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 the Application
Claims 1-21 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
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 1-21 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 commercial interaction/fundamental economic practice, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: each AI persona representing a different segment of a target audience of a marketing campaign / aggregating the predicted response , rating, and feedback for each AI persona representing a different segment of the target audience to form an evaluation of the marketing campaign for each segment of the target audience / sending the evaluation of the marketing campaign to a user, wherein the evaluation of the marketing campaign is configured to be used by the user to fine-tune the marketing campaign. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the additional elements of using LLM to generate data (‘using a large language (LLM) to generate a plurality of artificial intelligence (AI) personas, each AI persona representing a different segment of a target audience of a marketing campaign’)/ generating and using AI personas, using a transformer model/decision tree-based model/NPL to predict data (‘using a transformer model, a decision tree-based model, and a natural language processing (NLP) to predict a response, a rating, and a feedback to the marketing campaign for each AI persona representing a different segment of the target audience’). Using LLM to generate AI data / generating and using AI personas, using a transformer model, a decision-tree based model, NPL to predict data do no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they 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 LLM to generate AI data / generating and using AI personas, using a transformer model, a decision-tree based model, NPL to predict data do no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they 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 claim 9 is directed to a system for performing the method of claim 1, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 9 recites the same abstract idea as Claim 1. Claim 9 performs the method of claim 1 using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claim 9 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 1.
Claim 17 is directed towards a method, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 17 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction/fundamental economic practice, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: predict responses to the marketing campaign for each AI persona based on a dataset of user responses to various types of marketing content / generate a rating for each predicted response based on a dataset of user ratings to various types of marketing content / generate feedback based on user feedback to responses and ratings of various types of marketing content / generate an evaluation of the marketing campaign by different segments of the target audience represented by the AI personas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 17 includes the additional elements of training a large language model (LLM) to generate data /generating and using AI personas / training a transformer model to predict data / training a decision tree-based model to generate data / training a natural language processing (NPL) to generate data / using the LLM, transformer model the decision tree-based mode and the NLP to generate data. Training a LLM to generate data / generating and using AI personas / training a transformer model to predict data / training a decision tree-based model to generate data / training a natural language processing (NPL) to generate data / using the LLM, transformer model the decision tree-based mode and the NLP to generate data do no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they 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 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, training a LLM to generate data / generating and using AI personas / training a transformer model to predict data / training a decision tree-based model to generate data / training a natural language processing (NPL) to generate data / using the LLM, transformer model the decision tree-based mode and the NLP to generate data do no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 17 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Remaining dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-21 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of independent claim 1. The claims further recite the additional elements of using automated website scraper application programming interfaces to collect data , using vector encoders to encode data , using a random forest of decision trees, using a generative AI model to generate data (claim 8 / claim 16), and training the LLM/transformer model/decision tree-based model/NLP to determine/generate data (claims 18-21). The website scraper APIs represent generic computing elements that are recited at a high level of generality. Using vector encoders to encode data / using a random forest of decision trees/ using generative AI models to generate data / training the LLM/transformer model/decision tree-based model/NLP to determine/generate data do no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination with the other additional elements , improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they 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.
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of claims 1-21. The most relevant prior art identified, Myers (20240029103), teaches an AI-based platform for the intelligent prediction of digital advertising designs, including segmenting the target customers and using trained data and NLP tools trained on pattern recognition frameworks, that will explain/predict how customers interact with a particular brand. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims. Farseev (20250045802) teaches using LLM models and trained data to gain automated actionable insights and perform content generation, including generating customer personas using AI and performing audience analysis by generating detailed audience personas and visual representations. 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Myers (20240029103), teaches an AI-based platform for the intelligent prediction of digital advertising designs, including segmenting the target customers and using trained data and NLP tools trained on pattern recognition frameworks, that will explain/predict how customers interact with a particular brand. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims.
Farseev (20250045802) teaches using LLM models and trained data to gain automated actionable insights and perform content generation, including generating customer personas using AI and performing audience analysis by generating detailed audience personas and visual representations. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims.
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
6/22/2026
Prosecution Insights