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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/12/26 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This office action is submitted in response to the RCE filed on 2/12/26.
Claims 1-7, 9-13, and 15-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
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.
Under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, pursuant to MPEP 2106.03, claims 1, 9, and 15 are each directed to a method and therefore fall within the "process" statutory category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Accordingly, all three independent claims satisfy Step 1, and the analysis proceeds to Step 2.
Next, independent claims 1, 9, and 15, in part, describe an invention comprising: generating data indicating a second group of users based on removing at least one user in the portion of a first group of users that previously interacted with a supplemental content item; and causing sending of the supplemental content item to a plurality of user devices to cause output of the supplemental content item during output of second video content, wherein the second video content is determined based on at least one characteristic associated with the second group of users. As such, the invention is directed to the abstract idea of identifying and targeting a new group of users with an advertisement based on a different group of users who previously interacted with that advertisement, which, pursuant to MPEP 2106.04(a), is aptly categorized as a method of organizing human activity (i.e., advertising and marketing). Furthermore, an argument can clearly be made that the limitations could all be performed by hand or mentally — a human advertiser could manually review a list of users who interacted with an ad, remove those users from a target list, and re-deploy the ad to the remaining audience. Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Next, the aforementioned claims recite additional elements that are associated with the judicial exception, including: the steps of receiving data indicating a portion of a first group of users that interacted with a supplemental content item that was output during output of first video content, and causing sending of the supplemental content item to a plurality of user devices. The Examiner understands these limitations to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Cf. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-192 (1981) ("[I]nsignificant post-solution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process.").
The aforementioned claims also recite additional elements including: "at least one computing device associated with a content delivery network" and "a plurality of user devices." These limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and appear to be nothing more than generic computer components. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 134 S. Ct. at 2389, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Furthermore, looking at the elements individually and in combination, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they fail to: improve the functioning of a computer or a technical field, apply the judicial exception in the treatment or prophylaxis of a disease, apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Rather, the claims merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s), and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (e.g., generic computers connected to a network).
Next, under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Simply put, as noted above, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer (or any other technology), and their collective functions are merely facilitated by generic computer implementation.
Additionally, pursuant to the requirement under Berkheimer, the following citations are provided to demonstrate that the additional elements amount to activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Receiving data indicating user interactions with content items over a network and causing transmission of content items to user devices over a network. See Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (collecting and transmitting user interaction data over a network is routine and conventional); 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
Thus, taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea), and are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 2–8, 10–14, and 16–20 are dependent on the aforementioned independent claims, and include all the limitations contained therein. These claims do not recite any additional technical elements, and simply disclose additional limitations that further limit the abstract idea with details regarding: the configuration of the second group of users as a modified target audience; the types of user interactions that qualify a user as part of the first group, including clicking, viewing, purchasing, calling, or visiting a web address associated with the supplemental content item; the addition of users to the target group based on shared characteristics with those who interacted with the supplemental content item; the exclusion of previously interacted users from the second group of users; the display of the supplemental content item via devices associated with the second group of users; the demographic and behavioral characteristics used to define the target audience; and, in the dependents of claim 15, the iterative generation of a third group of users based on characteristics of the second group and the causing of output of the supplemental content item during output of a third video content item. Thus, the dependent claims merely provide additional non-structural details that fail to meaningfully limit the claims or the abstract idea(s).
Therefore, claims 1–20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter, as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazzaro (US 2012/0278161 A1) in view of Passantino et al. (US 11,361,332 B2).
Claim 1: Lazzaro discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by at least one computing device associated with a content delivery network, data indicating a portion of a first group of users that interacted with a supplemental content item that was output during output of first video content (Paragraphs 0031-0034, 0040-0041, 0063-0065, FIG. 6. The server complex, which is operable with a content delivery network, delivers an advertisement — i.e., the supplemental content item — to user devices of members of an audience during a first content offering — i.e., the first video content. The server complex receives click-through responses from user devices indicating which members of the audience positively interacted with the interactive advertisement during the first content offering, thereby receiving data indicating a portion of the first group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item that was output during output of the first video content.);
generating, by the at least one computing device, data indicating a second group of users based on removing at least one user in the portion of the first group of users (Paragraphs 0049-0053, FIG. 6. The database-mining engine identifies the usage set — i.e., those members of the audience who positively responded to the advertisement during the first content offering — and determines future content offerings where a portion of that usage set was co-mingled, thereby generating data indicating a new audience group derived from the initial audience.); and
causing, by the at least one computing device, sending of the supplemental content item to a plurality of user devices to cause output of the supplemental content item during output of second video content, wherein the second video content is determined based on at least one characteristic associated with the second group of users (Paragraphs 0050-0053, 0076-0079, FIG. 6, steps 607-610. The advertising placement opportunity generator schedules the same or a corresponding advertisement for delivery to user devices during future content offerings — i.e., the second video content — wherein the future content offerings are identified based on where the usage group co-mingles, i.e., based on at least one characteristic associated with the audience group.).
Lazzaro discloses identifying the usage set as those members who positively interacted with the advertisement during the first content offering and deriving a new audience group from that usage set, but does not appear to explicitly describe generating, by the at least one computing device, data indicating a second group of users based on removing at least one user in the portion of the first group of users — specifically, Lazzaro does not expressly teach removing users who interacted with the supplemental content item from the audience pool to generate the second group.
Passantino, however, explicitly discloses generating, by the at least one computing device, data indicating a second group of users based on removing at least one user in the portion of the first group of users (Abstract; Col. 3, ll. 1-10. "The system processes updates to add or remove entries from the targeted list of people based on the one or more criteria."; Figs. 4A and 4B; Col. 7, ll. 1-40. "The list manager 120 would remove a lead on the targeted list 122 once it has been more than ten days since the lead's last visit to the pricing page. The continual audience sync makes an API call to remove, from the target audience, each of the people on the snapshot of the last update made to that network."; Claims 1 and 8. The system generates an updated targeted list of users by adding and/or removing users based on digital content distribution criteria and online channel lead interactions, and transmits requests to content delivery networks to remove entries from the target audience based on recorded changes.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Passantino with those of Lazzaro. One would have been motivated to do this because Passantino teaches that removing users from a targeted list after they have already interacted with content ensures that advertisements are not delivered to users for whom the content has become irrelevant, thereby maximizing the efficiency and reach of an advertising campaign by targeting only those users who have not yet been exposed to or interacted with the supplemental content item (Passantino, Abstract; Col. 2, ll. 20-40).
Claim 2: Lazzaro further discloses wherein the second group of users comprises a modified target audience, and wherein generating the data indicating the second group of users comprises modifying an initial target audience associated with the supplemental content item (Paragraphs 0040, 0049-0053. The advertising selector selects advertisements for delivery to an initial target audience, and the database-mining engine subsequently modifies that audience by identifying a new usage-based group of users for future content delivery.).
The rationale for combining Lazzaro and Passantino is articulated above and reincorporated herein.
Claims 3 and 10: Lazzaro further discloses wherein the portion of the first group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item that was output during output of the first video content comprises at least one of: at least one user of the first group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item; at least one user of the first group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item for an amount of time that satisfies a threshold; at least one user of the first group of users that viewed the supplemental content item; at least one user of the first group of users that clicked on the supplemental content item; at least one user of the first group of users that purchased at least one of a product or a service associated with the supplemental content item; at least one user of the first group of users that called or messaged a telephone number associated with the supplemental content item; or at least one user of the first group of users that visited a web address associated with the supplemental content item (Paragraphs 0041, 0063-0065, FIG. 6. The system receives click-through responses from user devices indicating which members of the audience positively interacted with the interactive advertisement — including clicking on the advertisement — during the first content offering.).
The rationale for combining Lazzaro and Passantino is articulated above and reincorporated herein.
Claims 6 and 13: Lazzaro further discloses wherein causing the output of the supplemental content item during output of the second video content comprises causing display of the supplemental content item via at least one device associated with the second group of users (Paragraphs 0053-0054, FIG. 2. The advertising placement opportunity generator schedules the advertisement for delivery to specific user devices identified from the usage group, causing display of the supplemental content item via user devices associated with the second group of users during the future content offering.).
The rationale for combining Lazzaro and Passantino is articulated above and reincorporated herein.
Claim 7: Lazzaro further discloses wherein at least one characteristic associated with the portion of the first group of users to which the supplemental content item was output during output of the first video content and the at least one characteristic associated with the second group of users each comprise at least one of age, gender, occupation, years of home ownership, household size, income, geographic location, family size, or media consumption habits (Paragraphs 0052, 0076-0079. The database-mining engine analyzes demographics of the usage group — including geographic location and other demographic characteristics — to identify future content offerings where similar audiences co-mingle.).
The rationale for combining Lazzaro and Passantino is articulated above and reincorporated herein.
