DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 11, and 21 are currently amended.
Claims 1-21 are currently pending and addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-21 is/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 nature phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-21 is/are directed towards a statutory category (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (Step 1, Yes).
Step 2A Prong One:
Claim 1 recites (additional elements underlined):
A method for placing advertisements, the method comprising:
causing, using a hardware processor, monitoring code to be loaded in association with advertising content items presented in connection with an advertising campaign, wherein the monitoring code is configured to determine viewability information indicative of a probability that an advertising content item was viewable to a consumer based at least in part on a comparison of an amount of time that the advertising content item on a particular page was within a viewable region of a browser application with past measurements of in-view time of advertising content items on the particular page;
placing, using the hardware processor, a plurality of consumers into one of a control group and a test group based on the viewability information being indicative of a likelihood that each of the plurality of consumers viewed the advertising content item based on a position of the advertising content item with respect to a viewport presented by one of a plurality of first computing devices, wherein the viewability information was received by the monitoring code loaded in association with the advertising content item loaded as part of the page by the browser application executed by one of the plurality of first computing devices corresponding to that consumer from the plurality of consumers;
calculating, using the hardware processor, a causal conversion metric for an advertising channel based on a comparison of conversion information corresponding to consumers of the control group and the conversion information corresponding to consumers of the test group;
receiving, using the hardware processor, from a second computing device, one or more parameters associated with an advertiser;
determining, using the hardware processor, in what proportion advertising content items for an advertising campaign are to be placed using each of a plurality of advertising channels based at least in part on the causal conversion metrics; and
causing, using the hardware processor, the advertising channel to be used to present advertising content items associated with the advertiser to a portion of the plurality of consumers associated with a plurality of additional computing devices based on the proportion and one or more parameters associated with the advertiser.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations outlined above that describe or set forth the abstract idea, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s). That is, other than reciting the additional elements, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed in the mind. These limitations are considered a mental process because the limitations include an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. These limitations are also similar to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” and/or “collecting and comparing known information” which were determined to be mental processes in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Therefore, the claim recite a mental process (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth an advertising/marketing activity. Advertising/marketing fall within the certain method of organizing human activity enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a fundamental economic principle or practice because advertising/marketing is related to commerce and economy. The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a commercial interaction (e.g., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations). The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth the managing of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Therefore, the claim recites a certain method of organizing human activity (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
The limitations outlined above that describe or set forth the abstract are also considered mathematical concepts at least because the limitation “calculating … a causal conversion metric for an advertising channel based on a comparison of conversion information corresponding to consumers of the control group and conversion information corresponding to consumers of the test group” is a mathematical calculation. These limitations are similar to “organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations” which was determined to be a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical concept (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
Step 2A Prong Two:
In Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) outlined above are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional element(s) amount adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) does not integrate the judicial exception similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. The Examiner notes that “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 pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., in a computer environment). The courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, improves any other technology or technical field, applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, applies the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses 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 claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation (Step 2A Prong Two, No).
Step 2B:
In Step 2B, the additional elements also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong Two. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A Prong Two overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation (Step 2B, No).
Claim(s) 2-10 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 1 (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes).
Claims 2-4, 6, and 8-9 do not recite any other additional elements. Therefore, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claims 2-4, 6, and 8-9 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 5 recites the additional elements “to at least one second computing device.” Claim 7 recites the additional elements “monitoring code to be loaded,” “such that the monitoring code,” and “of the browser application.” Claim 10 recites the additional element “on pages.” However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 11 recites (additional elements underlined):
A system for placing advertisements, the system comprising:
a memory; and
a hardware processor that, when executing computer-executable instructions stored in the memory, is configured to:
cause monitoring code to be loaded in association with advertising content items presented in connection with an advertising campaign, wherein the monitoring code is configured to determine viewability information indicative of a probability that an advertising content item was viewable to a consumer based at least in part on a comparison of an amount of time that the advertising content item on a particular page was within a viewable region of a browser application with past measurements of in-view time of advertising content items on the particular page;
place a plurality of consumers into one of a control group and a test group based on the viewability information being indicative of a likelihood that each of the plurality of consumers viewed the advertising content item based on a position of the advertising content item with respect to a viewport presented by one of a plurality of first computing devices, wherein the viewability information was received by the monitoring code loaded in association with the advertising content item loaded as part of the page by the browser application executed by one of the plurality of first computing devices corresponding to that consumer from the plurality of consumers;
calculate a causal conversion metric for an advertising channel based on a comparison of conversion information corresponding to consumers of the control group and the conversion information corresponding;
receive, from a second computing device, one or more parameters associated with an advertiser;
determine in what proportion advertising content items for an advertising campaign are to be placed using each of a plurality of advertising channels based at least in part on the causal conversion metrics; and
cause the advertising channel to be used to present advertising content items associated with the advertiser to a portion of the plurality of consumers associated with a plurality of additional computing devices based on the proportion and the one or more parameters.
For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 11 also recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One. For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 11 also does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim(s) 12-20 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 11 (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes).
