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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on February 28, 2024 cancelled claim 27. Claims 1, 8, and 15 were amended and no new claims were added. Thus, the currently pending claims addressed below are claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, 19-20, 22-24, and 25-26.
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, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, 19-20, 22-24, and 25-26 are directed to a method, a system, and a computer program product which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
However, claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, 19-20, 22-24, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 recite(s) the following abstract idea: (Examiner note: The claimed content management system has been included as part of the abstract idea because it is outside the scope of the applicant’s invention and, as such, cannot be considered an “additional element” of the claimed invention.)
receiving a subset of current campaign parameters from a third party to be a set of test variables, the set of test variables corresponding to a proposed modification of a current campaign that is applied to a treatment campaign;
monitoring the current campaign for changes to the current campaign parameters, by periodically polling the current campaign run by the third party;
determining that a current campaign parameter has been modified by the third party based on a comparison of the current campaign parameter to a historical version of the current campaign parameter;
reproducing and propagating, based on the current campaign parameter being modified by the third party being outside the set of test variables, the modification to the current campaign parameter to the treatment campaign by:
receiving, from a content management system, the current campaign parameter that has been modified;
interpreting a functionality that have been modified as a result of the modification to the current campaign parameter by interpreting the current campaign parameter that has been modified and determining how to implement the modification in the current treatment plan; and
dynamically generating the functionality in a separate command structure to be implement in the treatment campaign; and
determining an action to take based on the current campaign parameter modified by the third party causing a change to at least one of the set of test variables.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely advertising, marketing, or sales related activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e., “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of:
a computer system comprising one or more processors and one or more memory elements executing software (e.g., instructions and an API) (which is just a general-purpose computer with generic computer components).
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying:
receiving a subset of current campaign parameters from a third party to be a set of test variables, the set of test variables corresponding to a proposed modification of a current campaign that is applied to a treatment campaign (receiving data);
receiving the current campaign parameter that has been modified (receiving data);
propagating, based on the current campaign parameter being modified by the third party being outside the set of test variables, the modification to the current campaign parameter to the treatment campaign (transmitting data); and
monitoring the current campaign for changes to the current campaign parameters, by periodically polling the current campaign run by the third party (transmitting and/or receiving data as evidenced from paragraph 46 of the applicant’s specification);
receiving, from a content management system, the current campaign parameter that has been modified as input to an application programming interface (API) (receiving data).
The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using 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 claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e., “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system comprising one or more processors and one or more memory elements executing software to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the 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 FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general-purpose computer and general-purpose computer components (as evidenced from Figure 5 and paragraphs 81-84 and 94-95 of the applicant’s specification and from Medium (“A Quick Guide to the Most Common API Styles, May 31, 2021, https://medium.com/api-world/a-quick-guide-to-the-most-common-api-styles-f6d8463df1bd, pgs. 1-9 ) which discloses that APIs were well-known before the effective filing date of the invention, as well as, from aws.amazon.com (What is an API, October 26, 2021, https://web.archive.org/web/20211026040417/https:// aws.amazon.com/what-is/api/, pages 1-12) which discloses that APIs are merely software with a distinct function that defines how two applications communicate with each other)); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, storing and/or transmitting data:
receiving a subset of current campaign parameters from a third party to be a set of test variables, the set of test variables corresponding to a proposed modification of a current campaign that is applied to a treatment campaign (receiving data);
receiving the current campaign parameter that has been modified (receiving data);
propagating, based on the current campaign parameter being modified by the third party being outside the set of test variables, the modification to the current campaign parameter to the treatment campaign (transmitting data); and
monitoring the current campaign for changes to the current campaign parameters, by periodically polling the current campaign run by the third party (transmitting and/or receiving data as evidenced from paragraph 46 of the applicant’s specification);
receiving, from a content management system, the current campaign parameter that has been modified as input to an application programming interface (API) (receiving data).
