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
This action is in reference to the communication filed on 10 MARCH 2026.
Amendments to claims 26, 36, 45, entered and considered. Claims 1-25 previously canceled.
Claims 26-45 are present and examined.
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 26-45 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As explained below, the claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step One: Is the claim directed to a process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter? YES.
With respect to claims 26-45, the independent claims (claims 26, 36, 45) are directed to a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? YES.
With respect to claims 26-45, the independent claims (claims 26, 36, 45) are directed, in part, to
A control system for controlling an online campaign, the control system comprising:
at least one processor configured to:
provide, from a sensor, real-time data associated with one or more impressions of the online campaign, the real-time data comprising a quantity of impressions, clicks, or events calculated by a supervisory controller of the control system;
generate a delivery reference signal particular to each of a plurality of inventory units based on the real-time data and configuration information for the online campaign;
generate a campaign level control signal for first inventory unit based at least on the real-time data and the delivery reference signal, wherein the real-time data and the delivery reference signal are compensated to accommodate for imposed constraints of one or more other control signals;
receive,
calculate, for the first inventory unit, a performance value by multiplying an ad event rate associated with the first inventory unit by a target cost-per-ad event received from the user
calculate, for the first inventory unit, at least a final bid price based on an algorithm that determines which is lesser between the maximum allowed bid price and the performance value, and calculates the final bid price based on the lesser of the maximum allowed bid price and the performance value, wherein the algorithm further applies the campaign level control signal;
automatically launch the online campaign based on the calculated final bid price;
display, to the user
receive, by the user
automatically determine a daily spending goal based on the campaign pacing selection, the daily target the maximum allowed bid price, and the selected optimization objective; and
submit, to
These claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which include commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). Facilitating the creation of a bid and submitting a bid into an auction is categorically a business relation and/or sales activity.
Examiner further finds these claim elements, such as the receiving of real time data, receiving of an optimization objective, and the limitations pertaining to the calculation of bid prices and spending goals to be examples of a mental process (i.e. concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion functions). Examples of these include: such as the receiving of real time data, receiving of an optimization objective, and the limitations pertaining to the calculation of bid prices and spending goals, to be examples of such concepts. Determining the bid price and operating a campaign based on received objects is performable in the human mind.
Examiner further finds the use of the algorithm, as well as the calculation of bid prices, and determination of spending goals based on prior performance, to recite a mathematical concept. An algorithm/cost determination is at least a mathematical relationship/formula/equation or calculation, and such these limitations cover mathematical concepts.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial and legal interactions, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a concept performed in the human mind, then it/they falls/ fall into the “mental processes” category. If a claim limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation covers mathematical relationships, formulas, equations or calculations, it falls under the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong two: does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements – claim 26 recites a processor, as well as the use of a graphical user interface, and further recites the use of a “launch element,” and a drop down menu, and an “electronic market” with similar processors/GUI claims 36, 45, to perform the claimed steps. Examiner also notes the presence of a “sensor” to monitor real time data in each of the claims.
The processors is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing sending/receiving data) such that it amounts no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05f), or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use/computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05h). The use of a processor to send/receive information as well as the “sensor” to send and receive real time information, and a GUI, to receive an input in a plurality of menus/fields including a drop down menu, a button, etc. are at best insignificant extra solution activities (see MPEP 2106.05g). Examiner finds no improvement to the functioning of the computer or any other technology or technical field in the processors/sensor/GUI as claimed (see MPEP 2106.05a), nor any other application or use of the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond a general like between the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05e). Examiner in particular notes the “sensor” and “electronic market” to be described in functional capabilities only in the specification and are included in the interest of compact prosecution.
Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it/they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO.