Claims 8 and 14: Lazzaro further discloses wherein the supplemental content item comprises an advertisement (Paragraphs 0031-0032, Abstract. The system delivers advertisements, including interactive banner ads and interstitial advertisements, as the supplemental content items to user devices during content offerings.).
The rationale for combining Lazzaro and Passantino is articulated above and reincorporated herein.
Claim 9: Lazzaro discloses a method comprising:
generating, by at least one computing device, data indicating a first group of users for presentation of a supplemental content item (Paragraphs 0040, 0062, FIG. 6. The advertising selector selects an interactive advertisement for delivery to user devices of members of an audience — i.e., generating data indicating a first group of users for presentation of the supplemental content item.);
causing, by the at least one computing device, output of the supplemental content item during output of first video content, wherein the first video content is determined based on at least one characteristic associated with the first group of users (Paragraphs 0036-0037, 0040, 0060-0062. The scheduler delivers video content to user devices in accordance with a schedule, and the advertising selector selects advertisements for delivery during that content based on demographic studies, viewership, and other characteristics associated with the audience — i.e., the first video content is determined based on at least one characteristic associated with the first group of users.);
receiving, by the at least one computing device, data indicating a portion of the first group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item that was output during output of the first video content (Paragraphs 0063-0065, FIG. 6. The server complex receives click-through responses from user devices indicating which members of the audience positively interacted with the interactive advertisement during the first content offering.);
generating, by the at least one computing device, data indicating a second group of users based on removing at least one user in the portion of the first group of users (Paragraphs 0049-0053, FIG. 6. The database-mining engine identifies the usage set and derives a new audience group for future content delivery.); and
causing, by the at least one computing device, sending of the supplemental content item to a plurality of user devices to cause output of the supplemental content item during output of second video content, wherein the second video content is determined based on at least one characteristic associated with the second group of users (Paragraphs 0050-0053, FIG. 6, steps 607-610. The advertising placement opportunity generator schedules the same advertisement for delivery during future content offerings identified based on the co-mingling characteristics of the usage group.).
As noted above with respect to claim 1, Lazzaro does not appear to explicitly describe generating, by the at least one computing device, data indicating a second group of users based on removing at least one user in the portion of the first group of users. Passantino remedies this deficiency for the same reasons articulated above with respect to claim 1 and reincorporated herein.
Claims 4-5, 11-12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazzaro/Passantino in view of Cheng et al. (US 10,672,029 B2).
Claims 4 and 11: The Lazzaro/Passantino combination discloses those limitations cited above, but does not appear to explicitly describe wherein generating the data indicating the second group of users further comprises adding at least one user to the first group of users, wherein the at least one added user is associated with at least one characteristic associated with the portion of the first group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item that was output during output of the first video content.
Cheng, however, discloses adding at least one user to the first group of users, wherein the at least one added user is associated with at least one characteristic associated with the portion of the first group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item that was output during output of the first video content (Fig. 4; Claim 1. The system identifies a cluster group of additional users having characteristics similar to those of the users who interacted with the initial advertisement, and those additional users are subsequently targeted with additional advertisements.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine this feature of Cheng with the teachings of Lazzaro and Passantino. One would have been motivated to do this in order to expand the reach of an advertising campaign by targeting additional users having characteristics similar to those who have already interacted with the supplemental content item, thereby increasing the overall effectiveness and reach of the campaign.
Claims 5 and 12: The Lazzaro/Passantino/Cheng combination discloses those limitations cited above. Cheng further discloses wherein the second group of users does not comprise the portion of the first group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item that was output during output of the first video content (Fig. 4; Claim 1. The targeted cluster group users comprise different users than the original group who interacted with the initial advertisement.).
The rationale for combining Lazzaro, Passantino, and Cheng is articulated above and reincorporated herein.
Claim 15: Lazzaro discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by at least one computing device, data indicating a portion of a first group of users that interacted with a supplemental content item that was output during output of first video content (Paragraphs 0041, 0063-0065, FIG. 6. The server complex receives click-through responses from user devices indicating which members of the audience positively interacted with the interactive advertisement during the first content offering.);
generating, by the at least one computing device, data indicating a second group of users based on removing at least one user in the portion of the first group of users (Paragraphs 0049-0053, FIG. 6. The database-mining engine derives a new audience group from the usage set for future content delivery.);
receiving, by the at least one computing device, data indicating a portion of the second group of users to which the supplemental content item was output during output of second video content (Paragraphs 0050-0054, 0076-0079, FIG. 6. The system schedules the advertisement for delivery during future content offerings and tracks which members of the new audience group received the advertisement during those future content offerings.); and
generating, by the at least one computing device, data indicating a third group of users based on at least one characteristic associated with the portion of the second group of users to which the supplemental content item was output during output of the second video content (Fig. 4; Col. 11, l. 48 – Col. 15, l. 24 of Cheng. The system further identifies and targets a cluster group of additional users derived from the characteristics of users in the second group who received and interacted with the content.).
