DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a Final Office Action in response to the arguments and/or amendments filed on 3 September 2025.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7, and 15-17 is/are amended.
Claim(s) 1-19 and 21 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the predicted overall advertisement engagement score representing represents a likelihood”, which includes a extraneous “represents”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method, comprising: obtaining, in connection with a request for a respective advertisement that is to be presented at one or more first positions of a plurality of first positions on a page for a user, a plurality of candidate advertisements; obtaining a plurality of content to be presented in respective second positions of a second plurality of positions on the page; generating one or more first [representations] [representations] [representations] [representations] [representations] [representations] [es] a plurality of first positions, a highest ranking candidate advertisement as a first advertisement of the plurality of first advertisements; causing one or more of the first advertisements of the plurality of first advertisements to be presented to the user
Claim 7 recites a [representations] [representation] [representations] [representation] [es] a plurality of tadvertisement contextual relevance score, a plurality of first advertisements from the plurality of candidate advertisements that are to be provided in response to the request, the determining comprising: for one or more first postings of the plurality of first positions, ranking the candidate advertisements based on the predicted advertisement contextual relevance score for the respective candidate advertisement; selecting, for one or more first positions of the plurality of first positions, a highest ranking candidate advertisement as a first advertisement of the plurality of first advertisements; cause one or more of the first advertisements of the plurality of first advertisements to be presented to the user
Claim 16 recites a method comprising: obtaining, in connection with a request for a respective advertisement that is to be presented at one or more first positions of a plurality of first positions on a page for a user, a plurality of candidate advertisements; obtain a plurality of non-advertisement content to be presented in respective second positions of a second plurality of positions; generating one or more first [representations] [representation] [representation] for the candidate advertisements, wherein the predicted advertisement contextual relevance score represents a second predicted performance metric associated with the candidate advertisement and is determined based at least in part on a comparison of the first [representation] [representation] [es] a plurality of
The preceding recitation of the independent claims have had strikethroughs applied to the additional elements beyond the abstract idea to more clearly demonstrate the limitations setting forth the abstract idea. The remaining limitations of each independent claim describe a concept of receiving a request for an advertisement to be presented, obtaining candidate advertisements and the content to be presented proximate to the advertisement to be presented, analyzing the candidate advertisements for quality and contextual relevance, ranking the candidate advertisements, selecting a highest ranking candidate as the advertisement to be presented, and causing the selected advertisement to be presented. This concept plainly describes an advertising activity. Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B), advertising activities fall within the commercial or legal interactions sub-grouping of the methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the claims are determined to recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106, reflecting the 2019 PEG, directs examiners at Step 2A Prong Two to consider whether the additional elements of the claims integrate a recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 describe the method as computer-implemented. Claim 7 recites the additional element of a computer system, comprising: one or more processors; a memory storing program instructions. These additional elements are recited at an extremely high level of generality and are interpreted as generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing device does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element of using a trained deep neural network (DNN) wherein the trained DNN is trained using training data. The claim does not put limitations on the trained deep neural network beyond that it receives as input a broad set of information, outputs desirable information, and is trained on a broad set of information. There are no technical details regarding either the structure of the trained deep neural network or how the trained deep neural network is trained. These limitations amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on with a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, these limitations also merely indicate a field of use or technological environment, computers, in which the judicial exception is performed. This type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment of neural networks implemented by computers. See MPEP 2106.05(h). As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element of embeddings representing information. The claim does not put limitations on how the embeddings are either generated or structured. This additional element reflects no improvement to technology, no particular machine, no transformation of an article, and does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Instead, these limitations amount to merely instructions to implement the abstract idea with a computer. Per MPEP 2106.04(d), such additional elements do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. As such, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element of presenting content in a user interface and on a client device associated with the user. This additional element reflects no improvement to technology, no particular machine, no transformation of an article, and do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Instead, this limitation only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment of networked computing devices. Per MPEP 2106.04(d), the courts have found generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use to not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element of receiving an interaction with the advertisement. Receiving an interaction with an advertisement does not impose a meaningful limit on the claim, and instead amounts to an insignificant application of the abstract idea. As such, this additional element is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
There are no further additional elements. When considered as a combination, the above additional elements only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of neural networks implemented by networked computers. Per MPEP 2106.04(d), the courts have found generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use to not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. As such, the combination of additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of the Mayo/Alice analysis, examiners are to consider whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite additional elements which may be interpreted as generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea or instructions to implement the abstract idea with a computer. However, per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing does not add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. Additionally, Van Gysel et al. (US 2018/0182376 A1) demonstrates that neural networks (See at least [0021]) and representing data as embeddings (See at least [0188]) was conventional years before the priority date of the claimed invention. As such, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more.
