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 Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on 10/29/2025.
Applicant elected Invention II, encompasses claims 7-14, which are drawn to contextualized content delivery and scheduling. However, after careful consideration, and based on Applicant’s amendments claims 1-6 and 15-23 recite similar subject matter as elected claims 7-14. As thus, the claims restriction issued on 07/30/2025 is hereby withdrawn.
Claims 1-15, 18, and 23 have been amended.
Claims 31-36 have been added.
Claims 24-30 have been canceled.
Claims 1-23 and 31-36 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Applicant's claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. § 119 (e) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier date under 35 U.S.C. § 119 (e), as follows:
If the application properly claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) to a provisional application, the effective filing date is the filing date of the provisional application for any claims which are fully supported under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 by the provisional application. However, Applicant here is claiming benefit to four CIP applications and one prov application. Examiner is unable to identify the claimed features of claims 1,7 and 15 independent claims and any claim they depend from as a whole in any of the listed provisional applications.
Therefore, there is no support for the claimed features of claims 1-23 and 31-36, beyond the filling date of the current application and the priority claim is denied and should be removed from the current application.
Applicant stated that the present application claims a priority date of November 17,2019, by way of the U.S. Provisional Applications 62/974,091. Should Applicant proceed with claiming priority of the current case Applicant should identify when the claimed features of claims 1,7 and 15 and their dependent claims was invented, and claimed as a whole in the earlier filed invention.
Therefore, because the Examiner cannot identify the claimed invention in the earlier applications, there is no support for the claimed features of claims 1,7 and 15 beyond the filling date of the current application and the priority claim is denied and should be removed from the application. If Applicant would like to establish priority to a prior filed application, then Applicant should show support for the claim limitations among the prior filed applications from which the present application attempts to claim priority.
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 1-23 and 31-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception subject matter, specifically an abstract idea. The analysis for this determination is explained below:
Step 1, determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claim (s) 1-23 and 31-36 are directed to a process (i.e. a method). The claimed invention is directed to at least one judicial exception (i.e a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 for instance recite(s) the following abstract idea of: “ receiving from an artificial intelligence powered assistant one or more media files associated with one or more marketing objects of media data, said one or more marketing objects being marketing objects of items created, used, or owned by a user; the artificial intelligence computing system associating said marketing objects with use information for the second user of the second virtual repository and automatically populating one or more marketing objects including use information in categorized fields associated with the second virtual repository matching categorized marketing objects of the media file; the computing system receiving from a first computing digital device of a first user a first trigger, said first trigger including a subject matter directive requesting first information including user data and marketing objects associated with a subject matter, said marketing objects being associated with one or more virtual repositories of a user; the artificial intelligence computing system performing marketing object identification on the first trigger, said identification including analyzing and performing at least one Al duty on the subject matter of interest and identifying the first user from said first trigger, and identifying the second user from the first trigger; the computing system determining if the subject matter of marketing objects of the second user matches the command subject matter directive of interest of the first user; and if the subject matter directive of interest of the first user command matches the subject matter marketing objects of the second user repository, then making available to the first user on the first computing digital device, via network communication, a copy of one or more matching marketing objects, said copy of one or more matching marketing objects including one or more links. ”.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of “computing system, databases, databases being associated with one or more virtual repositories, artificial intelligence computing system, digital device, , network communication, artificial intelligence computing processing engine”. The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using 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 claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong Two=Yes). When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the additional elements of “ computing system, databases, databases being associated with one or more virtual repositories, artificial intelligence computing system, digital device, , network communication, artificial intelligence computing processing engine” to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “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 FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computers communicating over a general purpose network (as evidenced from paragraph 148); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations are considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, storing and/or transmitting data:
receiving from an artificial intelligence powered assistant one or more media files associated with one or more marketing objects of media data, said one or more marketing objects being marketing objects of items created, used, or owned by a user;
receiving from a first computing digital device of a first user a first trigger; said first trigger command including a subject matter directive requesting first information including user data and marketing objects associated with a subject matter, said marketing objects being associated with one or more virtual repositories of a user;
storing one or more databases, at least one of said one or more databases being associated with one or more virtual repositories, at least one of said one or more virtual repositories being associated with a media file and one or more marketing objects, said marketing objects including use information, and at least one of said one or more virtual repositories being populated through an automated process with a media file and one or more marketing objects including use information via an artificial intelligence computing processing engine;
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e.MPEP Step 2B=No).
For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible. Same Judicial analysis is applied here to independent claims 7 and 15.
The dependent claims 2-6, 8-14, 16-23, 31-36 appears to merely further limit the abstract idea of Certain methods of organizing Human Activity” as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), which is considered part of the abstract idea and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2B=No).
Thus, the dependent claims further narrows the abstract idea and/or recite additional elements previously rejected in the independent 1,7,15.
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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.
Claims 1-2,5,7,10,13, 15, 23,33, 36 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.
Claims 1, 7 and 15 recite the limitations of :
wherein at least one of said one or more virtual repositories is associated with one or more users, said one or more users being associated with a media file and one or more marketing objects including use information; wherein one of said one or more virtual repositories is a second virtual repository associated with at least one second user and one of said one or more virtual repositories is a virtual repository associated with at least one first user. It is unclear how one virtual repositories is also a second virtual repository associated with at least one second user and one of said one or more virtual repositories is a virtual repository associated with at least one first user. Examiner is unable to find support for the claimed feature in the specification. Thus, the Examiner is unable to determine the meets and bounds of the claimed features.
the computing system receiving from an artificial intelligence powered assistant one or more media files associated with one or more marketing objects of media data, said one or more marketing objects being marketing objects of items created, used, or owned by a user. It is unclear if Applicant is referring to the same marketing objects that are stored in the virtual repositories and being associated with the one or more marketing objects or different marketing object. Appropriate correction and/ or clarification is required. For this examination, Examiner interprets the above limitation to mean the same media object that are stored in the virtual repositories.
the computing system receiving from an artificial intelligence powered assistant one or more media files associated with one or more marketing objects of media data, said one or more marketing objects being marketing objects of items created, used, or owned by a user. It is unclear which user Applicant is referring to ? is Applicant referring to the first user or the second user or a different user? Appropriate correction and/ or clarification is required. For the purpose of this examination, The above limitation is interpreted as referring to the second user (i.e. not an advertiser).
the computing system receiving from a first computing digital device of a first user a first trigger, said first trigger, including a subject matter directive requesting first information including user data and marketing objects associated with a subject matter, said marketing objects being associated with one or more virtual repositories of a user. It is unclear if Applicant is referring to the same first user data, that’s being associated with one or more virtual repositories of the first user or a second user or a different user. Appropriate correction and/ or clarification is required. For the purpose of this examination, The above limitation is interpreted as referring to the second user (i.e. not an advertiser).
said identification including analyzing and performing at least one Al duty on the subject matter of interest and identifying the first user from said first trigger; the computing system determining if the subject matter of marketing objects of the second user matches the command subject matter directive of interest of the first user. It is unclear if Applicant is referring to subject matter of interest to mean and/ or the same as subject matter directive of interest. Appropriate correction and/ or clarification is required. Examiner is unable to find support for the claimed feature in the specification. Thus, the Examiner is unable to determine the meets and bounds of the claimed features.
identifying the second user from the first trigger (claims 1 and 7). It is unclear how the second user can be identified, if the second user was never triggered and/ or monitored. Examiner is unable to find support for the claimed feature in the specification. Thus, the Examiner is unable to determine the meets and bounds of the claimed features.
Claim 2 recites the limitation of: making available to a first user on a first computing device at least one of streaming content, a video trailer and audio trailer associated with the copy of one or more matching marketing objects. It is unclear whether Applicant is referring to the same marketing objects claimed in claim 1 or to a different matching marketing object. Appropriate correction and/ or clarification is required. For the purpose of this examination, The above limitation is interpreted as referring to the same matching marketing object claimed in claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation of : comprising the system populating a calendar with date and time sensitive information on command, including information from the group consisting of an advertisement, event information, and a marketing object. It is unclear whether Applicant is referring to the same marketing objects claimed in claim 1 or to a different marketing object. Appropriate correction and/ or clarification is required. For the purpose of this examination, The above limitation is interpreted as referring to the same marketing objects claimed in claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation of: wherein the trigger includes identifying the user including the location of the user. It is unclear whether Applicant is referring to the first user or the second user or a different user. Examiner is unable to find support for the claimed feature in the specification. Thus, the Examiner is unable to determine the meets and bounds of the claimed features.
Claims 13 recites the limitation of : dentification of one or more matching marketing objects includes a semantic intelligence conversation interactive voice response associated with the subject matter of one or more matching marketing objects. It is unclear whether Applicant is referring to the same matches subject matter marketing objects of claim 7 or different marketing objects. Appropriate correction and/ or clarification is required. For the purpose of this examination, Examiner interprets the above limitation to mean the same marketing objects claimed in clam 7.
Claim 23 recites the limitation of : combining directives from one or more users to determine recommendations for a group trip. It is unclear which user Applicant is referring to ? is Applicant referring to the first user or the second user or a different user? Appropriate correction and/ or clarification is required. For the purpose of this examination, The above limitation is interpreted as referring to the first user.
Claims 33 recites the limitation of : identification of one or more matching marketing objects includes a semantic intelligence conversation interactive voice response associated with the subject matter of one or more matching marketing objects. It is unclear whether Applicant is referring to the same matches subject matter marketing objects of claim 1 or different marketing objects. Appropriate correction and/ or clarification is required. For the purpose of this examination, Examiner interprets the above limitation to mean the same marketing objects claimed in clam 1.
Claim 36 recites the limitation of : wherein a user initiates a voice command to one or more computing devices to communicate with one or more computing devices. It is unclear which user Applicant is referring to ? is Applicant referring to the first user or the second user or a different user? Appropriate correction and/ or clarification is required. For the purpose of this examination, The above limitation is interpreted as referring to the second user (i.e. not an advertiser).
Claims 1,5, 7, 10, 13-14, 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitation:
Claim 1 and 7 recite the limitation of : computing system determining if the subject matter marketing objects of the second user matches the command subject matter directive of interest of the first user.
Claim 5 recites the limitation of : comprising the system populating a calendar with date and time sensitive information on command, including information from the group consisting of an advertisement, event information, and a marketing object.
Claim 10 recites the limitation of wherein the trigger includes identifying the user including the location of the user.
Claim 13 recites the limitation of : semantic intelligence conversation interactive voice response associated with the subject matter of one or more matching marketing objects.
Claim 14 recites the limitation of : making available to the first user on the first computing digital device, the streaming content or a video trailer or an audio trailer of the subject matter command directive.
Claim 33 recites the limitation of : wherein a copy of one or more matching marketing objects includes a semantic intelligence conversation interactive voice response associated with the subject matter of one or more matching marketing objects.
Claim Objections
Claims 1,7,35 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 7 recite the limitation: analyzing and performing at least one AI duty on the subject matter of interest. Claims 1 and 7 recite the term “AI”. Applicant needs to define what the acronym stands for prior to using it. For example, Applicant can state for short Message Service (SMS) and then use the acronym SMS. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 35 recites the limitation of : wherein an AI assistant is robotic. Claim 35 recites the term “ AI”. Applicant needs to define what the acronym stands for prior to using it. For example, Applicant can state for short Message Service (SMS) and then use the acronym SMS. Appropriate correction is required.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-23 and 31-36 recite subject matter that would be allowable over the prior art if the Applicant were to be able to overcome the 35USC §112 and 35 USC § 101 rejection above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter, none of the cited reference discloses the claimed features of independent of claims 1,5 and 7. As such, the examiner, has been unable to find prior art that discloses the combination of the claimed features. Thus, the claims contain subject matter that would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant to be able to overcome the Claim rejections under 35 USC § 101 and 35USC §112.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Craft , US Pub No: 20210133160 A1, teaches multi trigger personalized virtual repository.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Affaf Ahmed whose telephone number is 571-270-1835. The examiner can normally be reached on [M- R 8-6 pm ].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AFAF OSMAN BILAL AHMED/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622