Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/4/2026 has been entered.
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 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-21 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 – i.e. advertising activities/behaviors and sales activities or behaviors/business relations, which represents a method of organizing human activity, and has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: receiving a request to view web pages that have a risk of containing objectionable content, the request including a plurality of web pages for assessment and the web pages are selected from the plurality of web pages in advertisement network traffic; extracting features from each of the web pages; applying for each of the plurality of webpages, a plurality of statistical models to the extracted features to generate a plurality of ordinomial estimates, where each ordinomial estimate includes multi-severity classification values that each represent a probability that a web page is a member of one of a plurality of severity groups; selecting at least one worst severity group from an objectionable content category based on a user specified confidence parameter; determining a posterior ordinomial estimate for the webpage by combining the plurality of ordiomial estimates from the at least one worst severity group selected based on the user specified confidence parameter; generating, for each of the plurality of web pages, a rating that encodes both severity parameters and confidence parameters and that identifies whether the web page is likely to contain objectionable content of the objectionable content category based on the posterior ordinomial estimate; iteratively determining a temporal aggregation of the rating over time and over domain, wherein the ratings for the given domain are sorted based on a timestamp associated with each rating, and wherein a first sorted rating associated with a first web page belonging to the given domain and that was determined at a first time, a second sorted rating associated with the first web page belonging to the given domain and that was determined at a second time, and a third sorted rating associated with a second web page belonging to the given domain and that was determined at a third time are combined to generate an aggregated rating of the webpage; storing the aggregated rating for each domain to replace the ratings including the first sorted rating, the second sorted rating, and the third sorted rating that were stored; determining whether a content item should be published on the first web page and the second web page belonging to the same domain in the advertisement network traffic based on the aggregated rating indicating with a particular confidence that the first, second web page and web pages belonging to the same domain are unlikely to contain objectionable content of the given category and indicating with the particular confidence that one or more entities associated with at least one of the first web page, the second web page, and the web pages belonging to the same domain are likely to promote at least one of a plurality of objectionable content categories; transmitting an indication that an advertisement should not be places on the first, second web page and web pages belonging to the same domain based on the determination. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm: “for applying scores and ratings to web pages, web sites, and other pieces of content of interest to advertisers or content providers for safe and effective online advertising”, “Online advertisers use tools that provide information about websites or publishers and the viewers of such websites to facilitate more effective planning and management of online advertising by advertisers Moreover, online advertisers continually desire increased control over the web pages on which their advertisements and brand messages appear For example, particular online advertisers want to control the risk that their advertisements and brand messages appear on pages or sites that contain objectionable content (e g , pornography or adult content, hate speech, bombs, guns, ammunition, alcohol, offensive language, tobacco, spyware, malicious code, illegal drugs, music downloading, particular types of entertainment, illegality, obscenity, etc ) In another example, advertisers for adult-oriented products, such as alcohol and tobacco, want to avoid pages directed towards children In yet another example, particular online advertisers want to increase the probability that their content appears on specific sorts of sites (e g , websites containing news-related information, websites containing entertainment- related information, etc )”, “Systems, methods, and media for rating websites for safe advertising are provided In accordance with some embodiments of the disclosed subject matter, the method comprises extracting one or more features from a piece of web content, applying a plurality of statistical models to the extracted features to generate a plurality of ordinomial estimates, wherein each ordinomial estimate represents a probability that the web content is a member of one of a plurality of severity groups, determining a posterior ordmomial estimate for the web content by combining the plurality of ordinomial estimates, generating a risk rating that encodes seventy and confidence based on the determined posterior ordinomial estimate, wherein the risk rating identifies whether the web content is likely to contain objectionable content of a given category, and providing the risk rating for determining whether an advertisement should be associated with the web content”. 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: extracting features from each of the plurality of web pages; selecting at least one worst severity group from an objectionable content category based on a user specified confidence parameter; determining a posterior ordinomial estimate for the webpage by combining the plurality of ordinomial estimates from the at least one worst severity group selected based on the user specified confidence parameter ; generating, for each of the plurality of web pages, a rating that encodes both severity parameters and confidence parameters and that identifies whether the web page is likely to contain objectionable content of the objectionable content category based on the posterior ordinomial estimate. These claimed limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements, and thus are still in the mental process category. Claim 1 also recites the abstract concept of a mathematical concept -i.e. mathematical calculations/relationships, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: applying, for each of the plurality of webpages, a plurality of statistical models to the extracted features to generate a plurality of ordinomial estimates, wherein each ordinomial estimate includes multi-severity classification values that each represent a probability that a web page is a member of one of a plurality of severity groups; generating, for each of the plurality of web pages, a rating that encodes both severity parameters and confidence parameters.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of a
server including a hardware processor/storage device represent generic computing elements. The additional element of using a MapReduce operation to aggregate data (are combined in the reduction phase of the MapReduce operation/performing a temporal aggregation of the rating over time and over domain using a MapReduce operation until the lowest number of suffixes in the domain is reached, wherein a URL associated with the web page is used as a key for a reduction phase of the MapReduce operation to compile information belonging to a given domain) does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements, alone, or in combination, do not 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.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional element of using a MapReduce operation to aggregate data does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 8, 15 are directed to a system and computer program product stored on a computer-readable medium for performing the method of Claim 1, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. The claims recite the same abstract idea as Claim 1. The claims perform the method of claim 1 using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claims 8, 15 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 1.
