DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/19/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-20 are canceled.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are currently amended.
Claims 1, 7-8, 14-15, and 21 are currently pending examination.
Double Patenting
The Examiner acknowledges the approved Terminal Disclaimer filed on 09/30/2022. Accordingly, the Double Patenting rejection is withdrawn.
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, 7-8, 14-15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 7-8, 14-15, and 21 is/are directed towards a statutory category they are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1, Yes).
Claim 1 recites, in part, the limitations of A method for generating information related to advertisement viewability, the method comprising: receiving […] metrics associated with presentation of the web page on the user device, wherein the web page is associated with a seller of an advertisement placement, and wherein the metrics include device information related to the user device and browser information related to a browser on which the web page is displayed on the user device; generating […] a string that includes a plurality of characters that each encode a particular value corresponding to a metric, wherein at least a first character from the plurality of characters encodes the browser information related to the browser on which the web page is displayed on the user device and wherein at least a second character from the plurality of characters encodes the device information related to the user device; appending […] the generated string to a uniform resource locator (URL) associated with the web page as a query string for inclusion in bid requests on the advertisement placement; generating […] a bid request that includes the uniform resource locator (URL) associated with the web page and the appended string; receiving, from a […] buyer of the advertisement placement, a request for predicted information relating to advertisement viewability corresponding to the advertisement placement […], wherein the request includes the appended string; in response to the request for predicted information relating to advertisement viewability, decoding […] the string by using each of the plurality of characters in the string as a key to a look-up table that converts a character in the string to the particular value corresponding to the metric; generating […] predicted information including a predicted duration of time that an advertisement inserted in the advertisement placement […] when presented […] will be viewed based on historical data related to viewing of advertisements previously placed […] in the retrieved metrics; and transmitting […] the predicted information to a buyer […] prior to placing a bid on the advertisement placement . These limitations, individually and in combination, describe or set forth the abstract idea in claim 1. The Examiner notes that the specific limitations that describe or set forth the abstract idea in Step 2A Prong 1 can be identified either individually or in combination (see p. 54 of 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, now in MPEP 2106).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations outlined above that describe or set forth the abstract idea, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s). That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified below, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed in the mind. These limitations are considered a mental process because the limitations include an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. These limitations are also similar to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” and/or “collecting and comparing known information” which were determined to be mental processes in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified below do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Therefore, the claim recite a mental process (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth an advertising activity. Advertising falls within the certain method of organizing human activity enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a fundamental economic principle or practice because advertising is related to commerce and economy, a commercial interaction (e.g., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations), and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Therefore, the claim recites a certain method of organizing human activity (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
Claim 1 recites the additional element(s) of “from a user device”, “presenting a web page”, “via a code provided by a measurement server and inserted in the web page”, “using a hardware processor of a measurement server”, “buyer server”, “on the webpage, “the webpage”, “on the user device”, “server”, and “buyer server”.
In Step 2A Prong Two, these additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional element(s) amount adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) does not integrate the judicial exception similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. “[T]he 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 pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Further, the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s). Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, improves any other technology or technical field, applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, applies the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses 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 claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. (Step 2A Prong Two, No).
In Step 2B, the additional elements also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong Two. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. However, unless an Examiner had previously concluded under revised Step 2A that an additional element was insignificant extra-solution activity, they should reevaluate that conclusion in Step 2B (see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, now in MPEP 2106). Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. The additional elements amount no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) (Step 2B, No).
Claim 7 recites further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 1 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes). Claim 7 does not recite any additional elements other than those recited in claim 1. Therefore, for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1, claim 7 also does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 8 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 also recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong 1. Claim 8 recites the additional elements of “A system […], the system comprising: a hardware processor of a measurement server that is configured to”, “from a user device”, “presenting a web page”, “via a code provided by a measurement sever and inserted in the web page”, “on the web page”, “the web page is”, “on the user device”, “server”, and “buyer server”. However, for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1, claim 8 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 14 recite further limitations that also falls within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 8 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes). Claim 14 does not recite any additional elements other than those recited in claim 8. Therefore, for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 8, claim 14 also does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 15 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 also recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong 1. Claim 15 recites the additional elements of “A non-transitory computer-readable medium containing computer executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform”, “from a user device”, “using a hardware processor of a measurement server”, “presenting a web page”, “via a code provided by a measurement server and inserted in the web page”, “a buyer server”, “on the web page”, “the web page”, “on the user device”, ““server”, and “buyer server”. However, for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1, claim 15 also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 21 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 15 (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes). Claim 21 does not recite any additional elements other than those recited in claim 15. Therefore, for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 15, claim 21 also does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Prior Art
The Examiner notes that the claims currently overcome prior art. While the prior art teach some of the elements of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have arrived at Applicant’s claimed invention unless one was using Applicant’s claims and specification as a roadmap, thus using impermissible hindsight. The closest prior art found to date are the following:
Ray et al. (US 2014/0372205 A1) discloses the concept of appending advertisement viewability information to a string, and sending the string to a buyer of an advertisement placement. The string is decoded by the buyer of the advertisement placement to retrieved the advertisement viewability information by using the string as a key to a look-up table that converts a character in the string to a particular value corresponding to the advertisement viewability information. However, Ray does not appear to disclose or render obvious the buyer server extracting the string and the bid requests requesting predicting information related to advertisement viewability as currently amended.
Ringdahl (US 2014/0136342 A1) discloses the concept of receiving a request from a buyer of an advertisement placement. However, Ringdahl does not appear to disclose or render obvious the buyer server extracting the string and the bid requests requesting predicting information related to advertisement viewability as currently amended.
Schroeter (US 2015/0149285 A1) discloses the concept of generating a predicted duration of time that an advertisement will be viewed. However, Schroeter does not appear to disclose or render obvious the buyer server extracting the string and the bid requests requesting predicting information related to advertisement viewability as currently amended.
Cetintas (US 2016/0180374 A1) discloses the concept of predicting that an advertisement will be viewed for a duration of time during a user visit based on metrics associated with a web page (see at least ¶¶ 18-19 and 76-77). However, Cetintas does not appear to disclose or render obvious the buyer server extracting the string and the bid requests requesting predicting information related to advertisement viewability as currently amended.
Reitsma et al. (US 2014/0019262) discloses the concept of predicting visibility of ad slots in web pages, appending the string to a URL, obtaining metrics associated with the web page, and generating predicted information (see at least Figure 3). However, Reitsma does not appear to disclose or render obvious the buyer server extracting the string and the bid requests requesting predicting information related to advertisement viewability as currently amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Argument: “It is plainly apparent from the language of the claim that such a method is clearly not a) mathematical concept (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations); b) certain methods of organizing human activity; and c) mental process. Therefore, the claims are directed to patentable subject matter. […] 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.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, the limitations that describe or set forth the abstract idea are similar to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” and/or “collecting and comparing known information” which were both determined to be mental processes in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified below do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Therefore, the claims recite a mental process.
The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a fundamental economic principle or practice (e.g., relating to commerce and economy), commercial interactions, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The Examiner notes that certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Therefore, the claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity.
In Steps 2A Prong Two and in Step 2B, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they are being used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. Unlike in DDR in which the claimed invention solved the business challenge of retaining website visitors that is particular to the Internet, here the claimed invention amounts to merely reciting the performance of a business practice along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet.
Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAM REFAI whose telephone number is (313)446-4822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on 571-270-3948. 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.
/SAM REFAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681