As noted above with respect to claim 1, Lazzaro does not appear to explicitly describe generating, by the at least one computing device, data indicating a second group of users based on removing at least one user in the portion of the first group of users. Passantino remedies this deficiency for the same reasons articulated above with respect to claim 1 and reincorporated herein.
Cheng further describes generating, by the at least one computing device, data indicating a third group of users based on at least one characteristic associated with the portion of the second group of users to which the supplemental content item was output during output of the second video content (Fig. 4; Col. 11, l. 48 – Col. 15, l. 24. The system further identifies and targets a cluster group of additional users derived from the characteristics of users in the second group who received and interacted with the content.).
The rationale for combining Lazzaro, Passantino, and Cheng is articulated above and reincorporated herein.
Claim 16: The Lazzaro/Passantino/Cheng combination discloses those limitations cited above. Cheng further discloses causing output of the supplemental content item during output of a third video content item, wherein the third video content item is determined based on at least one characteristic associated with the third group of users (Fig. 4; Col. 14, l. 36 – Col. 15, l. 24. The system outputs content to the targeted third group based on characteristics similar to those of the second group users who received and interacted with the supplemental content item.).
The rationale for combining Lazzaro, Passantino, and Cheng is articulated above and reincorporated herein.
Claim 17: The Lazzaro/Passantino/Cheng combination discloses those limitations cited above. Cheng further discloses wherein the second group of users does not comprise the portion of the first group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item that was output during output of the first video content, and wherein the third group of users does not comprise the portion of the second group of users to which the supplemental content item was output during output of the second video content (Fig. 4; Claim 1. The targeted users at each iteration comprise different users than the group from the prior round who received or interacted with the content.).
The rationale for combining Lazzaro, Passantino, and Cheng is articulated above and reincorporated herein.
Claim 18: The Lazzaro/Passantino/Cheng combination discloses those limitations cited above. Lazzaro further discloses wherein the portion of the first group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item that was output during output of the first video content comprises at least one of: at least one user of the first group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item; at least one user of the first group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item for an amount of time that satisfies a threshold; at least one user of the first group of users that viewed the supplemental content item; at least one user of the first group of users that clicked on the supplemental content item; at least one user of the first group of users that purchased at least one of a product or a service associated with the supplemental content item; at least one user of the first group of users that called or messaged a telephone number associated with the supplemental content item; or at least one user of the first group of users that visited a web address associated with the supplemental content item (Paragraphs 0041, 0063-0065, FIG. 6. The system receives click-through responses indicating which members of the first group of users positively interacted with the interactive advertisement — including clicking on the advertisement — during the first content offering.).
The rationale for combining Lazzaro, Passantino, and Cheng is articulated above and reincorporated herein.
Claim 19: The Lazzaro/Passantino/Cheng combination discloses those limitations cited above. Lazzaro further discloses wherein the portion of the second group of users to which the supplemental content item was output during output of the second video content comprises at least one of: at least one user of the second group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item; at least one user of the second group of users that interacted with the supplemental content item for an amount of time that satisfies a threshold; at least one user of the second group of users that viewed the supplemental content item; at least one user of the second group of users that clicked on the supplemental content item; at least one user of the second group of users that purchased at least one of a product or a service associated with the supplemental content item; at least one user of the second group of users that called or messaged a telephone number associated with the supplemental content item; or at least one user of the second group of users that visited a web address associated with the supplemental content item (Paragraphs 0050-0054, 0076-0079, FIG. 6. The system tracks interactions by members of the usage group — i.e., the second group of users — with the advertisement during the future content offerings — i.e., the second video content — including click-through responses transmitted from user devices.).
The rationale for combining Lazzaro, Passantino, and Cheng is articulated above and reincorporated herein.
