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 .
Status
This Office Action is responsive to communications filed on 17 September 2025; Claims 1, 10, and 15 have been amended, claims 3-5, 12-14 and 17-19 have been cancelled and no new claims have been added; therefore claim(s) 1-2, 6-11, 15-16 and 20-23 is/are pending in the application and have been presented for examination.
Summary
Office Action Summary:
Amendments to the claims do not overcome the rejections under 35 USC 101, therefore the Examiner has maintained the rejection.
The Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered however they are not persuasive, see Response to Arguments below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-11, 15-16 and 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Eligibility Step 1 analysis, it is determined that claims 1-2, 6-11, 15-16 and 20-23 are directed to a system and method.
Under Eligibility Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, claim 1 recites, "A computer-implemented method for determining related product responses, the method comprising: receiving, by one or more processing circuits, a product response for a first product, the product response comprising interaction data indicating a user interaction with a content item of a second product, wherein the content item is associated with a content provider; identifying, by the one or more processing circuits, a trend in the product response based on analyzing the interaction data and historical interaction data of previous product responses; identifying, by the one or more processing circuits, a relatedness graph of a plurality of products; aggregating, by the one or more processing circuits, weights of measures of degrees of relatedness in the relatedness graph of a first node of the first product to a second node of the second product; generating, by the one or more processing circuits, a relatedness index based on normalizing the aggregation of the weights of the measures of degrees; in response to identifying the trend, calculating, by the one or more processing circuits, new weights of the measures of degrees between the first node and the second node; and determining a different content item associated with the first product; updating, by the one or more processing circuits, the relatedness graph with the new weights of the measures of degrees between the first node and the second node; modifying, by the one or more processing circuits, a content item slot of the content item with the different content item: in response to the relatedness index exceeding a threshold, calculating, by the one or more processing circuits, an attribution credit assigned to the product response based on the relatedness index; and providing, by the one or more processing circuits, the attribution credit to the content provider of the content item.”, the underlined limitations indicate additional elements that are to be further analyzed at Step 2A-2.
Independent claims 10 and 15 are similar to claim 1 except for reciting: A computer-implemented method for determining full product responses, a product response for a first product and a second product, calculating, by the one or more processing circuits, a first attribution credit assigned to the product response; calculating, by the one or more processing circuits, a second attribution credit assigned to a full product response based on the relatedness index; and providing, by the one or more processing circuits, the first attribution credit and the second attribution credit to the content provider of the content item (claim 10), and system comprising: at least one processing circuits, configured to: receive a product response for a first product (claim 15) – therefore claim(s) 10 and 15 are analyzed similarly as claim 1.
The following limitations appear to recite mathematical concepts/mental process(es): “identifying, a trend in the product response based on analyzing the interaction data and historical interaction data of previous product responses, identifying…a relatedness graph of a plurality of products…aggregating…weights of measures of degrees of relatedness in the relatedness graph of a first node of the first product to a second node of the second product…generating…a relatedness index based on normalizing the aggregation of the weights of the measures of degrees…in response to identifying the trend…calculating…new weights of the measures of degrees between the first node and the second node…updating…the relatedness graph with the new weights of the measures of degrees between the first node and the second node…in response to the relatedness index exceeding a threshold…calculating…an attribution credit assigned to the product response based on the relatedness index”.
The following limitations appear to recite mental process(es) and/or advertising activities: “a product response for a first product, the product response comprising interaction data indicating a user interaction with a content item of a second product, wherein the content item is associated with a content provider…determining a different content item associated with the first product…modifying…a content item slot of the content item with the different content item…calculating…an attribution credit assigned to the product response based on the relatedness index; and providing, by the one or more processing circuits, the attribution credit to the content provider of the content item”. The Examiner notes that the newly amended claim limitations of “determining a different content item associated with the first product…modifying…a content item slot of the content item with the different content item…”, appear to further narrow the abstract idea and do not provide limitations that are significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, the claim(s) are found to be within the enumerated group(s) of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, specifically as it relates to advertising or sales activities, in addition to reciting mental process(es) and mathematical concepts.