As previously noted, the claims recite an additional element of displaying information in user interfaces on client devices. This additional element reflects no improvement to technology, no particular machine, no transformation of an article, and does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Further, Tanaka et al. (US 2014/0067558 A1) demonstrates (See at least [0003]) that user interfaces displaying information on devices were conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more.
As previously noted, the claims recite an additional element of receiving an interaction with an advertisement. Brindley et al. (US 2006/0265493 A1) demonstrates (See at least [0005]) that receiving advertisement interactions was conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. That this limitation was conventional reinforces the conclusion that this additional element is only insignificant extra-solution activity, per MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, this additional element does not amount to significantly more.
There are no further additional elements. When considered as a combination, the additional elements only generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment of neural networks implemented by networked computers. Per MPEP 2106.05, the courts have found generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use to be insufficient to amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. As such, the combination of additional elements does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-5, 8-11, 14, 15, 17-19, and 21 further narrow the abstract ideas, but the claims continue to recite an abstract idea, albeit narrowed ones. Claims 2-5, 8-10, 14, 15, 17, 19, and 21 recite no further additional elements. The previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not integrate the narrowed abstract ideas into a practical application for the same reasons as explained above in conjunction with the independent claims. Therefore these claims continue to be directed to an abstract idea. The previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not amount to significantly more than the narrowed abstract idea for the same reasons as explained above in conjunction with the independent claims. Dependent claims 6, 11-13, and 18 further describe the implementation of the narrowed abstract ideas by the DNN, but the additional element continues to amount to an implementation of an abstract idea with a generic computing device. As such, these additional elements, individually and in combination with the prior additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea or the narrowed abstract into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea or the narrowed abstract idea. Thus as the dependent claims remain directed to a judicial exception, and as the additional elements of the claims do not amount to significantly more, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 101 Rejections of claims 1-19 and 21:
The Applicant notes that the concept of identifying content to present within particular positions on a page based on user features and other content to be presented on the page proximate to the particular positions does not appear to correspond to any of the enumerated sub-groupings found in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B).
The Applicant submits that the claim as a whole integrates the purported judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The Applicant submits that the additional elements include, at least [See response Page 13 and 14]. Taken as a whole, these additional elements integrate the purported judicial exception of organizing human activities into a practical application.
In particular, these features improve the technology by providing specific elements that “utilize localized contextual information to select the advertisements and the relative positioning of the advertisements to be presented so as to select and present more relevant advertisements based on the content that is surrounding and proximate to the presentation of the selected advertisements”.
The memorandum further identified further considerations including “whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution…or the claim covers a particular solution to a problem” “whether the claim invokes computers…merely as a tool to perform an existing process…or whether the claim purports…to improve an existing technology” and “the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception”. The Applicant respectfully submits that each of these considerations weigh in favor of eligibility under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 3 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s characterization of the concept as “identifying content to present within particular positions on a page based on user features and other content to be presented on the page proximate to the particular positions” plainly is an advertising activity. Examiner notes that identifying advertising content to place within various position on a page based on the audience and the content proximate to those positions encompasses selecting advertisements for placement within a printed publication.
The features identified by Applicant as additional elements contain extensive portions which are considered part of the abstract idea rather than additional elements. Of the limitations Applicant identifies, the Examiner only considers embeddings and using a trained deep neural network (DNN) wherein the trained DNN is trained using training data to be additional elements. At the level of generality with which these additional elements are described, they amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea with a computing device. As such, these features do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As previously noted, the identified features are considered part of the abstract idea. Per MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement.” Here, it is not the additional elements which are providing the improvement, but the abstract idea itself. As such, this improvement does not constitute a technical improvement for the Mayo/Alice analysis.
Note that there are no details regarding how the embeddings are generate or how the data is process by the deep neural networks. At the level of generality claimed, Examiner considers the invention to recite an idea of a solution rather than a particular solution. Further, when the additional elements are considered, it is clear that the claims “invoke computers … merely as a tool to perform an existing process” of, as applicant’s characterizes it “identifying content to present within particular positions on a page based on user features and other content to be presented on the page proximate to the particular positions.” And finally, the actual application of the abstract idea (using broad embeddings and broad neural networks) is extremely general. Examiner respectfully disagrees that the identified considerations weight in favor of eligibility.
Additional Considerations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 of the prior office actions dated 25 April 2024 and 29 May 2025.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Bion A Shelden whose telephone number is (571)270-0515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12pm-10pm EST.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571) 272-6702. 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.
/Bion A Shelden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685 2025-09-18