Remaining dependent claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11-14, 16, 18-21 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of their respective independent claims. The claims do not include any other additional elements. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Relevant prior art
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-21. The most relevant prior art identified by the Examiner, Li (20080320010); it teaches detecting sensitive webpage content, including developing a multi-class identifier , receiving webpages with webpage content, and further analyzing the webpages with the classifier; it also teaches a sensitivity level that is predicted, being associated with the webpage content of the webpages and sensitivity categories. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of pending independent claims 1, 8, 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; Applicant argues with substance:
Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended to recite, among other things: receiving, using a hardware processor, a request to view web pages that have a risk of containing objectionable content, the request including a plurality of web pages for assessment and the web pages are selected from the plurality of web pages in
advertisement network traffic; extracting, using the hardware processor, features from each of the plurality of web pages; applying, by the hardware processor, for each of the plurality of webpages, a plurality of statistical models to the extracted features to generate a plurality of ordinomial estimates,
where each ordinomial estimate includes multi-severity classification values that each represent a probability that a web page is a member of one of a plurality of severity groups; selecting, by the hardware processor, at least one worst severity group from an objectionable content category based on a user specified confidence parameter; determining, by the hardware processor, a posterior ordinomial estimate for the webpage by combining the plurality of ordinomial estimates from the at least one worst severity group selected based on the user specified confidence parameter; generating, by the hardware processor, for each of the plurality of web pages, a rating that encodes both severity parameters and confidence parameters and that identifies whether the web page is likely to contain objectionable content of the objectionable content category based on the posterior ordinomial estimate;
iteratively determining, by the hardware processor, a temporal aggregation of the rating over time and over domain using a MapReduce operation until the lowest number of suffixes in the domain is reached, wherein a URL associated with the web page is used as a key for a reduction phase of the MapReduce
operation to compile information belonging to a given domain, wherein the ratings for the given domain are sorted based on a timestamp associated with each rating, and wherein a first sorted
rating associated with a first web page belonging to the given domain and that was determined at a first time, a second sorted rating associated with the first web page belonging to the given domain and that was determined at a second time, and a third sorted rating associated with a second web page belonging to the given domain and that was determined at a third time are combined
in the reduction phase of the MapReduce operation to generate an aggregated rating of the webpage, and wherein the first sorted rating, the second sorted rating, and the third sorted rating are
stored in a storage device in response to determining that each of the first stored rating, the second sorted rating, and the third sorted rating are significantly different from a parent rating associated
with the URL; storing, by the hardware processor, the aggregated rating for each domain in the storage device to replace the ratings including the first sorted rating, the second sorted rating, and the
third sorted rating that were stored in the storage device; determining, by the hardware processor, whether a content item should be published on the first web page and the second web page belonging to the same domain in the advertisement network traffic based on the aggregated rating
indicating with a particular confidence that the first web page, the second web page, and web pages belonging to the same domain are unlikely to contain objectionable content of the given
category and indicating with the particular confidence that one or more entities associated with at least one of the first web page, the second web page, and the web pages belonging to the same
domain are likely to promote at least one of a plurality of objectionable content categories; and
transmitting, by the hardware processor, an indication that an advertisement should not be placed on the first web page, the second web page, and the web pages belonging to the same
domain based on the determination. (Emphasis added.) Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 1 has been amended to more particularly recite the features of "determining, by the hardware processor, whether a content item should be published on the first web page and the second web page belonging to the same domain in the advertisement network traffic based on the aggregated rating indicating with a particular confidence that the first web page, the second web page, and web pages belonging to the same domain are unlikely to contain objectionable content of the given category and indicating with the particular confidence that one or more entities associated with at least one of the first web page, the second web page, and the web pages belonging to the same domain are likely to promote at least one of a plurality of objectionable content categories" and "transmitting, by the hardware processor, an indication that an advertisement should not be placed on the first web page, the second web page, and the web pages belonging to the same domain based on the determination." Support for the amendments to the independent claims can be found, for example, in paragraph [0067] of applicant's specification. It is plainly apparent from the language of the claim that such a method is clearly not a) mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations); b) certain methods of organizing human activity; and c) mental processes. Therefore, the claims are directed to patentable subject matter. However, even if the claims were directed to an abstract idea (which applicant does not concede), amended claim 1 recites: "determining, by the hardware processor, whether a content item should be published on the first web page and the second web page belonging to the same domain in the advertisement network traffic based on the aggregated rating indicating with a particular confidence that the first web page, the second web page, and web pages belonging to the same domain are unlikely to contain objectionable content of the given category and indicating with the particular confidence that one or more entities associated with at least one of the first web page, the second web page, and the web pages belonging to the same domain are likely to promote at least one of a plurality of objectionable content categories" and "transmitting, by the hardware processor, an indication that an advertisement should not be placed on the first web page, the second web page, and the web pages belonging to the same domain based on the determination." Applicant respectfully submits that these limitations, in combination with the other limitations of amended claim 1, amount to significantly more than the allegedly abstract idea identified by the Examiner. Applicant also respectfully submits that, in light of these proposed amendments, the
Examiner's rejection does not address all of the features of the claims as amended. Accordingly, the Examiner's rejection is moot with respect to the currently recited claims. Accordingly, applicant respectfully requests that the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn.
As noted above, the pending claims do recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm and describes the claimed invention as seeking to, when implemented, at best optimize a business practice/goal: “for applying scores and ratings to web pages, web sites, and other pieces of content of interest to advertisers or content providers for safe and effective online advertising”, “Online advertisers use tools that provide information about websites or publishers and the viewers of such websites to facilitate more effective planning and management of online advertising by advertisers Moreover, online advertisers continually desire increased control over the web pages on which their advertisements and brand messages appear For example, particular online advertisers want to control the risk that their advertisements and brand messages appear on pages or sites that contain objectionable content (e g , pornography or adult content, hate speech, bombs, guns, ammunition, alcohol, offensive language, tobacco, spyware, malicious code, illegal drugs, music downloading, particular types of entertainment, illegality, obscenity, etc ) In another example, advertisers for adult-oriented products, such as alcohol and tobacco, want to avoid pages directed towards children In yet another example, particular online advertisers want to increase the probability that their content appears on specific sorts of sites (e g , websites containing news-related information, websites containing entertainment- related information, etc )”, “Systems, methods, and media for rating websites for safe advertising are provided In accordance with some embodiments of the disclosed subject matter, the method comprises extracting one or more features from a piece of web content, applying a plurality of statistical models to the extracted features to generate a plurality of ordinomial estimates, wherein each ordinomial estimate represents a probability that the web content is a member of one of a plurality of severity groups, determining a posterior ordmomial estimate for the web content by combining the plurality of ordinomial estimates, generating a risk rating that encodes seventy and confidence based on the determined posterior ordinomial estimate, wherein the risk rating identifies whether the web content is likely to contain objectionable content of a given category, and providing the risk rating for determining whether an advertisement should be associated with the web content”. The pending claims, when implemented, do not improve the functioning of the computing device itself or other technology/technical field. See Office Action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101 analysis.
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
5/6/2026
Prosecution Insights