DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the amendment/remarks filed 12 August 2025.
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended. Note: claim 5 is identified as “Currently Amended” but does not provide any amendments not previously entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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/Remarks
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC § 101, Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s remarks but does not find them persuasive. Applicant argues that the “claim amendments provide specific parameters of the relevancy score and the extension mechanism to avoid preemption of the field for creating and applying relevancy score and extensions to this process. The claims use the limited calculation parameters and extension parameters in a process specifically designed to achieve an improved technical result in the conventional industry practice.” Remarks at 10. As set forth in MPEP 2106.04 “While preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, questions of preemption are inherent in and resolved by the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (the Alice/Mayo test referred to by the Office as Steps 2A and 2B). Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1150, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379, 115 USPQ2d 1152, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2015). It is necessary to evaluate eligibility using the Alice/Mayo test, because while a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible.” Thus, an argument that the claims avoid preemption of the field, is not alone persuasive.
Applicant argues in the context of McRO that “the argument that the claims are not tied to a specific device or do not recite any particular hardware for performing the steps is not dispositive of the patent eligibility of the claims under 35 USC 101.” Remarks at 10. Examiner does not claim that the lack of hardware is the reason the claims are overall not patent eligible. Rather, in the “additional element” analysis, there are no additional elements to analyze as all steps fall into at least one abstract idea category. In McRO, the claims were found to not be directed to an abstract idea. Here, the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the “steps of the process have been presented in the claims as a process that improves the efficiency of the operation of an ad server device ….” Remarks at 11. Applicant has not provided support for a conclusion that the ad server device has been improved. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-10 recite a system which is considered a machine or manufacture. Claims 11-20 recite a process.
Step 2A-Prong One
(Claims 1 and 11) The “receiving an advertising decision request from a requestor where said decision request includes a requestor supplied relevancy request score value, one or more relevancy filters, and filter weighting values for the advertising decision request” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or using pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “data processor” language in claim 1, the claim encompasses a user manually receiving a request. Claim 11 does not recite any particular hardware for performing this step. The claims falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
(Claims 1 and 11) The “creating a custom relevancy parameter value incorporating and utilizing said requestor supplied relevancy request score value, said relevancy filters, and said filter weighting values” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or using pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “data processor” language in claim 1, the claim encompasses a user manually utilizing known information to create a parameter. Claim 11 does not recite any particular hardware for performing this step. The claims falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
(Claims 1 and 11) The “collecting and aggregating multiple advertisements … for relevancy evaluation” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or using pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “data processor” and “advertisement aggregator module active within said data processor” language in claim 1 or the “advertisement aggregator module” language in claim 11, the claim encompasses a user manually initiating collection of advertisements. The claims falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
(Claims 1 and 11) The “dynamically calculating a normalized advertisement relevancy parameter value utilizing said requestor supplied relevancy score, the one or more relevancy filters, and the filter weighting values as a positive integer value for each of said multiple advertisements discovered and collected by said advertisement aggregator” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or using pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “data processor” language in claim 1, the claim encompasses a user manually calculating a score. Claim 11 does not recite any particular hardware for performing this step. The claims falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
(Claims 1 and 11) The “comparing the normalized advertisement relevancy parameter for each of said multiple advertisements against the requestor supplied relevancy score value” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or using pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “data processor” language in claim 1, the claim encompasses a user manually evaluating advertisement parameters against one another. Claim 11 does not recite any particular hardware for performing this step. The claims falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
(Claims 1 and 11) The “retaining each advertisement … for which the normalized advertisement relevancy parameter meets or exceeds the value of the requestor supplied relevancy score value” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or using pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “advertisement aggregator” language in claim 1 or the “advertisement aggregator module” in claim 11, the claim encompasses a user manually utilizing known values to retain advertisements. The claims falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
(Claims 1 and 11) The “receiving … any additional relevancy data, model, or code from said requestor” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or using pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “extension mechanism module” language in claims 1 and 11, the claim encompasses a user manually receiving information. The claims falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
(Claims 1 and 11) The “review the properties, current pacing information, current performance metric (eCPM), and any relevancy score of each of said retained advertisements to crate and/or update a relevancy bias for each of said retained advertisements” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or using pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “extension mechanism module” language in claims 1 and 11, the claim encompasses a user manually utilizing known metrics to update a relevancy bias. The claims falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
(Claims 1 and 11) The “boosting the normalized advertisement relevancy parameter value by incorporating said relevancy bias to create a final relevancy score for each of said retained advertisements” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or using pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “extension mechanism” language in claims 1 and 11, the claim encompasses a user manually incorporating relevancy bias to create a final score. The claims falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
(Claims 1 and 11) The “selecting one or more retained advertisements that meet or exceed said final relevancy score and presenting said selected one or more retained advertisements to a requestor” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or using pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “ad server” language in claims 1 and 11, the claim encompasses a user manually selecting and presenting an ad. The claims falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
(Claims 1 and 11) The “upon selection from a requestor of an ad or ads, publishing each selected advertisement” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or using pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “data processor” language in claim 1, the claim encompasses a user manually publishing advertisements. Claim 11 does not recite any particular hardware for performing this step. The claims falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 2 and 12 further limit the abstract idea by further refining what is meant by an “advertisement” but these limitations do not take the claims out of the abstract idea grouping identified above.
Claims 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, 19, and 20 further limit the abstract idea by further refining what inputs such as filters, weights, values, importance of attributes, properties, and range information can be received; these limitations do not take the claims out of the abstract idea grouping identified above.
(Claims 5 and 15) The “adjusting a normalized requestor advertisement relevancy score by adding weights and attributes to said normalized requestor advertisement relevancy score” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or using pen and paper because the claim encompasses a user manually adjusting a score. Claims 5 and 15 do not recite any particular hardware for performing this step. The claims falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
(Claims 6 and 16) The “recalculating a requestor advertisement relevancy score and re-applying the requestor advertisement relevancy score in the advertisement selection step of the process” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or using pen and paper because the claim encompasses a user manually recalculating and re-applying a score. Claims 6 and 16 do not recite any particular hardware for performing this step. The claims falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
(Claims 8 and 18) The “selection by an ad server comprises operating any of auctions, lotteries, or other mechanisms to determine which ad should be selected as complying with the advertising request” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or using pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “ad server” language, the claims encompasses a user manually operating an auction or lottery. The claims falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
The mere nominal recitation of a generic data processor or ad server does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional element of an ad server device comprising a data processor with certain modules active within (claims 1-10) or a number of modules and an ad server (claims 11-20) and includes no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using these generic computer components. The data processor and ad server do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A-Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claims are ineligible.
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 MEREDITH A LONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3196. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6.
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 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.
/MEREDITH A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622