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e., “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The dependent claims 3, 5-7, 10, 12-14, 17, 19-20, and 22-26 appear to merely further limit the abstract idea by adding the additional steps regarding inferring that the modification should be tested, creating a new test variable, and modifying the set of test variables which are all considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 3, 10, and 17); adding the additional steps of determining a modification cause a change to a test variable and creating a second treatment campaign which are all considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 5, 12, and 19); adding a step regarding what to do when the current campaign parameter does not cause a modification to a test variable which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 6, 13, and 20); adding a storing step which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 7 and 14), adding an additional step of reproducing and propagating the modified current campaign parameter in a first format to a campaign parameter of the treatment campaign in a second format and further limiting the second format both of which are considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 22-23); adding an additional step of generating a warning signal based on a predicted operation of a campaign change which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 24), further limiting the receiving of the campaign parameters, further limiting the generated command structure, and adding the additional steps of interpreting the changes and determining how to implement which are all considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 25-26), and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No)..
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, 19-20, 22-24, and 25-26 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, 19-20 and 22-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer et al. (PGPUB: 2015/0120434) in view of adenin (Easily explained: Differences between Push and Pull APIs, December 31, 2020, https://blog.adenin.com/push-vs-pull-api/#:~:text=The%20standard%20way%3A%20 Pull%20API,need%20to%20call%20and%20ask., pages 1-10) in further view of Cazangi (US Patent: 11,731,278).
Claims 1, 8, and 15: Iyer discloses a method, a system and a computer readable medium comprising:
A computer system comprising one or more processors and one or more memory elements including instructions (Paragraph 68) that when executed cause the one or more processors to:
receiving a subset of current campaign parameters from a third party to be a set of test variables, the set of test variables corresponding to a proposed modification of a current campaign that is applied to a treatment campaign (Paragraph 30: one or more proposed modifications to the base/current campaign can be received from the content provider and/or suggested by the content management system, wherein the proposed modifications can be modifications to one or more campaign parameters such as selection criteria, the addition or removal of keywords, the changing of bids, and/or the changing of content (e.g., text) of a content item));
monitoring the current campaign for changes to the current campaign parameters, by periodically polling the current campaign run by the third party;
Iyer discloses monitoring the current campaign for changes to the current campaign parameters in at least paragraphs 43 and 56-57 (Paragraph 43: the content server can receive an indication of a proposed modification to be made to the campaign associated with the campaign data structure from a content sponsor or an opportunity system which automatically identifies potential modifications that may be beneficial to a content sponsor associated with the campaign.; Paragraph 56: synchronizing changes made to the original campaign with the draft campaign; Paragraph 57: modification can occur to the original campaign during the execution of the current campaign and during execution of the draft/treatment campaign).
Iyer further discloses in at least paragraph 60 that indications of a proposed modifications to the current campaign run by the third party can be received through the invocation of an API (Application Programming Interface) but does not disclose the manner in which the API operates is as a Pull API that polls the data from the third party.
However, the analogous art of adenin discloses that it is well known to use receive new data by using a Pull API that periodically polls the data from a third party on at least page 2, lines 1-12.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the API of Iyer to be a Pull API as disclosed by adenin thus resulting in a API that periodically polls the current campaign run by the third party.
The rationale for doing so is that it would be obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art because it merely that there is a limited number of predictable ways with a reasonable expectation of success in which the data can be received through the invocation of an API, the third party can initiate the transfer using a push process or the invention can pull the information using a polling process.
determining that a current campaign parameter has been modified by the third party based on a comparison of the current campaign parameters to a historical version of the current campaign parameter (Iyer – Paragraph 46: the draft campaign and the original base campaign are compared and a data structure for the draft campaign is created that only includes the determined differences; Paragraph 35 and Figure 2: shows changes determined to have been made between a base/current campaign and a draft/treatment campaign; Paragraph 51 and Fig. 4: the experiment/treatment data structure/format is created from the campaign data structure/form of the original(base) campaign and the draft data structure/format to materialize the experiment/treatment campaign as illustrated in figure 4; Paragraph 56: synchronizing changes made to the original campaign with the draft campaign; Paragraph 57: modification can occur to the original campaign during the execution of the current campaign and during execution of the draft/treatment campaign);
reproducing and propagating, based on the current campaign parameter being modified by the third party being outside the set of test variables, the modification to the current campaign parameter to the treatment campaign by: receiving, from a content management system, the current campaign parameter that has been modified as input to an application programming interface (API); interpreting, using the API, a functionality that has been modified as a results of the modification to the current campaign parameter, wherein the API interprets the current campaign parameter that has been modified and determines how to implement the modification in the treatment campaign; and dynamically generating the functionality in a separate command structure to be implemented in the treatment campaign;
Iyer and adenin discloses reproducing and propagating, based on the current campaign parameter being modified by the third party being outside the set of test variables, the modification to the current campaign parameter to the treatment campaign by receiving, from an opportunity (content management) system, the current campaign parameter that has been modified as input to an application programming interface (API); interpreting the current campaign parameter that has been modified, determining how to implement the modification in the treatment plan and implementing the functionality in the treatment campaign that has been modified as a result of the modification to the current campaign parameter, in at least Iyer paragraphs 43, 56-57, and 60 (Iyer – Paragraph 43: the content server can receive an indication of a proposed modification to be made to the campaign associated with the campaign data structure; Paragraph 56: synchronizing changes made to the original campaign with the draft campaign; Paragraph 57: modification can occur to the original campaign during the execution of the current campaign and during execution of the draft/treatment campaign; and Paragraph 60: indications of a proposed modifications to the current campaign run by the third party can be received through the invocation of an API (Application Programming Interface) and adenin Page 2, lines 1-12 (adenin - Page 2, lines 1-12: receiving new data by using a Pull API that periodically polls the data from a third party).
Iyer and adenin do not disclose interpreting, using the API, a functionality that has been modified as a result of modification to the current campaign parameter, wherein the API interprets the current campaign parameter that has been modified and determines how to implement the modification in the treatment campaign; wherein the current campaign parameter that has been modified is in a first command structure format when received from the third party, and generating a second command structure format compatible with computer system so that the computer system can implement the current campaign parameter in the treatment campaign.
However, the analogous art of Cazangi discloses that it is known for an API to receive data in a first command structure format from a first device, interpret the functionality (e.g., current campaign parameter that has been modified) of the received data for use in a second device (e.g., how to implement the modification in the treatment campaign), and generate a second command structure format compatible with the second device such that the second device can utilize the received data in the manner intended in at least the column 4, line 49 through column 5, line 21.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Iyer and adenin such that the API can receive data in a first command structure format from a first device, interpret the functionality (e.g., current campaign parameter that has been modified) of the received data for use in a second device (e.g., how to implement the modification in the treatment campaign), and generate a second command structure format compatible with the second device such that the second device can utilize the received data as disclosed by Cazangi.
The rationale is that it merely requires using known techniques to improve similar devices methods, or products in the same way. Iyer and adenin teach the base method for operating an API that handles communication between two different systems that operate using the same command structures. Cazangi teaches a “comparable” API with respect to communication between two different system that offers an improvement that allows the two different systems to communicate even though they both use different command structures. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the adaptation of the API of Cazangi to the base API of Iyer and adenin for the predicted result of improving the number and types of devices that can communicate and interact with one another.
and determining an action to take based on the current campaign parameter modified by the third party causing a change to at least one of the set of test variables (Iyer – Paragraph 55: based on viewing experiment and/or simulation results, the content sponsor can decide whether to implement the draft campaign (e.g., move the draft campaign to production); for example, a new campaign separate from the original campaign can be created that includes the proposed modification(s) or the proposed modifications can be incorporated into the original campaign).
Claims 3, 10, and 17: Iyer, adenin, and Cazangi disclose the method of claim 1, the system of claim 8, and the computer readable medium of claim 15, further comprising:
inferring that the modification by the third party to the current campaign parameter, while not part of the subset of current campaign parameters, should be tested by the treatment campaign (Iyer – Paragraph 43: The proposed modification can be automatically received, for example, from an opportunity system which automatically identifies potential modifications that may be beneficial to a content sponsor associated with the campaign);
dynamically creating a new test variable (Iyer – Paragraph 39: The change corresponding to row 304 has been provided by an automated opportunity system which automatically identifies opportunities for the content sponsor and presents such opportunities as suggested changes); and
dynamically modifying the set of test variables to include the new test variable (Iyer – Paragraph 48: when the proposed modification(s) associated with the draft campaign are received from the opportunity system, an experiment can be automatically conducted.)
Claims 5, 12, and 19: Iyer, adenin, and Cazangi disclose the method of claim 1, the system of claim 8, and the computer readable medium of claim 15, further comprising:
determining that the modification to the current campaign parameter causes a change to at least one of the set of test variables (Iyer – Paragraph 56-57: determining that a change to the original campaign relates to an existing change included in the draft campaign and not propagating the change to the draft campaign); and
dynamically creating, based on the determination, a second treatment campaign to test the set of test variables separately from the treatment campaign. (Iyer – Paragraph 66: multiple experiments can be conducted; a draft campaign can be created for each experiment and each experiment can be conducted using a respective draft campaign; the draft campaigns can be run simultaneously or sequentially;)
Claims 6, 13, and 20: Iyer, adenin, and Cazangi disclose the method of claim 1, the system of claim 8, and the computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein, based on the current campaign parameter not causing a modification to at least one of the set of test variables, the modification to the current campaign parameter is published to the treatment campaign. (Iyer – Paragraphs 56-57: the change is propagated to draft campaign only when it does not relate to an existing change variable being evaluated in the draft campaign)
Claims 7 and 14: Iyer, adenin, and Cazangi disclose the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 8, wherein the modification to the current campaign parameter is stored as an experiment variable within the set of test variables. (Iyer – Paragraph 46: the campaign associated with the campaign data structure can be referred to as an original (e.g., base) campaign; the draft data structure can be referred to as a shadow data structure, wherein the draft data structure includes only the differences that are proposed to the original campaign and other data items that may be necessary for providing context and/or building an appropriate hierarchy of data elements)
Claims 22-23: Iyer, adenin, and Cazangi disclose the method of claim 1, the method further comprising: reproducing and propagating the current campaign parameter that is modified by the third party in a first format to a campaign parameter of the treatment campaign in a second format, wherein the second format is compatible with a treatment campaign structure. (Iyer - Paragraphs 44 and 60: proposed modification is entered into a draft editor on a user interface and received through an API; Figures 2-3 and Paragraphs 35 and 37: discloses the format of the data entered into the draft editor; Paragraphs 46 and 61: the received modification are stored in a draft data structure/format (also referred to as a shadow data structure) that includes only differences that are proposed to the original campaign and other data items that may be necessary for providing context and/or building an appropriate hierarchy of data elements; Paragraph 46: the campaign associated with the campaign data structure can be referred to as an original (e.g., base) campaign Paragraph 51 and Fig. 4: the experiment/treatment data structure/format is created from the campaign data structure/form of the original(base) campaign and the draft data structure/format to materialize the experiment/treatment campaign as illustrated in figure 4)
Claim 24: Iyer, adenin, and Cazangi disclose the method of claim 1, the method further comprising: generating a warning signal based on a predicted operation of a campaign change associated with the current campaign parameter being modified by the third party. (Iyer - Paragraph 64: measuring statistical significance of the proposed modification and reporting the same to a campaign sponsor; The examiner notes that the only recitation of a warning signal in the applicant’s specification is in paragraph 26, where it discloses performing the claimed system and method improves the generation of specific warning signals based on the predicted operation of the campaign changes. Thus, the examiner was required to find other terms in the applicant’s specification that could refer to a warning signal. Paragraph 48 of the applicant’s specification indicates that the content provider can be sent a notification that acts as an alert. As such: Warning signal is interpreted as a notification, message, report, or the like.)
Claim 25: Iyer, adenin, and Cazangi disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the API receives the current campaign parameter that has been modified from a content management system. (Iyer - Paragraphs 39 , 43 and 48: the content server can receive an indication of a proposed modification to be made to the campaign associated with the campaign data structure from a content sponsor or an opportunity system which automatically identifies potential modifications that may be beneficial to a content sponsor associated with the campaign.