Under Eligibility Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the limitations of - A computer-implemented method for determining related product responses, the method comprising: receiving, by one or more processing circuits, identifying, by the one or more processing circuits, aggregating, by the one or more processing circuits, generating, by the one or more processing circuits, calculating, by the one or more processing circuits, and providing, by the one or more processing circuits (claim 1), A computer-implemented method for determining full product responses, a product response for a first product and a second product, calculating, by the one or more processing circuits, a first attribution credit assigned to the product response; calculating, by the one or more processing circuits, a second attribution credit assigned to a full product response based on the relatedness index; and providing, by the one or more processing circuits, the first attribution credit and the second attribution credit to the content provider of the content item (claim 10), and system comprising: at least one processing circuits, configured to: receive a product response for a first product (claim 15), receiving, by the one or more processing circuits, a pingback correction indicating the product response was remitted from an entity computing system associated with the first product; updating, by the one or more processing circuits, the attribution credit reflecting the remitted product response; and providing, by the one or more processing circuits, the updated attribution credit to the content provider (claim 2, 11, 16, 20), retraining a attribution model stored in an analysis database based on the pingback correction (claim 21), wherein the attribution model is configured to provide the relatedness index (claim 22), wherein the attribution model quantifies a relatedness of a particular product responses to the content item (claim 23) - does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application because the claims recite generic computer components performing generic computer functions which amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment.
The claims of retraining an attribution model stored in an analysis database based on the pingback correction (claim 21), wherein the attribution model is configured to provide the relatedness index (claim 22), wherein the attribution model quantifies a relatedness of a particular product responses to the content item (claim 23) are recited at a high level of generality such that the limitations appear to be nothing more than at an “apply it” level.
Dependent claims 2, 6-11, 16, 20 and 23 are considered to be encompassed by the abstract idea for reciting: receiving indication that a product response was remitted and updating the attribution credit (claim 2, 11), where the threshold is set by the entity, content provider, the first or second product and comprises a timestamp (claim 9) and wherein the attribution model quantifies a relatedness of a particular product responses to the content item (claim 23). Dependent claim(s) 7-8 appear to encompasses mathematical concepts as well.
The limitations of the claim(s) does not appear to recite an improvement to another technology or technical field; does not provide any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; does not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; it does not add a specific limitation, or add unconventional steps that confine the claim(s) to a particular useful application; or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Generic computer components performing generic computer functions, without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. None of the limitations, considered alone or in an ordered combination provide eligibility, because taken as a whole, the claim(s) is/are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea in a computer environment.
Under Eligibility Step 2B analysis, the claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional claim elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim includes that, as stated above, it is implemented by a computer which employs a processing circuit is nothing more than “apply it” with instruction to a generic computer. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked to perform the abstract idea.
Response to Amendments
Amendments to the claims do not overcome the rejections under 35 USC 101, therefore the Examiner has maintained the rejection.
The Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered however they are not persuasive, see Response to Arguments below.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant argues that the claims recite a specific technical method for manipulating a particular data structure within a computer system (starting on page 9 of Remarks). However, during the interview conducted on 17 September 2025, the Examiner explained to the Applicant that the amended claim limitations do nothing more than narrow the abstract idea. For example, determining a different content item and replacing the first content item with another content item just lends a hand to the abstract idea as it relates to advertising as well as a mental process (i.e., determining a different content item). Furthermore, where the Applicant argues that the steps of calculating new weights based on an identified trend and updating the graph recites a concrete computational process, the Examiner finds to be directed to mathematical concepts and generic computer functions (i.e., updating). The steps of modifying a content item slot appears to just be replacing one content item with a different content item which does not recite an improvement rooted in technology but rooted in the abstract idea (see updated rejection above starting on page 3 of this Office Action).
The Applicant argues that the claims are similar to Example 47, however as indicated to the Applicant during the interview Example 47 (Claim 3) is considered to be eligible because steps (d)-(f) positively recites an improvement to the technology by claiming a specific set of steps that results in a technical solution to a technical problem, whereas the current claims do not. The current claims are more akin to Example 47 claim 2, which was considered to be ineligible. Although, the Applicant indicates Example 47 in the Remarks, it appears that the Applicant might actually be referring to Example 39, which is directed to a computer-implemented method for training a neural network for facial detection. However, the current claims are not similar to Example 39 because the current claims are found to recite a judicial exception as indicated above. The limitations of adjusting weights of measures of degrees of relatedness and updating the relatedness graph is not sufficient to make the claims patent eligible, these limitations argued by the Applicant do not amount to being significantly more than the judicial exception nor do they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s arguments to be persuasive.
The Applicant relies on the same arguments for depending claims 2, 6-11, 16, and 20-23 therefore, the Examiner' s response to the Applicant' s arguments above applies to depending claims 2, 6-11, 16, and 20-23.
Therefore, the Examiner has fully considered the Applicant’s arguments however they are not persuasive.
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 MELINDA GIERINGER whose telephone number is (408)918-7593. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (11AM-6PM ET).
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3622
/ILANA L SPAR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622