Claim 20: The Lazzaro/Passantino/Cheng combination discloses those limitations cited above. Lazzaro further discloses wherein the at least one characteristic associated with the portion of the second group of users to which the supplemental content item was output during output of the second video content comprises at least one of age, gender, occupation, years of home ownership, household size, income, geographic location, family size, or media consumption habits (Paragraphs 0052, 0076-0079. The database-mining engine analyzes demographic characteristics of the usage group — including geographic location, viewing habits, and other demographic data — to identify future content offerings where the audience co-mingles.).
The rationale for combining Lazzaro, Passantino, and Cheng is articulated above and reincorporated herein.
Other Relevant Prior Art
Though not cited in the above rejections, the following references are nevertheless deemed to be relevant to Applicant’s disclosures:
Kuzma et al. (10977692), directed to a digital advertising system.
Selinger et al. (10748159), directed to a method of contextual analysis and control of content item selection.
Pettit et al. (11567651), directed to a system and user interfaces for rapid analysis of viewership information.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the sufficiency of the claims under 35 USC 101 remain unpersuasive.
First, Applicant argues that "generating, by the at least one computing device, data indicating a second group of users based on removing at least one user in the portion of the first group of users" does not recite a method of organizing human activity because this feature does not recite or otherwise involve marketing or advertising, and notably does not recite a "supplemental content item." Applicant's argument is not persuasive. Applicant's own specification expressly and repeatedly characterizes the supplemental content item as an advertisement. For example, the specification states at paragraph 0001 that "[t]he supplemental content may comprise one or more advertisements for products or services offered by third parties or by the content providers themselves." The specification further states at paragraph 0002 — the very first paragraph of the Summary — that "[a]n audience for a supplemental content item (e.g., an advertisement) may be identified." The specification again states at paragraph 0015 that "[t]he supplemental content may comprise one or more advertisements, such as advertisements for products or services offered by third parties." Moreover, dependent claim 8 itself recites that "the supplemental content item comprises an advertisement." Applicant cannot credibly argue that the generating step is divorced from advertising and marketing while Applicant's own specification and claims repeatedly and explicitly describe the supplemental content item as an advertisement. Furthermore, the abstract idea characterization is not limited to any single claim limitation in isolation — it is directed to the claims as a whole. See MPEP § 2106.04(a). Considered as a whole, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of identifying and targeting a new group of users with an advertisement based on removing users who previously interacted with that advertisement, which is quintessentially a method of organizing human activity (i.e., advertising and marketing). The generating step does not exist in a vacuum — it is expressly tied to and serves the broader purpose of re-targeting an advertisement to a new audience.
Applicant further argues that the generating step cannot be performed mentally because "the human mind is not equipped to generate data." This argument is similarly unpersuasive. The test is not whether the human mind can literally execute every computational step, but whether the claims are directed to a concept that can be practically performed by a human without the aid of a computer. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The underlying concept of reviewing a list of users who have interacted with an advertisement, identifying those users for removal, and determining a new target audience from the remainder is precisely the type of activity that a human advertiser could perform manually — for example, by reviewing interaction reports and updating a contact or mailing list accordingly. The recitation that this activity is performed "by at least one computing device" does not remove it from the realm of abstract ideas. See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358.
Applicant also argues that the generating step improves the functioning of content delivery networks and therefore integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, citing specification paragraphs 0019 and 0050. The Examiner is not persuaded. As set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1), for a claimed improvement to technology to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, the claim itself must reflect the disclosed improvement — i.e., the claim must include the specific components or steps that provide the improvement described in the specification. Here, the claim language does not recite any specific technical implementation, mechanism, or algorithm by which the computing device accomplishes the generation of the second group of users. The claim recites only the functional result — that data indicating a second group of users is generated based on removing at least one user — without specifying any technical means for achieving that result. The specification passages cited by Applicant at paragraphs 0019 and 0050 describe functional outcomes and business benefits of performing the abstract idea: paragraph 0019 states that the technique "may maximize the quantity of potential customers exposed to the supplemental content item — thus maximizing the supplemental content provider's return on advertising investment," and paragraph 0050 states that removing users from the audience "may ensure that as many potential customers as possible are exposed to the supplemental content item during the ad campaign." These are the benefits of performing the abstract idea of targeted advertising, not evidence of a technical improvement to the functioning of a computer or content delivery network. A claim directed to the result of applying an abstract idea, rather than to a specific technical improvement in how a computer operates, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the § 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103 are rendered moot in view of the modified grounds of rejection cited above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BUSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-7953. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER C BUSCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3621
/WASEEM ASHRAF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights