AIA
DETAILED ACTION
Status of claims set 2
Claims 1-20 examined
Canceled 2 16
New none
Amended 1 3 4 15
PNG
media_image1.png
262
281
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
238
320
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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
The pending claims are rejected under 35 USC 101.
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. The claim(s) is/are directed to one or more abstract idea(s). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s).
Step 1: (MPEP 2106.03)
The claims and dependents are directed to statutory classes (1 process, 15 machine). The claims herein are directed to subject matter 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).
Step 2A, Prong One: Evaluating whether the claim(s) recite(s) a judicial exception -- law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.04).
CLAIM 1 (15 is machine version of process claim 1)
1. A method for improving accuracy of distributing content from a plurality of publishers to a multiplicity of users while maintaining user privacy, wherein at least some of the multiplicity of users have accessed content from the plurality of publishers using different respective user identifiers the method comprising:
o generating, by one or more processors, a statistical model of presentations of content from the plurality of publishers to the multiplicity of users
o determining, by the one or more processors and using the statistical model for each of the multiplicity of users, one or more user identifiers corresponding to the user, to define a virtual user identifier, wherein each of the user identifiers is associated with a different one of the plurality of publishers and defining the virtual user identifier includes assigning cookies associated with a respective geographic region to the virtual user identifier
o determining, by the one or more processors and using the statistical model and the virtual user identifiers, how many of the multiplicity of users are associated with multiple ones of the plurality of publishers, to generate an overlap metric
o generating, by the one or more processors and using the overlap metric, a respective frequency capping value for each of the plurality of publishers
o causing, by the one or more processors, each of the plurality of publishers to limit a number of times a content element is provided to the multiplicity of users in accordance with the respective frequency capping value
bold = judicial exception apply it
Collecting info, analyzing it, displaying certain results. Elec. Power Group (CAFC 2016)(EPG)
The pending claims: rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites an abstract idea,
US Ser 18271123
US Ser 18271123
EPG
1. A method for improving accuracy of distributing content from a plurality of publishers to a multiplicity of users while maintaining user privacy, wherein at least some of the multiplicity of users have accessed content from the plurality of publishers using different respective user identifiers the method comprising:
o generating, by one or more processors, a statistical model of presentations of content from the plurality of publishers to the multiplicity of users
o determining, by the one or more processors and using the statistical model for each of the multiplicity of users, one or more user identifiers corresponding to the user, to define a virtual user identifier, wherein each of the user identifiers is associated with a different one of the plurality of publishers and defining the virtual user identifier includes assigning cookies associated with a respective geographic region to the virtual user identifier
o determining, by the one or more processors and using the statistical model and the virtual user identifiers, how many of the multiplicity of users are associated with multiple ones of the plurality of publishers, to generate an overlap metric
o generating, by the one or more processors and using the overlap metric, a respective frequency capping value for each of the plurality of publishers
o causing, by the one or more processors, each of the plurality of publishers to limit a number of times a content element is provided to the multiplicity of users in accordance with the respective frequency capping value
PNG
media_image3.png
567
637
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Collect info,
analyzing
it,
display certain results.
CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY
MATH
MENTAL STEPS
Alice clearinghouse for bids via computer
Bilski hedge bids via computer
Here marketing, mental steps, math via computer
Frequency capping is the idea of supply and demand, fundamental economics.
The Claims: rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea w/o significantly more.
The claims steps set forth Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
1) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people
2) fundamental economic practice and a commercial interaction
3) long-standing commercial practice.
Frequency capping is a matter of supply and demand, fundamental economics.
The additional elements are claimed at a high level of generality. Applicant simply computer implements a business process, solving a business problem not a technical problem.
The organizing of human activity, math, mental steps don’t need a computer.
MPEP 2106.05f,g
Here, the innovative concept is an abstract idea using additional elements which are generic and generally applied. These additional elements do not add significantly more.
The claim is more collecting info, analyzing it, display certain results (Electric Power Group CAFC 2016) (EPG )and implementing the abstract idea via processor.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
CLAIM 2 16 canceled
2. The method of claim 1, wherein defining the virtual user identifiers includes using cookies associated with a geographic region, the method further comprising: compiling a set of cookies, each cookie of the set of cookies associated with a user identifier of the one or more user identifiers; and assigning each cookie of the set of cookies to a virtual user identifier of the virtual user identifiers based on at least the geographic region associated with the respective cookie.
Examiner
Idea itself, + generic element cookie generally applied including collecting info, analyzing it, displaying certain results
CLAIM 3
3. The method of claim 2, wherein assigning set of cookies includes sampling a subset of cookies based on the cookies associated with the geographic region.
Examiner
Idea itself, + generic element cookie generally applied for sampling, collecting info, analyzing it, displaying certain results
CLAIM 4
4. The method of claim 2, wherein each virtual user identifier is further constructed based on at least one of: a demographic of network users in the respective geographic region, timestamps of events in the geographic region, and information from one or more sensors.
Examiner
Idea itself, + generic element cookie generally applied including collecting info, analyzing it, displaying certain results
CLAIM 5 17
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the respective frequency capping value for each of the plurality of publishers is further generated based on a corresponding multiplier for each publisher and a predetermined initial frequency capping value.
Examiner
Idea itself
CLAIM 6 18
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the respective frequency capping value for each of the plurality of publishers is further generated based on how many of the multiplicity of users are associated with a single publisher of the plurality of publishers.
Examiner
Idea itself
CLAIM 7
PNG
media_image4.png
398
341
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner
Idea itself + math
CLAIM 8 19
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a predetermined initial frequency capping value; and modifying the predetermined initial frequency capping value for each publisher of the plurality of publishers based on the respective frequency capping value for the respective publisher of the plurality of publishers.
Examiner
The idea
CLAIM 9
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the respective frequency capping value for each publisher of the plurality of publishers is further based on a predetermined time period.
Examiner
Idea itself
CLAIM 10
10. The method of claim 9, wherein each of generating the statistical model, determining to define a virtual user identifier, determining how many of the multiplicity of users are associated with multiple ones of the plurality of publishers, generating the respective frequency capping value for each of the plurality of publishers, and causing each of the plurality of publishers to limit the number of times the content element is provided to the multiplicity of users repeats after the predetermined time period elapses.
Examiner
Idea itself
CLAIM 11
11. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more user identifiers are disconnected across the plurality of publishers.
Examiner
Idea itself
CLAIM 12
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of publishers consists of two publishers and wherein determining how many of the multiplicity of users are associated with multiple ones of the plurality of publishers is determining how many of the multiplicity of users are associated with both of the plurality of publishers.
Examiner
Idea itself
CLAIM 13
13. The method of claim 1, wherein each virtual user identifier of the virtual user identifiers is a virtual person identifier (VPID).
Examiner
Idea itself
CLAIM 14
14. The method of claim 1, wherein each virtual user identifier of the virtual user identifiers is an internet protocol (IP) address.
Examiner
Idea itself
Step 2A, Prong Two: Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application Prong Two distinguishes claims that are "directed to" the recited judicial exception from claims that are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception (MPEP 210604)
The claim says one is to take the idea and “apply it” with generic elements generally applied. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application In particular, the claim only recites an additional element – [processor] to perform data gathering The additional element -- recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea The additional element is mere applying the idea on a computer See MPEP 2105, 2106.05 f,g
The elements are recited at a high-level of generality (eg generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for lack of any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The steps are computer-implemented, but one could do them with pen and paper, abacus, slide-rule etc The additional elements present only a particular technological environment
The additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, and do not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment The limitations (those beyond the abstract idea) do not improve the technical field that the abstract idea limitations invoke Moreover, these generic limitations do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, not meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment See Alice Corp p 16 of slip op noting that none of the hardware recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment', that is implementation via computers" (citing Bilski 561 US at 610)
Step 2B: Identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (ie, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s)) (MPEP 2106.05)
The additional elements present only a particular technological environment. The claim recites additional elements The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component See MPEP 2105605 Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept The claim is not patent eligible.
Response to Remarks
Examiner thanks Attorney for the amendment to advance prosecution.
Applicant amendment remarks fully considered but unfortunately not fully persuasive.
As to applicant argument that
Geographic cookies instead of all cookies makes claim 101 eligible remarks p8
Examiner
Cookies which includes geographic cookies are generic element generally applied. MPEP 2106
As to applicant argument that
Geo cookies improve processing and claims reflect improvement remarks p8
Examiner
Cookies are generic element generally applied. MPEP 2106
Applicant uses them as a “basic tool”, Gottschalk v Benson 409 US at 67.
Applicant didn’t invent cookies and just uses them as a tool. Any improvement reflected in the claims is the direct result of such a basic or generic tool.
Similarly,
on the 7th and 8th floors of the CBOT, one can still see open outcry.
Executed by a computer Hedging ala Bilski was not dispositive for 101 eligiblity.
Clearing a trade (Alice) isn’t 101 eligible simply b/c executed by a computer.
During prosecution, applicant has an opportunity and a duty to amend ambiguous claims to clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention The claim places the public on notice of the scope of the patentee’s right to exclude See, eg, Johnson & Johnston Assoc Inc v RE Serv Co, 285 F3d 1046, 1052, 62 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed Cir 2002) (en banc) As stated in Halliburton Energy Servs, Inc v M-I LLC, 514 F3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (CAFC 2008):
“We note that the patent drafter is in the best position to resolve the ambiguity in the patent claims, and it is highly desirable that patent examiners demand that applicants do so in appropriate circumstances so that the patent can be amended during prosecution rather than attempting to resolve the ambiguity in litigation”
Conclusion
Pertinent prior art cited but not relied upon
US2018060753 overlap
US2016030025 overlap
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 BREFFNI X BAGGOT whose telephone number is (571)272-7154. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-10a, 12p-6p.
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.
BREFFNI BAGGOT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3621
/BREFFNI BAGGOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights