DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the amendment/remarks filed 15 January 2026.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, and 11-15 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 .
Response to Amendment/Remarks
Applicant argues that “the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) may be withdrawn.” Remarks at 12. While the majority of the rejections under 35 USC § 112 have been remedied, there is one limitation remaining in claim 1 that is interpreted under 112(f) and rejected under 112(b). See the appropriate sections below for details.
Regarding 35 USC § 101, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “the amended claims are not directed to advertising because they do not claim the selection, targeting, or presentation of advertisements as an end in itself, but instead recite a specific computer-implemented architecture that controls how an interactive conversational system operates in real time.” Remarks at 12. As an initial matter, Applicant is arguing limitations not present in the claims. The claims not recite “real time” operations. Examiner is not suggesting that addition of such a limitation would overcome the rejection. The abstract idea guidance does not suggest that selection, targeting, or presentation of advertisements as an end in itself is the only way that claims can recite an advertising abstract idea. The claims do recite advertising activities, as data is gathered from users, the data is utilized to present the user with targeted advertisements. This is recited in the claims and is considered advertising activity. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the “present claims address a computer-specific problem of how to transition from conversational advertising to transactional execution within an interactive system and solve it using trained models, structured dialogue representations, and automated system actions.” Remarks at 13. As Examiner understands it, the problem of how to transition from conversational advertising to transaction execution within an interactive system is not inherently technical in nature and would not be considered a technological problem. For example, conversational advertising is interpreted to be advertising in conversation, which could be a telephone representative or a chat agent letting a user know about a new product. A transaction execution is interpreted to be a transaction, which could be the purchase of the new product by the user. Advertising in order to induce a transaction is not considered a technological problem and thus the claims do not currently recite a technical solution to a technical problem. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the Office has not issued any rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103, nor identified any prior art that anticipates or renders obvious the claimed combination. This absence of novelty or inventive-step rejections confirms that the claimed features are not well-understood, routine, or conventional activities in the field.” Remarks at 13. Novelty and non-obviousness can exist in the abstract steps of a claim, as is the case with the present claims. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a logging component that stores” in claim 1.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Note: the specification does not provide structure for performing the recited function. See the rejection under 35 USC § 112 below.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a logging component that stores each user-advertisement interaction keyed by the identifier.” As amended it is unclear if the “logging component” is part of the system or is part of the process performed by the system. For example, the spacing and organizing of the claims as amended leaves unclear if the claims should be read “A system comprising: a processor; and a memory … a logging component …” or if it should read be read “cause the system to: obtain …, load … and a logging component ….” Neither seems inherently correct based on grammar alone. Thus, the claim is indefinite as amended. Claims 2-7 are rejected due to their dependence upon a rejected claim.
A limitation in claims 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (see the Claim Interpretation section above). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of any structure that performs the function recited in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claims 2-7 are rejected due to their dependence upon a rejected claim.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 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.
Step 1
Claims 1-7 recite system which is considered a machine or manufacture.
Claims 8-14 recite a method which is considered a process.
Claims 15-20 recite a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium which is considered a machine or manufacture.
Step 2A-Prong One
(Claims 1, 8, and 15) These claims recite the concept of analyzing user data in order to provide a targeted advertisement (see, for example, “obtain, from a user device, user permission and access profile attributes and friend attributes from a social-network interface; generate, for each person, an identifier from at least name, date-of-birth, and location; load, keyed by the identifier, user activity data associated with the identifier from a database, the user activity data comprises (i) search and browsing actions of the user and (ii) external records ingested via a distributed data pipeline; determine, using a classifier trained on features including search keywords, domains, and page categories, a purchase-funnel stage associated with the identifier, the purchase-funnel stage identifying at least one of a discovery stage, a consideration stage, and an action stage; generate a first advertisement message corresponding to the determined purchase-funnel stage; display, on the user device during an interaction session, the first advertisement message as a part of conversation dialogues; store the conversational dialogues as at least one of: questions and answers on a neural network using sequence to sequence algorithms, or as parent nodes and corresponding responses as child nodes of a graph formed on an inverted index, or modeled as questions and answers using the sequence to sequence algorithms; load updated interaction data generated in response to user input received during the interaction session; apply a purchase-funnel progression to the updated interaction data to determine whether criteria for advancing the purchase-funnel stage are satisfied; in response to a determination that the criteria are satisfied, generate an updated advertisement message corresponding to a different purchase-funnel stage; deliver, on the user device, the updated advertisement message, as a question to the sequence to sequence algorithm and into the graph, for presentation on the user device; in response to user interaction with the updated advertisement message during the interaction session, generate, by a virtual agent server, an order request associated with the updated advertisement message; and a logging component that stores each user-advertisement interaction keyed by the identifier.” in claim 1). This concept falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas including advertising activities. These claims recite an abstract idea.
(Claims 2, 9, and 16) These claims further limit the abstract ideas recited in the independent claim by adding a step wherein previously accessed data is normalized and stored (see, for example, “normalize the profile attributes and friend attributes by lower-casing, removing whitespace and concatenating the attributes before applying a hash function, and storing a portion of a resulting digest as a database index” in claim 16). These limitations do not take the claims out of the abstract idea groupings identified in relation to the independent claims. Thus, these claims recite an abstract idea.
(Claims 3, 10, and 17) These claims further limit the abstract idea recited in the independent claims by correlating additional data with previously stored data (see, for example, “correlate information for the same person under the existing digest when a subsequently derived digest partially matches an existing digest” in claim 17). These limitations do not take the claims out of the abstract idea groupings identified in relation to the independent claims. Thus, these claims recite an abstract idea.
(Claims 4, 11, and 18) These claims further limit the abstract idea recited in the independent claims by importing and mapping recordings into existing algorithms (see, for example, “import historic customer-service recordings and map utterances and responses of the recordings into questions and answers for the sequence-to-sequence algorithms, or additional parent and child nodes of the graph” in claim 18). These limitations do not take the claims out of the abstract idea groupings identified in relation to the independent claims. Thus, these claims recite an abstract idea.
(Claims 5, 12, and 19) These claims further limit the abstract idea recited in the independent claims by extracting, analyzing, and storing additional data about a user (see, for example, “extract likes, dislikes, group memberships and friend feeds from the social-network interface, analyze the friend feeds by tokenizing keywords, score the tokenized keywords using term-frequency inverse-document-frequency weighting and a Bayesian sentiment classifier, and store resulting social tokens in a database keyed by the identifier in response to user permission” in claim 19). These limitations do not take the claims out of the abstract idea groupings identified in relation to the independent claims. Thus, these claims recite an abstract idea.
(Claims 6, 13, and 20) These claims further limit the abstract idea recited in the independent claims by inserting a token into a placeholder of the ad message (see, for example, “insert at least one friend-derived token selected from an employer of a friend into a placeholder of a message” in claim 20). These limitations do not take the claims out of the abstract idea groupings identified in relation to the independent claims. Thus, these claims recite an abstract idea.
(Claims 7 and 14) These claims further limit the abstract idea recited in the independent claims by calling an API to personalize an incentive included in the ad message (see, for example, “call an external application programming interface to personalize an incentive included in the action-stage advertisement message” in claim 7). These limitations do not take the claims out of the abstract idea groupings identified in relation to the independent claims. Thus, these claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional element of a system comprising a processor and a memory (found in claims 1-7) or a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claims 15-20) and includes no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Claims 8-14 recite that the method is “computer-implemented” but the steps are not expressly performed by any particular components/additional elements. The modules or medium does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A-Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEREDITH A LONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3196. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6.
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 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.
/MEREDITH A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622