Claim 26: Iyer, adenin, and Cazangi disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the separate command structure is generated in a different format compatible with the treatment campaign. (Cazangi – Column 4, line 49 through Column 5, line 21: an API receives data in a first command structure format from a first device, interprets the functionality of the received data for use in a second device, and generate a second command structure format compatible with the second device such that the second device can utilize the received data in the manner intended; and Iyer – Paragraph 43: the content server can receive an indication of a proposed modification to be made to the campaign associated with the campaign data structure; Paragraph 56: synchronizing changes made to the original campaign with the draft campaign; Paragraph 57: modification can occur to the original campaign during the execution of the current campaign and during execution of the draft/treatment campaign; and Paragraph 60: indications of a proposed modifications to the current campaign run by the third party can be received through the invocation of an API (Application Programming Interface)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 9, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the 35 USC 101 rejection, the applicant argues that the claims, as amended integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 because: the claims recite receiving, from a content management system, the current campaign parameter that has been modified as input to an application programming interface (API);interpreting, using the API, a functionality that has been modified as a result of the modification to the current campaign parameter, wherein the API interprets the current campaign parameter that has been modified and determines how to implement the modification in the treatment campaign; and dynamically generating the functionality in a separate command structure to be implemented in the treatment campaign; the content management system is an “additional element” that transforms the abstract idea into a practical application which the specification indicates in paragraph 57 “content management system can determine whether the modified current campaign parameter is within the original and/or previous set of test variables, such as those stored the test variables store; and the API is an additional element that transforms the abstract idea into a practical application because the API and/or content management system allows current campaign parameters to be automated and dynamically generated. The examiner disagrees. First, the content management system is outside the scope of the applicant’s claims and, as such, cannot be considered an “additional element” of the claimed invention. The applicant’s invention merely receives data from the content management system. As such, the content management system and its function are not within the scope of the claimed method, system, and computer program product which receive the data. Thus, the content management system is not capable of transforming the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2. Second, even if the applicant were to amend the claim to positively recite the content management system within the scope of the claim the content management system in the claim does not perform any functions other than inherently transmitting data given that the invention receives such data. Thus, the content management system of the claim does not determine whether the modified current campaign parameter is within the original and/or previous set of test variables, such as those stored in the test variable store. Therefore, the content management system would, if moved within the scope of the claim, merely be a general-purpose computer that performs the insignificant task of transmitting data. The arrangement of devices in which there are two general-purpose computers, one of which performs only insignificant extra solution activity is merely applying the abstract idea using two general-purpose computer which is not capable of transforming the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2. Third, the API is merely software executing on a general-purpose computer that is programmed to perform steps of the abstract idea. As such, the claim merely required applying the abstract idea using a general-purpose computer with generic computer components (software, a processor and memory) upon which an abstract idea is merely being applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2. Finally, the content management system and/or API do not improve the internal workings of the device on which it is implemented. Both the claim computer performing the abstract idea and the content management system work in the same manner that they always have. The computer’s processor and memory do not change. They still execute the stored software in the same manner in which any general-purpose computer would. The general-purpose computers still have the same amount of memory available for processing task and can still process the same number of tasks, either simultaneously or in succession, as they could before the program was executed. Thus, any purported improvement in memory and/or latency observed when executing the software is based on the execution of the abstract idea. Additionally, the purported improvement is not obtained by practicing the claimed invention, since the purported improvement only occurs when monitoring many content providers campaigns as they change over time and the claim merely monitors a single campaign. Also, the specification does not detail how many campaigns would need to be monitored in order for a reduction in the amount of memory and latency within the system to occur or how much of a reduction in the amount of memory and latency is achieved for each additional campaign being monitored. Thus, merely amending the claim to require “many” campaigns to be monitored would not require the purported improvement to occur as the term “many” would be indefinite with respect to the purported improvement. In regards to the purported improvement of improved saving of data within data structures that facilitated faster searches and the generation of specific warning signals based on the predicted operation of the campaign changes, the ability of the computer to save data remains the same. It still interprets a request to save data and the structure in which the data is to be saved, then performs the saving. The memory of the computer still stores data in the data structure indicated in the same manner that is always stores data. As such, the ability of the computer to save data in data structures remains the same. Thus, any purported improvement in the saving of data within data structures that facilitated faster searches and the generation of specific warning signals based on the predicted operation of the campaign changes in an improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea that is merely being applied on a general-purpose computer. The storing of modifications to the current campaign parameters as an experiment variable with the set of test variables, generating the functionality is a separate command structure, and the second format compatible with a treatment campaign structure are all part of the abstract idea itself. The claims do not require searching to occur and if such searching were to be added to the claims. it would be part of the abstract idea itself. The generating of a warning signal has been identified as part of the abstract idea itself. The dynamically and automatically monitoring for changes to a third-party campaign and how this input is used is part of the abstract idea itself. As such, the purported improvements are not improvements to the internal workings of the general-purpose computers. Instead, any purported improvement obtained by practicing the claim invention is rooted in the abstract idea that is merely being applied by one or more general-purpose computers. Improvements of this nature are improvements to an abstract idea which are improvements in ineligible subject matter (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.). Thus, the rejection has been maintained.
The applicant arguments with regards to the 35 USC 103 rejection are not convincing. The applicant argues that Cazangi does not disclose the terms “current campaign”, “treatment campaign”, or “campaign”, as such it cannot disclose “reproducing and propagating, by the computing system, the modification to the current campaign parameter to the treatment campaign by: receiving, from a content management system, the current campaign parameter that has been modified as input to an application programming interface (API); interpreting, using the API, a functionality that has been modified as a result of the modification to the current campaign parameter, wherein the API interprets the current campaign parameter that has been modified and determines how to implement the modification in the treatment campaign”. The examiner disagrees. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The limitation of “interpreting, using the API, a functionality that has been modified as a result of the modification to the current campaign parameter, wherein the API interprets the current campaign parameter that has been modified and determines how to implement the modification in the treatment campaign” has been rejected by the combination of Iyer, adenin, and Cazangi, not by Cazangi alone. Iyer and adenin discloses reproducing and propagating, based on the current campaign parameter being modified by the third party being outside the set of test variables, the modification to the current campaign parameter to the treatment campaign by receiving, from an opportunity (content management) system, the current campaign parameter that has been modified as input to an application programming interface (API); interpreting the current campaign parameter that has been modified, determining how to implement the modification in the treatment plan and implementing the functionality in the treatment campaign that has been modified as a result of the modification to the current campaign parameter, in at least Iyer paragraphs 43, 56-57, and 60 and adenin Page 2, lines 1-12. Cazangi has been used to disclose that the modification to received (e.g., the campaign parameter disclosed by Iyer and adenin as previously combined) was in a first format; the API interprets the functionality of the modification received so that it can be modified for use in the system (e.g., how to implement the modification in treatment campaign of Iyer and adenin as previously combined), and converts the received modification ((e.g., the campaign parameter disclosed by Iyer and adenin as previously combined) into a second format that is usable (e.g., able to be implemented) by the system (e.g., in treatment campaign of Iyer and adenin as previously combined). This is disclosed in at least column 4, line 49 through column 5, line 21 of Cazangi where he describes an API receiving data (e.g., the modified current campaign parameter) in a first command structure format from a first device, interpreting the functionality (e.g., current campaign parameter that has been modified) of the received data for use in a second device (e.g., how to implement the modification in the treatment campaign), and generate a second command structure format compatible with the second device such that the second device can utilize the received data in the manner intended. As such, it is clear that the combination of Iyer, adenin, and Cazangi teach the limitations of “reproducing and propagating, by the computing system, the modification to the current campaign parameter to the treatment campaign by: receiving, from a content management system, the current campaign parameter that has been modified as input to an application programming interface (API); interpreting, using the API, a functionality that has been modified as a result of the modification to the current campaign parameter, wherein the API interprets the current campaign parameter that has been modified and determines how to implement the modification in the treatment campaign”. Thus, the rejection has been maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Juda et al. (PGPUB: 2011/0161407) which discloses creating a control campaign, receiving modifications to the control campaign; generating one or more experiment campaigns based on the modifications to campaign parameters, executing the control campaign and the experiment campaigns, and monitoring the control campaign and experiment campaigns performances.
Gao et al. (PGPUB: 2019/0130437) which discloses monitoring a current campaign and recommending changes to campaign parameters based on the performance of the current campaign and a predicted performance associated with the recommended changes.
Zhou et al. (PGPUB: 2012/0316957) which discloses rerunning an experiment using a historical data log of transactions to simulate results of the experiment against previous traffic and using the results to predict a success rate for the experiment.
Belani et al. (PGPUB: 2012/0089455) which discloses proposed modifications to a current campaign comprising a first modification to a first parameter and a second modification to a second parameter and receiving an indication to adopt the first change but not the second change.
Medium (“A Quick Guide to the Most Common API Styles, May 31, 2021, https://medium.com/api-world/a-quick-guide-to-the-most-common-api-styles-f6d8463df1bd, pgs. 1-9) which discloses that APIs are well-known software programs for send and/or receiving data.
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 JOHN W VAN BRAMER whose telephone number is (571)272-8198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30 am - 4 pm 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, Spar Ilana 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 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.
/John Van Bramer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622