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 .
Claims 1-7, 9-12, and 14-22 are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment appears to have obviated the previous objections to the claims, as well as the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Therefore, those objections and rejections are withdrawn. Most, but not all, of the objections to the specification and drawings have been obviated by the amendment. To the extent that an objection appears in both this Office Action and the previous Office Action, it is maintained, otherwise it is withdrawn.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 74: "to determined pacing" should read "to determine pacing"
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following minor informalities:
Paragraph 86 of the specification references pacing model 256b-256e in Fig. 8, while Fig. 8 depicts pacing model 256a-256d.
Reference characters 260a-d and 262a-d are referenced in the description of Fig. 7, but are depicted in Fig. 8 rather than Fig. 7.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add/remove the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“2019 PEG”).
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim recites a system comprising a non-transitory memory and a processor; therefore, the claim is directed to the statutory category of machines.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites:
- “generate a first set of pacing parameters”: This limitation could encompass the mental generation of a first set of pacing parameters
- “wherein the trained pacing model…applies weighting factors to the KNN and N-BEATS, the weighting factors reflecting a level of accuracy of the KNN and the N-BEATS at a given point in time”: This limitation could, barring the recitation of generic computer components (see Prong 2), encompass mentally applying weighting factors to the KNN and N-BEATS that reflect a level of accuracy of the KNN and the N-BEATS at a given point in time, such as by mentally multiplying an output of the KNN and an output of the N-BEATS by an accuracy percentage
- “in response to generating the first set of pacing parameters, modify a pacing pipeline to incorporate the first set of pacing parameters”: This limitation could encompass the mental modification of a pacing pipeline algorithm to incorporate the set of pacing parameters in response to the generation of the first set of pacing parameters
- “wherein the pacing pipeline is configured to generate deployment parameters”: This limitation could, barring the recitation of generic computer components (see Prong 2), encompass the mental generation of deployment parameters
- “generate a second set of pacing parameters”: This limitation could encompass the mental generation of a second set of pacing parameters
- “in response to generating the second set of pacing parameters, modify the pacing pipeline to incorporate the second set of pacing parameters”: This limitation could encompass the mental modification of a pacing pipeline algorithm to incorporate the second set of pacing parameters in response to the generation of the second set of pacing parameters
- “wherein the pacing pipeline is configured to generate updated deployment parameters”: This limitation could, barring the recitation of generic computer components (see Prong 2), encompass the mental generation of updated deployment parameters
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites “A system, comprising: a non-transitory memory; a processor communicatively coupled to the non-transitory memory, wherein the processor is configured to read a set of instructions to [perform the method]”, “wherein the first set of pacing parameters are generated by a trained pacing model”, “wherein the trained pacing model includes a k-nearest neighbor (KNN) portion and Neural Basis Expansion Analysis for Time Series (N-BEATS) portion,” “wherein the trained pacing model…applies weighting factors,” “wherein the pacing pipeline is configured to generate deployment parameters,” “wherein the second set of pacing parameters is generated by the trained pacing model,” and “wherein the pacing pipeline is configured to generate updated deployment parameters.” However, the memory, processor, trained pacing model, and pacing pipeline limitations all amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithm (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites “receive a first set of input parameters,” “wherein the trained pacing model receives the first set of input parameters,” “deploy first content to one or more content systems based on the deployment parameters,” “receive feedback data representative of the deployed content,” “wherein the trained pacing model receives a second set of input parameters, and wherein the second set of input parameters are based at least in part on the feedback data,” and “deploy second content to the one or more content systems based on the updated deployment parameters.” However, these limitations recite the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and outputting (MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The recitations of the system comprising memory and a processor, a trained model including a KNN portion and an N-BEATS portion, and a pacing pipeline are mere instructions to apply the exception for the same reasons given above. The receiving and deploying limitations, in addition to being insignificant extra-solution activity, are also directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving and transmitting data over a network (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). As an ordered whole, the claim is directed to a mentally performable process of generating pacing parameters to modify a pacing pipeline that generates deployment parameters. Nothing in the claim provides significantly more than this. As such, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim inherits the abstract ideas of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites “wherein the first set of input parameters includes a budget parameter, a total return on investment parameter, and a pacing goal parameter.” The claim merely further limits the first set of received input parameters of claim 1 and still recites the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering (MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation, in addition to being insignificant extra-solution activity, is also directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving and transmitting data over a network (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Claim 3
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim inherits the abstract ideas of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites “wherein the second set of input parameters includes a budget parameter, a total return on investment parameter, a pacing goal parameter, and performance data for the deployed content.” The claim merely further limits the second set of received input parameters of claim 1 and still recites the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering (MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation, in addition to being insignificant extra-solution activity, is also directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving and transmitting data over a network (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Claim 4
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim inherits the abstract ideas of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites “wherein the content is deployed by a deployment management system.” The claim merely further limits the deploying content limitation of claim 1 and still recites the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and outputting (MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation, in addition to being insignificant extra-solution activity, is also directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving and transmitting data over a network (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Claim 5
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim inherits the abstract ideas of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites “wherein the deployment management system is a bid management system.” The claim merely further limits the deployment management system of claim 4 that performs the deploying content limitation of claim 1 and still recites the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and outputting (MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation, in addition to being insignificant extra-solution activity, is also directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving and transmitting data over a network (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Claim 6
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites “wherein the pacing model is configured to generate a time series prediction for expected total return on investment.” This limitation could encompass the mental generation of a time series prediction for expected total return on investment.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The recitation of the pacing model is mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithm (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The recitation of the pacing model is mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithm (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claim 7
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites “wherein the first set of pacing parameters are generated for a first portion of a predetermined time period, and wherein the second set of pacing parameters are generated for a second portion of the predetermined time period.” This limitation could encompass the mental generation of a first set of pacing parameters for a first portion of a predetermined time period and the mental generation of a second set of pacing parameters for a second portion of a predetermined time period.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. See analysis of claim 1.
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. See analysis of claim 1.
Claim 9
Step 1: The claim recites a method; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites:
- “generating a first set of pacing parameters”: This limitation could encompass the mental generation of a first set of pacing parameters
- “wherein the trained pacing model…applies weighting factors to the KNN and N-BEATS, the weighting factors reflecting a level of accuracy of the KNN and the N-BEATS at a given point in time”: This limitation could, barring the recitation of generic computer components (see Prong 2), encompass mentally applying weighting factors to the KNN and N-BEATS that reflect a level of accuracy of the KNN and the N-BEATS at a given point in time, such as by mentally multiplying an output of the KNN and an output of the N-BEATS by an accuracy percentage
- “in response to generating the first set of pacing parameters, modify a pacing pipeline to incorporate the first set of pacing parameters”: This limitation could encompass the mental modification of a pacing pipeline algorithm to incorporate the set of pacing parameters in response to the generation of the first set of pacing parameters
- “wherein the pacing pipeline is configured to generate deployment parameters”: This limitation could, barring the recitation of generic computer components (see Prong 2), encompass the mental generation of deployment parameters
- “generating a second set of pacing parameters”: This limitation could encompass the mental generation of a second set of pacing parameters
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites “wherein the first set of pacing parameters are generated by a trained pacing model”, “wherein the trained pacing model includes a k-nearest neighbor (KNN) portion and Neural Basis Expansion Analysis for Time Series (N-BEATS) portion,” “wherein the trained pacing model…applies weighting factors,” “wherein the pacing pipeline is configured to generate deployment parameters,” and “wherein the second set of pacing parameters is generated by the trained pacing model.” However, the trained pacing model and pacing pipeline limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithm (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites “receiving a first set of input parameters,” “wherein the trained pacing model receives the first set of input parameters,” “deploying first content to one or more content systems based on the deployment parameters,” “receiving feedback data representative of the deployed content,” and “wherein the trained pacing model receives a second set of input parameters, and wherein the second set of input parameters are based at least in part on the feedback data.” However, these limitations recite the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and outputting (MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The recitations of a trained model including a KNN portion and an N-BEATS portion, and a pacing pipeline are mere instructions to apply the exception for the same reasons given above. The receiving and deploying limitations, in addition to being insignificant extra-solution activity, are also directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving and transmitting data over a network (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). As an ordered whole, the claim is directed to a mentally performable process of generating pacing parameters to modify a pacing pipeline that generates deployment parameters. Nothing in the claim provides significantly more than this. As such, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim inherits the abstract ideas of claim 9.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites “wherein the first set of input parameters includes a budget parameter, a total return on investment parameter, and a pacing goal parameter.” The claim merely further limits the first set of received input parameters of claim 9 and still recites the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering (MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation, in addition to being insignificant extra-solution activity, is also directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving and transmitting data over a network (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Claim 11
