first receiving entity on behalf of the content providing entity; determining a recommended content item from the plurality of content items based on the first context of each of the content item and the third context, wherein a context of the recommended content item corresponds to the third context; identifying a recommended content slot of the one or more content slots and a recommended potential digital content slot of the one or more potential digital content slots, based on the third context; generating a recommended content item package, using the recommended content item, the recommended content slot of the one or more content slots, and the recommended potential digital content slot of the one or more potential digital content slots, for the first receiving entity associated with the user; availing the recommended content item package to the first receiving entity associated with the user, wherein the recommended content item package represents the recommended content item having first metadata corresponding to the fourth metadata; wherein the metadata persists data when transmitted from one of the first receiving entity using a content outlet of the plurality of content outlets to a second receiving entity using another content outlet plurality of content outlets; determining a performance of the recommended content item package and/or a measurement of the recommended content item package; and availing the performance and/or the measurement to the content providing entity. Claim 1 also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept – i.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: classifying, based on the analysis the content prepared to be adjacent to the one or more potential digital content slots on the webpage, into one or more categories / generating, based on the classification, third metadata for the one or more potential digital content slots / determining a recommended content item from the plurality of content items based on the first context of each of the content item and the third context, wherein a context of the recommended content item corresponds to the third context . These claimed limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements, thus still being in the mental process category. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of using and executing a metadata file to track data (‘and comprises or is coupled with a metadata file that, when executed, tracks instances in which the recommended content item is provided via the recommended content slot or the recommended potential digital content slot’ , ‘determining…by executing the metadata file’), which does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional element does not improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor does it 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, using and executing a metadata file to track data does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional element does not improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor does it 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 7, 13 are directed to a CRM and system for performing similar claimed limitations to those of claim 1; the claims recite the same abstract idea as Claim 1. Claims 7, 13 perform the claimed limitations using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claims 7, 13 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 1. Remaining dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, 14-18 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of independent claims 1, 7, 13. The claims further recite the additional element of using a metadata file to track data , which does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional element does 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. Relevant prior art The most relevant prior art identified by the Examiner is Begeja (20210334846) . It teaches identifying content distribution opportunities based on advertising performance, including: facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising: distributing a first content item with a first plurality of advertisements via a first outlet; monitoring a performance of the first plurality of advertisements; determining, in accordance with the monitoring, that the performance of the first plurality of advertisements exceeds a threshold; identifying a second outlet to distribute the first content item responsive to the determining that the performance of the first plurality of advertisements exceeds the threshold; selecting a second plurality of advertisements in accordance with the identifying of the second outlet, wherein the second plurality of advertisements is at least partially differentiated from the first plurality of advertisements; distributing the first content item with the second plurality of advertisements via the second outlet; identifying a second content item responsive to the determining that the performance of the first plurality of advertisements exceeds the threshold and based on a determination that the second content item shares at least one characteristic in common with the first content item; and distributing the second content item via the second outlet; however, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims. The second most relevant prior art identified by the Examiner is Collins (20060026063) . It teaches tracking content performance data from disparate sources, in order to optimize advertising campaign strategies, including :utilizing tags to track the content performance, including: one or more ad campaigns facilitation servers, of an ad campaigns facilitator, obtaining ad campaign information, relating to the ad campaigns, from one or more advertisers; the one or more ad campaigns facilitation servers obtaining ad campaign performance information, relating to the ad campaigns, from the one or more advertisers and from each of a plurality of affiliates of the ad campaign facilitator; The one or more ad campaigns facilitation servers storing the ad campaign information and the ad campaign performance information in one or more ad campaigns databases; and using the one or more ad campaigns facilitation servers, and based at least in part on at least a portion of the ad campaign information and at least a portion of the ad campaign performance information, determining an optimal ad campaign strategy for at least a first ad campaign of the ad campaigns; 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 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 6/1/2026 Application/Control Number: 19/219,881 Page 2 Art Unit: 3622 Application/Control Number: 19/219,881 Page 3 Art Unit: 3622 Application/Control Number: 19/219,881 Page 4 Art Unit: 3622 Application/Control Number: 19/219,881 Page 5 Art Unit: 3622 Application/Control Number: 19/219,881 Page 6 Art Unit: 3622
Prosecution Insights