The independent claims are additionally directed to claim elements such as a processor, a “sensor’ to as well as the use of a graphical user interface including drop down fields and launch elements. When considered individually, the processor, sensor, and GUI claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in:
[025] “The functions of the processor may be provided by a single dedicated processor or by a plurality of processors. Moreover, the processor may include, without limitation, digital signal processor (DSP) hardware, or any other hardware capable of executing software. User interface 116 may include any type or combination of input/output devices, such as a display monitor, graphical user interface, touch-screen or pad, keyboard, and/or mouse.”
[038] Master controller 220 may also be disposed in communication with sensor 238, which is disposed in communication with, and configured to detect conditions of, inventory units of campaign 230. Sensor 238 may be configured to obtain real-time data about one or more inventory units on which ads are delivered for campaign 230. For example, sensor 238 may measure operating conditions of campaign 230, such as impression, click, event, action volumes and/or rates, and/or revenue for each inventory unit 232-236. In one embodiment, sensor 238 may output a marginal revenue reported at time k r.sup.uploaded(k) for campaign 230. Additionally, or alternatively, sensor 238 may output metrics representing other operating conditions of campaign 230, such as marginal impression volume n(k), a reference impression volume n.sup.ref(k), a preceding control signal u(k−1), and/or an uploaded impression volume n.sup.uploaded(k), for each time k of a campaign. Sensor 238 may be configured to feed such data to master controller 220 and to one or more of the unit controllers 224-228.
At [075] “GUI 700 may be a web portal or application associated with one or more of controllers 108 that enables a user (e.g., associated with an advertiser 102) to configure an advertising campaign to operate as described above. As shown in the figure, GUI 700 may include…” at [082] “GUI 700 may further include a launch campaign UI element 722. When the user selects this element, the various campaign settings 702-708, 714, 716, 718 the user entered via GUI 700 may be provided as campaign configuration information 222 (FIG. 4) to control system 200.” – i.e. Examiner finds this element to just be intended use of GUI 700. Examine further notes that the algorithm is recited as descriptive of the inputs received/required at best, rather than any improvement or application beyond generally linking the abstract idea to an algorithm.
These passages, as well as others, makes it clear that the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. Examiner notes that the majority of the identified elements re described in functional terms only – i.e. the type of data the sensor collects, or the types/means of data sent/received and displayed on the GUI. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
Dependent claims 27-35, 37-44 are not directed any additional abstract ideas and are also not directed to any additional non-abstract claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as descriptions of types of data shown/input in the GUI, as well as means of running an auction based on collected real time data. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks as filed on 10 MAR 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s remarks regarding the interview are noted.
Applicant’s remarks regarding the 101 Rejection begin on page 14, asserting that the claims are not directed to the abstract idea(s) identified. Applicant’s remarks regarding Example 37 are noted, however, they are not found persuasive. A practical application was found in example 37 in that the icons themselves were located based on the amount of usage of the given application within the computing device. Examiner does not find an analogous comparison to the claims at hand, in that no elements are relocated within the screen based on the usage of the computing resources. Further, as noted by Applicant, the claims automated something previously manually performed by a human, i.e. the manual rearranging of the icons, while the management of an advertising campaign is not per se automated without the input(s) provided by the user in the claimed limitations.
Applicant includes exemplary claim 26 on page 16-17, and states there is an analogy to Example 37. Applicant’s discussion of the claimed limitations appears to indicate improvements or changes to managing an advertisement campaign, rather than an analogous relocation of elements on a screen based on usage within a computer. Determining a daily spending goal is not evidence of a practical application nor significantly more, nor is it clear how it would analogize to Example 37, nor is schedule pacing a clear analogy.
Applicant’s discussion of the GUI and other components, on page 17, are noted, but again, are not found to constitute a practical application nor significantly more when considering example 37 in particular. Applicant lists, essentially, descriptive features of the GUI itself- while allowing a user to configure the campaign is perhaps an improvement in the management of said campaign, it is not per se an improvement in the technical elements themselves.
Applicant’s remaining remarks are found moot at least in view of the discussion above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5920. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached on 571-270-1813. 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.
/KATHERINE KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687