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim inherits the abstract ideas of claim 9.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites “wherein the second set of input parameters includes a budget parameter, a total return on investment parameter, a pacing goal parameter, and performance data for the deployed content.” The claim merely further limits the second set of received input parameters of claim 9 and still recites the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering (MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation, in addition to being insignificant extra-solution activity, is also directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving and transmitting data over a network (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Claim 12
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim inherits the abstract ideas of claim 9.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites “wherein the content is deployed by a deployment management system.” The claim merely further limits the deploying content limitation of claim 9 and still recites the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and outputting (MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation, in addition to being insignificant extra-solution activity, is also directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving and transmitting data over a network (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Claim 14
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites “wherein the pacing model is configured to generate a time series prediction for expected total return on investment.” This limitation could encompass the mental generation of a time series prediction for expected total return on investment.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The recitation of the pacing model is mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithm (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The recitation of the pacing model is mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithm (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claim 15
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites “wherein the first set of pacing parameters are generated for a first portion of a predetermined time period, and wherein the second set of pacing parameters are generated for a second portion of the predetermined time period.” This limitation could encompass the mental generation of a first set of pacing parameters for a first portion of a predetermined time period and the mental generation of a second set of pacing parameters for a second portion of a predetermined time period.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. See analysis of claim 9.
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. See analysis of claim 9.
Claim 16
Step 1: The claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium; therefore, it is directed to the statutory category of articles of manufacture.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites:
- “generating a first set of pacing parameters”: This limitation could encompass the mental generation of a first set of pacing parameters
- “wherein the trained pacing model…applies weighting factors to the KNN and N-BEATS, the weighting factors reflecting a level of accuracy of the KNN and the N-BEATS at a given point in time”: This limitation could, barring the recitation of generic computer components (see Prong 2), encompass mentally applying weighting factors to the KNN and N-BEATS that reflect a level of accuracy of the KNN and the N-BEATS at a given point in time, such as by mentally multiplying an output of the KNN and an output of the N-BEATS by an accuracy percentage
- “in response to generating the first set of pacing parameters, modify a pacing pipeline to incorporate the first set of pacing parameters”: This limitation could encompass the mental modification of a pacing pipeline algorithm to incorporate the set of pacing parameters in response to the generation of the first set of pacing parameters
- “wherein the pacing pipeline is configured to generate deployment parameters”: This limitation could, barring the recitation of generic computer components (see Prong 2), encompass the mental generation of deployment parameters
- “generating a second set of pacing parameters”: This limitation could encompass the mental generation of a second set of pacing parameters
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites “a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by a processor, cause a device to perform operations comprising: [the method],” “wherein the first set of pacing parameters are generated by a trained pacing model”, “wherein the trained pacing model includes a k-nearest neighbor (KNN) portion and Neural Basis Expansion Analysis for Time Series (N-BEATS) portion,” “wherein the trained pacing model…applies weighting factors,” “wherein the pacing pipeline is configured to generate deployment parameters,” and “wherein the second set of pacing parameters is generated by the trained pacing model.” However, the computer-readable medium, trained pacing model, and pacing pipeline limitations all amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithm (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The claim also recites “receiving a first set of input parameters,” “wherein the trained pacing model receives the first set of input parameters,” “deploying first content to one or more content systems based on the deployment parameters,” “receiving feedback data representative of the deployed content,” and “wherein the trained pacing model receives a second set of input parameters, and wherein the second set of input parameters are based at least in part on the feedback data.” However, these limitations recite the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and outputting (MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The recitations of a computer-readable medium, a trained model including a KNN portion and an N-BEATS portion, and a pacing pipeline are mere instructions to apply the exception for the same reasons given above. The receiving and deploying limitations, in addition to being insignificant extra-solution activity, are also directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving and transmitting data over a network (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). As an ordered whole, the claim is directed to a mentally performable process of generating pacing parameters to modify a pacing pipeline that generates deployment parameters. Nothing in the claim provides significantly more than this. As such, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 17
Step 1: An article of manufacture, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim inherits the abstract ideas of claim 16.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites “wherein the first set of input parameters includes a budget parameter, a total return on investment parameter, and a pacing goal parameter.” The claim merely further limits the first set of received input parameters of claim 16 and still recites the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering (MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation, in addition to being insignificant extra-solution activity, is also directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving and transmitting data over a network (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Claim 18
Step 1: An article of manufacture, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim inherits the abstract ideas of claim 16.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites “wherein the second set of input parameters includes a budget parameter, a total return on investment parameter, a pacing goal parameter, and performance data for the deployed content.” The claim merely further limits the second set of received input parameters of claim 16 and still recites the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering (MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation, in addition to being insignificant extra-solution activity, is also directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving and transmitting data over a network (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Claim 19
Step 1: An article of manufacture, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim inherits the abstract ideas of claim 16.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites “wherein the content is deployed by a deployment management system.” The claim merely further limits the deploying content limitation of claim 16 and still recites the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and outputting (MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation, in addition to being insignificant extra-solution activity, is also directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving and transmitting data over a network (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Claim 20
Step 1: An article of manufacture, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim inherits the abstract ideas of claim 16.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites “wherein the deployment management system is a bid management system.” The claim merely further limits the deployment management system of claim 19 that performs the deploying content limitation of claim 16 and still recites the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and outputting (MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation, in addition to being insignificant extra-solution activity, is also directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving and transmitting data over a network (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Claim 21
Step 1: A machine, as per claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites:
- “…wherein each workflow sensor is configured to generate performance data for a respective portion of a predetermined time period, wherein the performance data comprises at least one of deployment rate, interaction rate with deployed content, conversion rate for deployed content, aggregate budget spend, or aggregate value generated by deployed content”: This limitation encompasses, barring the recitation of generic computer components, mentally generating performance data for a respective portion of a predetermined time period, such as by mentally observing the performance of deployed content and determining deployment rate, interaction rate, etc.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites “a plurality of workflow sensors” that perform the generation of performance data, however this limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithms (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The claim also further recites “wherein the trained pacing model receives the performance data from the plurality of workflow sensors to generate the second set of pacing parameters,” however this limitation amounts to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and outputting (MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The plurality of workflow sensors limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply as stated above. The receiving performance data limitation, in addition to being insignificant extra solution activity, is also directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving and transmitting data over a network (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Claim 22
Step 1: A machine, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites:
-“iteratively adjust the weighting factors during a predetermined time period based on measured accuracy of the KNN portion and the N-BEATS portion at different time intervals within the predetermined time period, wherein the weighting factors are adjusted to increase a weighting factor for a more accurate model portion and decrease a weighting factor for a less accurate model portion as accuracy of the model portions changes over time”; This limitation encompasses mentally adjusting the weighting factors iteratively during a predetermined time period based on measured accuracy of the KNN portion and the N-BEATS portion at different time intervals, by mentally increasing a weighting factor for a more accurate portion and mentally decreasing a weighting factor for a less accurate model portion.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. See analysis of claim 1.
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception, see analysis of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are, except insofar as rendered moot by the withdrawal of a ground of rejection, not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims as amended are allegedly eligible under 35 USC § 101 because (A) the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, (B) the claims are integrated into a practical application, (C) the claims provide significantly more than any abstract idea, (D) the claims are similar to patent-eligible claims found in recent federal circuit decisions, and (E) recent USPTO and Federal Circuit decisions support patent eligibility of AI-based systems.
Applicant argues in section A, pages 17-18, that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Applicant states that the limitation that the pacing model “applies weighting factors to the KNN and N-BEATS, the weighting factors reflecting a level of accuracy of the KNN and the N-BEATS at a given point in time” cannot be performed mentally because “it requires computational evaluation of model accuracy over time and dynamic adjustment of weighting parameters in a machine learning system.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. As supported by paragraph 77 of the specification, applying weighting factors merely involves multiplying a prediction value by a weight, which is a mathematical calculation that is mentally performable in the human mind by multiplying a prediction outcome of each portion by a weight that reflects a level of accuracy of the respective portions at a given point in time. Applicant further argues that deploying content, receiving feedback data representative of the deployed content, and using that feedback data to generate a second set of pacing parameters is not mentally performable. Examiner does not assert that deploying content and receiving deployment parameters is mentally performable, but rather insignificant extra solution activity. Examiner asserts that a human could mentally generate a second set of pacing parameters using feedback data.
Applicant argues in section B, pages 18-20, that the claims are integrated into a practical application. Applicant asserts that combining a KNN portion and an N-BEATS portion is a technological choice that improves prediction accuracy. Examiner submits that there is no support in the specification or reason apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art as to how this combination of two generically recited machine learning architectures improves prediction accuracy. Applicant further asserts that the accuracy-based adjustment of model weighting is a technological improvement that enhances prediction performance throughout the deployment period. Examiner submits that the application of weighting factors is a mentally performable abstract idea, and the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Applicant additionally asserts that the claims recite a closed-loop system where content is actually deployed to external content systems, real feedback is received from those deployed systems, and the pacing parameters are regenerated based on that feedback, which is not merely data gathering but a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Deploying content is incidental to the primary process of generating deployment parameters, and receiving feedback data is merely gathering data for use in the process of generating deployment parameters, thus these limitations amount to mere data gathering and output. Applicant lastly argues that claim 21 demonstrates practical application by reciting “a plurality of workflow sensors,” however, Examiner submits that workflow sensors are merely generic computer components that apply a mentally performable step of generating performance data.
Applicant argues in section C, pages 20-21, that the claims provide significantly more than any abstract idea. Applicant asserts that, as recited in claim 22, iteratively adjusting the weighting factors during the predetermined time period based on measured accuracy is an unconventional technical approach that improves the functioning of the pacing system. Examiner submits that iteratively adjusting weighting factors based on measured accuracy is mentally performable, and the inventive concept cannot be furnished by the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(I.)).
Applicant argues in section D, page 21, that the claims are analogous to those in Enfish, LLC V. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and that the present claims are directed to a specific improvement in how machine learning models are combined and weighted to improve prediction accuracy. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims at issue in Enfish were directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate, supported by the disclosure. The disclosure of the instant case provides no such disclose of an improved prediction accuracy or a nexus between the additional elements of the claim and this asserted improvement to technology. Applicant additionally argues that the claims are analogous to those in McRO, Inc. V. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds no similarity between the present claims at issue and the claims at issue in McRO, nor any evidence that the claims were found patent-eligible because they produced a “tangible result” and used a “specific structure” as asserted by Applicant. Even if they were, in the instant case, deployment of content is merely insignificant extra solution activity of a process directed towards generating optimal deployment parameters, and KNN and N-BEATS models are generic, conventional machine learning models rather than a specific structure.
Applicant argues in section E, pages 21-23, referencing guidance in Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (Sept. 26, 2025), that the claims are directed to a specific technical improvement in the field of content deployment, and that the specific technical elements of a combined KNN and N-BEATS pacing model, workflow sensors, and closed-loop feedback should be evaluated for their specific technical contribution. Examiner submits that each additional element has been evaluated and determined to amount to a generic computer component/algorithm or insignificant extra solution activity, and Examiner sees no clear nexus between one or more of the additional elements and a technical improvement supported by the specification. Applicant further argues that the decision in Ex parte Carmody supports patent eligibility. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims at issue in Ex parte Carmody recited additional elements that reflected an improvement in training of models, with explanation in the specification of the improvement achieved by these additional elements. The present claims at issue have no such additional elements that reflect an improvement to technology supported by the specification. KNN and N-BEATS are generic machine learning models, and the specification does not provide sufficient explanation as to why this combination of generic models reflects an improvement to technology.
The arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC § 103, on pages 23-26, are moot in light of the withdrawal of that rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GWYNEVERE A DETERDING whose telephone number is (571)272-7657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9am-5pm.
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, Kamran Afshar can be reached at (571) 272-7796. 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.
/G.A.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2125
/KAMRAN AFSHAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2125
Prosecution Insights