Claims 12-13, 16, and 18-19 do not recite any other additional elements. Therefore, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 11, claims 12-13, 16, and 18-19 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 14 recites the additional elements “wherein the hardware processor is further configured to.” Claim 15 recites the additional elements “wherein the hardware processors is further configured to” and “to at least one second computing device.” Claim 17 recites the additional elements “wherein the hardware processor is further configured to cause the monitoring code to be loaded,” “such that the monitoring code,” and “of the browser application.” Claim 20 recites the additional element “wherein the hardware processor is further configured to.” However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 21 recites (additional elements underlined):
A non-transitory computer-readable medium containing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method for placing advertisements, the method comprising:
causing monitoring code to be loaded in association with advertising content items presented in connection with an advertising campaign, wherein the monitoring code is configured to determine viewability information indicative of a probability that an advertising content item was viewable to a consumer based at least in part on a comparison of an amount of time that the advertising content item on a particular page was within a viewable region of a browser application with past measurements of in-view time of advertising content items on the particular page;
placing a plurality of consumers into one of a control group and a test group based on the viewability information being indicative of a likelihood that each of the plurality of consumers viewed the advertising content item based on a position of the advertising content item with respect to a viewport presented by one of a plurality of first computing devices, wherein the viewability information was received by the monitoring code loaded in association with the advertising content item loaded as part of the page by the browser application executed by one of the plurality of first computing devices corresponding to that consumer from the plurality of consumers;
calculating a causal conversion metric for an advertising channel based on a comparison of conversion information corresponding to consumers of the control group and the conversion information corresponding to consumers of the test group;
receiving, from a second computing device, one or more parameters associated with an advertiser;
determining in what proportion advertising content items for an advertising campaign are to be placed using each of a plurality of advertising channels based at least in part on the causal conversion metrics; and
causing the advertising channel to be used to present advertising content items associated with the advertiser to a portion of the plurality of consumers associated with a plurality of additional computing devices based on the proportion and the one or more parameters.
For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 21 also recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One. For the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 21 also does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Prior Art
The Examiner notes that after a thorough search on the claims as currently amended, the claims are found to recite novel and non-obvious subject matter. The closest prior art found to date are the following:
Calvert et al. (US 2003/0014304 A1) discloses the concept of evaluating an Internet advertisement’s effectiveness by collecting Internet activity information associated with a multitude of cookies, and storing the information in a database.
Park et al. (US 2011/0119126 A1) discloses an online monitoring system that determines offline advertising effectiveness.
Briggs (US 2006/0041480 A1) discloses the concept of reallocating an advertising budget amongst a plurality of advertising channels in response to determining advertisement effectiveness of each of the plurality of advertising channels.
Axe et al. (US 2006/0224445 A1) discloses the concept of adjusting a price paid based on a probability that an ad will be viewed or otherwise perceived or sensed, or using one or more factors which may be used to estimate such a probability.
While the prior art teach some of the limitations of the claimed invention, the prior art do not teach the following limitations when viewing the claimed invention as a whole: “placing, using the hardware processor, a plurality of consumers into one of a control group and a test group based on the viewability information being indicative of a likelihood that each of the plurality of consumers viewed the advertising content item based on a position of the advertising content item with respect to a viewport presented by one of a plurality of first computing devices, wherein the viewability information was received by the monitoring code loaded in association with the advertising content item loaded as part of the page by the browser application executed by one of the plurality of first computing devices corresponding to that consumer from the plurality of consumers; calculating, using the hardware processor, a causal conversion metric for an advertising channel based on a comparison of conversion information corresponding to consumers of the control group and the conversion information corresponding to consumers of the test group; receiving, using the hardware processor, from a second computing device, one or more parameters associated with an advertiser; determining, using the hardware processor, in what proportion advertising content items for an advertising campaign are to be placed using each of a plurality of advertising channels based at least in part on the causal conversion metrics; and causing, using the hardware processor, the advertising channel to be used to present advertising content items associated with the advertiser to a portion of the plurality of consumers associated with a plurality of additional computing devices based on the proportion and one or more parameters associated with the advertiser.” Moreover, the combination of features of the independent claims would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias and resulting in an inappropriate combination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Argument A: “It is plainly apparent from the language of the claim that such a method is clearly not a) mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships,, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations); b) certain methods of organizing human activity; and mental processes.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, the limitations outlined above that describe or set forth the abstract idea are considered a mental process because the limitations include an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. These limitations are also similar to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” and/or “collecting and comparing known information” which were determined to be mental processes in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth an advertising activity which is a certain method of organizing human activity. The above limitations also contain a calculating limitation which is a mathematical concept. Therefore, the claims do recite an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One.
Argument B: “Applicant respectfully submits that these limitations, in combination with the other limitations of amended claim 1, amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea identified by the Examiner.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike in DDR in which the claimed invention solved the business challenge of retaining website visitors that is particular to the Internet, here the claimed invention amounts to merely reciting the performance of a business practice along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet. The claimed invention here is not necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. “We caution, however, that not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric challenges are eligible for patent” (see p. 22 of DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P. (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Therefore, the claims as currently amended do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAM REFAI whose telephone number is (313)446-4822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. 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.
/SAM REFAI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights