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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 10/21/2025 for the application No. 18/351,939, Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-20 have been rejected.
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 non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 are not compliant with 101, according with the last “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (2019 PEG), published in the MPEP 2103 through 2106.07(c). The Examiner’s analysis is presented below in all the claims.
Claim 1: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a method.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim? Yes. The claim recites the limitations of
“b) dynamically determining, for a bidding process for selecting a winning advertisement to be displayed at the current placement venue, a dynamic bid floor in a non-parametric manner that maximizes revenue with respect to the current placement venue based on bid-floor (BF)/revenue dependency information …
c) soliciting, with the dynamic bid floor, bids from a plurality of bidders for selecting the winning advertisement for the current placement venue; … e) selecting a winning bid from the multiple bids in accordance with some pre-determined selection criterion, wherein the winning advertisement is associated with the winning bid;”
The “dynamically determining, soliciting , selecting” limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as certain methods of organizing human activity, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. The method for setting a dynamic bid floor. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. The claim recites additional limitations, such as, “receiving information indicating an opportunity to display an advertisement at a current placement venue; d) receiving multiple bids from some of the plurality of bidders; f) displaying, at the current placement venue, the winning advertisement”. These are limitations toward accessing or receiving data (gathering data).
The Examiner analyses other supplementary elements in the claim in view of the instant disclosure:
“implemented on at least one processor, a memory, and a communication platform, via an online platform, on a webpage, captured in a tabulated form, wherein the tabulated form is organized to include: “a first column including multiple placement identifiers, a second column including different BF values under each of the multiple placement identifiers, identifier and a third column including revenues each corresponding to each of the BF values, respectively or a first column including multiple BFs, a second column including different placement identifiers under each of the multiple BF values, and a third column including revenues each corresponding to each of the placement identifiers, respectively”. These elements are recited in a very generic way. They comprise generic hardware elements and arrangement or organization of data.
The use of a “on at least one processor, a memory, and a communication platform” and “a first, second and third columns” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea because it merely reflects the use of conventional technology and amounts to only generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h).
Also, the Examiner gives the broadest reasonable interpretation to the above elements. They are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Or the combination of these additional elements can also be considered no more than mere instructions “to apply” the exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim as a whole does not integrate the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Thus, the claim is ineligible because is directed to the recited judicial exception (abstract idea).
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the supplementary or additional elements in the claim
“implemented on at least one processor, a memory, and a communication platform, via an online platform, on a webpage, captured in a tabulated form, wherein the tabulated form is organized to include: “a first column including multiple placement identifiers, a second column including different BF values under each of the multiple placement identifiers, identifier and a third column including revenues each corresponding to each of the BF values, respectively or a first column including multiple BFs, a second column including different placement identifiers under each of the multiple BF values, and a third column including revenues each corresponding to each of the placement identifiers, respectively”, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic hardware and software cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that a supplementary or additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B.
Again, in this step, the additional elements in the claims under consideration are:
“implemented on at least one processor, a memory, and a communication platform, via an online platform, on a webpage, captured in a tabulated form, wherein the tabulated form is organized to include: “a first column including multiple placement identifiers, a second column including different BF values under each of the multiple placement identifiers, identifier and a third column including revenues each corresponding to each of the BF values, respectively or a first column including multiple BFs, a second column including different placement identifiers under each of the multiple BF values, and a third column including revenues each corresponding to each of the placement identifiers, respectively”, were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Other limitations in the claim, such as:
“receiving information indicating an opportunity to display an advertisement at a current placement venue; d) receiving multiple bids from some of the plurality of bidders; f) displaying, at the current placement venue, the winning advertisement”. These are limitations toward accessing or receiving or displaying data (gathering data). Accessing data is very well understood, routine and conventional computer task activity; It represents insignificant extra solution activity. Mere data-gathering step[s] cannot make an otherwise nonstaturory claim statutory In re Grams,888 F.2d 835, 840 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794 (CCPA 1982)).
Further, the instant specification does not provide any indication that the additional elements
“implemented on at least one processor, a memory, and a communication platform, via an online platform, on a webpage, captured in a tabulated form, wherein the tabulated form is organized to include: “a first column including multiple placement identifiers, a second column including different BF values under each of the multiple placement identifiers, identifier and a third column including revenues each corresponding to each of the BF values, respectively or a first column including multiple BFs, a second column including different placement identifiers under each of the multiple BF values, and a third column including revenues each corresponding to each of the placement identifiers, respectively”, were are anything other than generic software and hardware, and the OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); vii. Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and v. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely computer receives, arranging data and sends information over a network and presenting or displaying information, is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “implemented on at least one processor, a memory, and a communication platform, via an online platform, on a webpage, captured in a tabulated form, wherein the tabulated form is organized to include: “a first column including multiple placement identifiers, a second column including different BF values under each of the multiple placement identifiers, identifier and a third column including revenues each corresponding to each of the BF values, respectively or a first column including multiple BFs, a second column including different placement identifiers under each of the multiple BF values, and a third column including revenues each corresponding to each of the placement identifiers, respectively”, limitations (pointed above) are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 8: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites machine readable and non-transitory medium.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim ? Yes. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No. Because the same reasons pointed above. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 15: Step 1 of 2019 PGE, does the claim fall within a Statutory Category? Yes. The claim recites a system.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception recited in the claim ? Yes. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. Because the same reasons pointed above.
Step 2B : claim provides an inventive concept? No. Because the same reasons pointed above. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, the claims recite elements such ” wherein the BF/revenue dependency information is previously established based on return revenues tracked with respect to different advertisements previously displayed at different placement venues, wherein each of the tracked advertisements is selected in a bidding process using a corresponding bid-floor”, etc. These elements do not integrate the system of organizing human activity into a practical application. The claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pg. Pub. No. 20130097028 (HAN) in view of Pg. Pub. No. 20120310729(Dalto).
As to claims 1, 8 and 15, HAN discloses a method implemented on at least one processor, a memory, and a communication platform for displaying a winning advertisement on a webpages
(see abstract and Fig. 2 and associated disclosure.
“As one example, an impression can correspond to an available advertising location on a web page being delivered by a publisher where advertising can be displayed. Typically, the page is delivered to a person viewing the web page via a browser”, paragraph 14.
“[0070] The available impression, the selected advertisement, and the floor price information are then forwarded to auction marketplace 270. The auction marketplace conducts an auction and determines a winner based on received bids and the floor price information. The winning bid and payload information is returned to hosted campaign selection and floor price determination module 230 for communication to the browser that initiated the advertising request [Examiner interprets as for displaying a winning advertisement on a webpages]. If the auction is selected for use in providing feedback…”, paragraph 70), comprising:
a) receiving, via an online platform, information indicating an opportunity to display an advertisement on a webpage at a current placement venue;
(abstract and paragraphs 2, 6, “[0006] In various embodiments, systems and method are provided for conducting an auction to match an advertising payload to an available advertising impression. In the auction, a dynamic floor price is provided….” And Figs 2-3);
b) dynamically determining, for a bidding process for selecting a winning advertisement to be displayed at the current placement venue, a dynamic bid floor in a non-parametric manner that maximizes revenue….
(“Systems and method are provided for conducting an auction to match an advertising payload to an available advertising impression. In the auction, a dynamic floor price is provided. The dynamic floor price provides a way for a publisher to incorporate the internal value of the available impression into the auction process, while still allowing the publisher to maximize the value of the available impression by exposing the impression to bids from outside parties. The dynamic floor price can be calculated based on both internal valuations of an available impression as well as external valuations derived from feedback from prior auctions. To facilitate determination of a dynamic floor prices, advertisers and available impressions can be categorized….”, abstract.
“[0060] For a given auction, a floor price can be set by maximizing the equation”, paragraph 60);
c) soliciting, with the dynamic bid floor, bids from a plurality of bidders for selecting the winning advertisement for the current placement venue;
(see at least “7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein determining a floor price based on the … floor price information …determining a bid value for the selected hosted advertisement based on the… floor price information”, claim 7.
“…The bids are compared by an auction marketplace that controls the auction. Based on the comparison, the auction marketplace can determine a winning bid based on a highest bidder. …”, paragraph 20);
d) receiving multiple bids from some of the plurality of bidders;
(“ receiving the bids, one or more of the bids”, paragraph 19.
See al least Fig. 6, element 640 and associated disclosure);
e) selecting a winning bid from the multiple bids in accordance with some pre-determined selection criterion, wherein the winning advertisement is associated with the winning bid;
(“…the "winning bid" corresponds to a payload selected by the publisher, … the competing third party bids have met the minimum price required for sale of the impression. The advertising payload corresponding to the winner of the auction can then be transmitted, in response to the available impression, for display in the impression location”, paragraph 20);
and f) displaying, via the online platform at the current placement venue, the winning advertisement on the webpage.
(“…The advertising payload corresponding to the winner of the auction can then be transmitted, in response to the available impression, for display in the impression location”, paragraph 20.
“As one example, an impression can correspond to an available advertising location on a web page being delivered by a publisher where advertising can be displayed. Typically, the page is delivered to a person viewing the web page via a browser”, paragraph 14).
Although, HAN teaches conducting an auction to match an advertising payload to an available advertising impression. In the auction, a dynamic floor price is provided. The publisher pursuing to maximize the value of the available impression by exposing the impression to bids from outside parties. The dynamic floor price can be calculated based on both internal valuations of an available impression as well as external valuations derived from feedback from prior auctions, (abstract and paragraph 60). HAN does not expressly disclose but Dalto discloses
With respect to the current placement venue based on bid-floor (BF)/revenue dependency information captured in a tabulated form;
(“0008] The performance characteristics are measured using one or more of the following revenue models: cost-per-mille, cost-per-click, cost-per-action, click-through-rate, and cost-per-conversion”, paragraph 8.
“[0068] FIG. 7 is a block diagram of a yield management profile”, paragraphs 68 and Fig. 7 and associated disclosure.
“[0236] Referring to FIG. 7, in some embodiments, an impression seller member (e.g., a publisher 702) belonging to an advertising platform 700 establishes a yield management profile 704 [Examiner interprets as (BF)/revenue dependency information] to define yield management rules to be applied to impression buyer members bidding on its inventory. In some cases, the rules defined by the yield management profile protect against channel conflict and price erosion. In other cases, the rules defined by the yield management profile attempt to capture additional yield for high value users or inventory”, paragraph 236
See also Fig. 9 and associated disclosure.
Further, Dalto’s system is strong in revenue optimization, see paragraph 2. Dalto’s system discloses captured, “the bid is submitted to auction”, paragraphs 264 and 265 ) in a tabulated form, “[0268] Referring to Table 1, in one example of this approach, four bidders present bids of $1.95, $1.50, $1.05, and $2.11. Each bidder has a unique set of a hard floor, a soft floor, a percentage or CPM bias, a percentage or CPM floor modifier, and a percentage or CPM bias modifier. After the application of all appropriate adjustments, the final bids for auction comparison are…”, paragraph 268 and table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Dalton’s teaching with the teaching of HAN. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to create and manage a BF/revenue dependency called in Dalto’s reference, yield management profile, in order to offer optimization of revenue in an online advertising platform (see Dalto abstract and paragraph 2).
Further, HAN does not expressly disclose but from Dalto’s teaching of :
wherein the tabulated form is organized to include:
(“[0090] In some implementations of the advertising platform, a platform-specific ad tag may be generated and associated with ad space(s). In addition to the types of information described above, other types of information, such as a universal inventory identifier, a reserve price, and a list of approved universal advertiser identifiers, may also be associated with a platform-specific ad tag. The information associated with any given platform-specific ad tag may be specified server-side (e.g., tag_id=123&ad_profile_id=456) or maintained within the platform by a server-side mapping (e.g., Imp Bus maintains a server-side mapping of tag_id=123 to ad_profile_id=456). In the latter case, once an ad space has been tagged, information associated with the platform-specific ad tag may be easily modified by adding or otherwise changing the information within the platform without having to re-tag the ad”, paragraphs 90-91.
Dalto discloses “ TABLE 1 An auction under an exemplary yield management profile…. Winning Bid …Second Highest Bid…”, paragraph 268),
a first column including multiple placement identifiers, (see “universal inventory identifier”, paragraph 90),
a second column including different BF values under each of the multiple placement identifiers,
(“[0268] Referring to Table 1, in one example of this approach, four bidders present bids of $1.95, $1.50, $1.05, and $2.11”, paragraph 268),
and a third column including revenues each corresponding to each of the BF
values, respectively
(“[0148] As described above, a bid response typically includes a bid price and a creative that are to be served should the bid be identified as the winning bid of a platform-based
auction. A bid response may further include the following information:…[0169] m. Revenue Generated: This value represents revenue generated by the sale of an impression”, paragraphs 148 and 169),
or
a first column including multiple BFs,
(“[0268] Referring to Table 1, in one example of this approach, four bidders present bids of $1.95, $1.50, $1.05, and $2.11”, paragraph 268),
a second column including different placement identifiers under each of the multiple BF,
(see “universal inventory identifier”, paragraph 90),
and a third column including revenues each corresponding to each of the placement identifiers, respectively
(“[0148] As described above, a bid response typically includes a bid price and a creative that are to be served should the bid be identified as the winning bid of a platform-based
auction. A bid response may further include the following information:…[0169] m. Revenue Generated: This value represents revenue generated by the sale of an impression”, paragraphs 148 and 169),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Dalton’s teaching of including multiple placement identifiers, (see “universal inventory identifier”, paragraph 90), different BF values under each of the multiple placement identifiers, (“[0268] Referring to Table 1, in one example of this approach, four bidders present bids of $1.95, $1.50, $1.05, and $2.11”, paragraph 268), and revenues each corresponding to each of the BF
values, respectively paragraphs 148 and 169), with the teaching of HAN. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to combine the elements as claimed by known methods as show above and that in combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As to claim 8, it comprises the same limitations than claim 1 above. Therefore is rejected in similar manner. The claim further comprises machine readable and non-transitory medium having information recorded (see HAN paragraph 75-76).
As to claim 15, it comprises the same limitations than claim 1 above. Therefore is rejected in similar manner. The claim further comprises
an auction interface engine implemented by a processor
(paragraphs 14 and 15).
As to claims 2, 9 and 16, HAN discloses
wherein the BF/revenue dependency information is previously established based on return revenues tracked with respect to different advertisements previously displayed at different placement venues, wherein each of the tracked advertisements is selected in a bidding process using a corresponding bid-floor.
(see US Pg. Pub. No. 20120303464(Gorman) incorporated by reference. Gorman discloses “0053] Still another factor that can be tracked is the value of impressions that a campaign is winning…”, paragraphs 53-54.
[0064] The auction rules and bid bias values have the potential to create a large amount of additional information that is tracked for each impression and/or each campaign. One way of simplifying the amount of additional information can be to set up page groups. A page group can represent a group of impressions, web pages, and/or advertising campaigns that share a common set of auction rules and bid bias values”, paragraph 64).
As to claims 3, 10 and 17, HAN discloses
wherein the BF/revenue dependency information is established by:
a) collecting return revenues with respect to the different advertisements;
(Gorman incorporated by reference discloses “[0064] The auction rules and bid bias values have the potential to create a large amount of additional information that is tracked for each impression and/or each campaign”, Gorman paragraph 64.
“…the revenue generated by impressions can be enhanced or optimized while still satisfying the guarantees required by the guaranteed campaign. “, Gorman paragraph 13.
“…it can be desirable to balance the goal of delivering …advertising impressions with the goal of increasing revenue derived from each impression”, Gorman paragraph 17.
“…. The dynamic floor price provides a way for a publisher to incorporate the internal value of the available impression into the auction process, while still allowing the publisher to maximize the value of the available impression by exposing the impression to bids from outside parties. The dynamic floor price can be calculated based on both internal valuations of an available impression as well as external valuations derived from feedback from prior auctions..”, abstract, HAN paragraph 6.
“…The winning bid and payload information is returned to hosted campaign selection and floor price determination module 230 for communication to the browser that initiated the advertising request. If the auction is selected for use in providing feedback, information regarding the auction is also passed to auction history store 290. The auction history store provides raw data for auction feedback module 280 to use in determining various types of historical auction information, such as distributions of bid values for auctions on a particular inventory segment”, HAN paragraph 70)
b) analyzing the collected return revenues to associate each return revenue with a
corresponding bid floor applied in a bidding process and a corresponding placement venue where the advertisement corresponding to the return revenue is previously displayed;
(“…A baseline bid value for …. campaigns can be set in any convenient manner. For example, a baseline bid for a…. campaign can correspond to the amount paid for the campaign divided by the number of guaranteed impressions. This can yield an amount paid per impression…. A campaign that wins an auction for an impression can have the payload corresponding to the campaign displayed in the impression location…”, Gordon paragraph 18.
“…The winning bid and payload information is returned to hosted campaign selection and floor price determination module 230 for communication to the browser that initiated the advertising request. If the auction is selected for use in providing feedback, information regarding the auction is also passed to auction history store 290. The auction history store provides raw data for auction feedback module 280 to use in determining various types of historical auction information, such as distributions of bid values for auctions on a particular inventory segment”, HAN paragraph 70)
HAN does not expressly disclose, but Dalto discloses
c) generating a representation of BF/revenue dependencies that is indicative of relationships among the collected return revenues, corresponding bid floors, and corresponding placement venues.
(Dalto’s system teaches “[0036] A requested page may have multiple ad spaces. The advertising platform may be implemented to enable an impression seller member's web server to make a call to the platform that invokes multiple ad tags (each ad tag being associated with a distinct ad space of the page) or a call to the platform that invokes a single page-level ad tag that includes multiple ad spaces. Some of the advantages of enabling these features are as follows: (1) one request to the platform reduces latency; (2) a single call that invokes multiple ad tags or a single page-level ad tag allows for the buying of `packages` of ads. For example, an impression buyer member may indicate that it will take all three tags on a page for a $10 CPM. The Imp Bus may then compare the price of the "package" of ads to the highest individual bids; and (3) enables premium selling (road-blocks) and the ability to do competitive exclusions (e.g., do not show a Coca Cola.RTM. ad next to a Pepsi.RTM. ad)”, paragraph 36.
“[0037] In another aspect, the invention includes a method for placing a bid in an auction for digital advertisement space in an online advertising platform…”, paragraph 37.
“[0039] In some embodiments, a hierarchy of advertising nodes is defined. The hierarchy includes one or more top nodes, each representing an advertiser, and a number of dependent nodes. Each dependent node has a parent node and represents a combination of advertising attributes associated with its respective parent. In a further embodiment, each dependent node inherits the advertising attributes of its parent nodes”, paragraph 39.
“[0040] The hierarchy may include a number of levels, with each level associated with an advertising attribute. This hierarchy contains a top level with the top nodes, and one or more lower levels in which the dependent nodes are arranged….”, paragraph 40.
See Figs 7 and 9 and associated disclosure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Dalton’s teaching with the teaching of HAN. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to create and manage a BF/revenue dependency called in Dalto’s reference, yield management profile, in order to offer an advertising venue with optimization of revenue (see Dalto paragraph 2).
As to claims 4, 11 and 18, HAN discloses
wherein the representation of the BF/revenue dependencies includes:
a) bid floors used in bidding processes in association with each of the placement venues;
([0013] … the revenue generated by impressions can be enhanced or optimized while still satisfying the guarantees required by the guaranteed campaign. In such a competition, systems and methods are provided for dynamic setting of floor prices for acceptance of a bid from a non-reserved campaign. The dynamic floor prices assist with allowing reserved campaigns to win a …the advertising auctions so that guarantees for advertising impression delivery are satisfied. Additionally, by allowing floor prices to vary depending on the type of inventory and/or the types of reserved campaigns, floor prices can assist with allowing a representative cross-section of all advertising impressions to be assigned to reserved campaigns”, HAN paragraph 13)
Although, HAN discloses all the concepts such as return revenues and tracking (paragraphs 53-54 and 64 of Gordon), bids using floors that are dynamic (HAN abstract and paragraphs 2 and 6).
HAN does not clearly disclose but Dalto discloses
b) return revenues tracked from advertisements selected in corresponding bidding processes using each of the bid floors with respect to each of the placement venues.
(“[0264] …calculations apply to floor-based …. When a yield management profile includes one or many floor-based … selection criteria. For example, …a selected floor for any bid …[a]…. creative…”, paragraphs 264-265.
See also, “[0039] In some embodiments, a hierarchy of advertising nodes is defined. The hierarchy includes one or more top nodes, each representing an advertiser, and a number of dependent nodes. Each dependent node has a parent node and represents a combination of advertising attributes associated with its respective parent. In a further embodiment, each dependent node inherits the advertising attributes of its parent nodes.
[0050] In some embodiments, the system further includes a data management module for defining a hierarchy of advertising nodes. The hierarchy includes one or more top nodes, each representing an advertiser, and a number of dependent nodes. Each dependent node has a parent node and represents a combination of advertising attributes associated with its respective parent. In a further embodiment, each dependent node inherits the advertising attributes of its parent nodes.
[0063] FIG. 2 shows a block diagram of an example advertising platform environment.
[0068] FIG. 7 is a block diagram of a yield management profile”, paragraphs 39, 50, 63 and 86).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Dalton’s teaching with the teaching of HAN. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to create and manage a BF/revenue dependency called in Dalto’s reference, yield management profile, in order to offer an advertising venue with optimization of revenue (see Dalto paragraph 2).
As to claims 5, 12 and 19, HAN does not disclose but Dalto discloses
wherein the step of dynamically determining comprises:
a) accessing the BF/revenue dependency information;
(“[0242] Floor rules are contained in a floor profile object 716 stored on a server deployed by publisher 702. Floor profile 716 contains targeting criteria, such as inventory, user, or demand targeting criteria, that are to be used in the application of a floor. Although many floors may be specified within a given yield management profile, only one floor will ultimately be used per bid for any given impression….”, paragraph 242);
b) identifying relevant bid floors associated with the current placement venue in the BF/revenue dependency information;
(“[0264] …calculations apply to floor-based …. When a yield management profile includes one or many floor-based … selection criteria. For example, …a selected floor for any bid …[a]…. creative…”, paragraphs 264-265);
c) computing, with respect to each of the relevant bid floors, a representative revenue of the relevant bid floor based on return revenues associated therewith;
(“0261] Referring still to FIG. 7, in some embodiments, modifiers 718 are used to adjust biases and/or floors based on additional criteria, such as impression consumer attributes or technical attributes of creatives or impression inventory. Impression consumer attributes include, for instance, demographic segment to which an impression consumer belongs (e.g., based on age, gender, or salary range), a geographic location of the impression consumer, or a browsing history of the impression consumer (e.g., how frequently or recently the impression consumer has viewed a particular creative [Examiner interprets as computing, with respect to each of the relevant bid floors]). Technical attributes 720 include, for instance, technical attributes of a creative, such as its file type (e.g., image, Flash, video, or text), its file size (e.g., greater than 40 k), or its mode of display (e.g., an expandable creative), or technical attributes of impression inventory, such as the physical size (i.e., width.times.height) of the ad space. Modifiers can be used to adjust eligible biases by a CPM or a percentage, or to adjust eligible price floors by a fixed amount or a percentage”, paragraph 261);
and d) selecting one of the representative revenues that has a maximum representative revenue as the dynamic bid floor for the current placement venue.
(Dalto discloses “ TABLE 1 An auction under an exemplary yield management profile…. Winning Bid …Second Highest Bid…”, paragraph 268).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Dalton’s teaching with the teaching of HAN. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to create and manage a BF/revenue dependency called in Dalto’s reference, yield management profile, in order to offer “"best price" for a creative serving opportunity is the price that yields the highest revenue for the impression seller member”, (see Dalto paragraph 126).
As to claims 6 and 13, HAN discloses
wherein the representative revenue of each of the …bid floors is determined by averaging the return revenues associated with the …bid floor.
(“7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein determining a floor price based on the first floor price information and the second floor price information comprises: determining a bid value for the selected hosted advertisement based on the first floor price information; determining a potential value for the available impression based on the second floor price information; calculating a weighted average of the determined bid value and the determined potential value…”, claim 7)
HAN does not disclose but Dalto discloses
the relevant bid floor
(Dalto’ system discloses “0241] Referring still to FIG. 7, price floors 714 provide publishers with the capability to set reserve pricing in order to manage yield. For instance, through the use of price floors, a publisher can protect its existing yield gained through direct deals or can capture additional yield for high-value impression inventory or impression consumers. CPM reserve pricing (i.e., price floors) can be set unique to inventory attributes, consumer attributes, or demand criteria”, paragraph 241.
[0242] Floor rules are contained in a floor profile object 716 stored on a server deployed by publisher 702. Floor profile 716 contains targeting criteria [Examiner interprets as the relevant bid floor], such as inventory, user, or demand targeting criteria, that are to be used in the application of a floor. Although many floors may be specified within a given yield management profile, only one floor will ultimately be used per bid for any given impression. Each floor is associated with a priority value, e.g., ranging from 1 (low priority) to 10 (high priority), indicative of the logical order in which the floors are to be selected”, paragraph 242).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Dalton’s teaching with the teaching of HAN. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to define criteria to determine a relevant bid floor in order to support rules and criteria for a fair and profitable advertising auction (see Dalto paragraph 242).
As to claims 7, 14 and 20, HAN discloses
a) recording the dynamic bid floor used in selecting the winning advertisement;
(see at least element 470 in Fig. 4 and associated disclosure);
b) tracking new return revenue of the winning advertisement after it is displayed at the current placement venue;
(“…updating at least one of the first floor price information or the second floor price information based on the received auction bid information”, claim 1)
HAN does not disclose but Dalto discloses
c) updating the BF/revenue dependency information based on the dynamic bid floor applied for the current placement venue and the new return revenue of the winning advertisement.
(“[0401] The Optimization Scheduler 1101 listens to the DMF 1130 for new data. In some embodiments, the DMF 1130 alerts the Scheduler 1101 when new data is available, while in other embodiments, the Scheduler 1101 queries the DMF 1130 to determine if updates exist. Upon determining that new data is available, the Scheduler 1101 invokes the Cadence Calibrator 1104, Creative Ranker 1105, and Stats Updater 1107 to retrieve any relevant information. The Cadence Calibrator 1104 updates the cadence models maintained by the system. This Calibrator 1104 may process data and update the models at a fixed interval, e.g., once per day, or at any other suitable time. The Creative Ranker 1105 calculates expected revenue for creatives (via the Bayes funnel method, described above). The Ranker 1105 may run more frequently than the Calibrator 1104, e.g., once an hour--and in some instances the two components run independently of each other. The Stats Updater 1107 reads optimization data, such as impressions, clicks, conversions, and other data, and updates associated statistics for later use in calculating optimized bids. The Updater 1107 may run at any periodicity, e.g., daily, hourly, on demand, or any other suitable frequency”, paragraph 401.
See also “The logs 1125 are aggregated and transmitted to the Data Management Framework (DMF) 1130 via a log processing pipeline. The DMF 1130 includes database storage, and scheduling components…”, paragraph 400).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Dalton’s teaching with the teaching of HAN. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to update revenue and advertising bid scheduler in order to keep the system updated if new data is available (see Dalto paragraph 201).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 10/21/2025 have been very carefully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: (remarks 19-20)
Claims Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. §103
Claims 1-20 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as allegedly being unpatentable
over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20130097028 by Han ("Han") in view of U.S.
Patent Application Publication No. 20120310729 by Dalto ("Dalto"). The Applicant respectfully
traverses the rejection.
Amended claim 1 recites, in part:….
The Office Action admits that Han does not teach but relies on Dal to' s yield management
profile 704 to show the recited "bid-floor (BF)/revenue dependency information" and relies on
Dalto's paras. [0090]-[0091] and [0169] to show the recited "tabulated form."
Dalto's yield management profile 704 is shows in the below reproduced FIG. 7:….
Dalto' s yield management profile 704 includes biases, different price floors, and
modifiers. However, Dalto does not teach or suggest that the yield management profile 704 is
captured in a tabulated form having the recited columns.
In response the Examiner asserts the Examiner recognizes that Applicant amended the independent claims but the amendments do not overcome the prior art of record because the prima facie of obviousness established in this case discloses all the elements claimed. Further, the combination Han and Dalto does not teach first, second and third columns but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Dalton’s teaching of including multiple placement identifiers, (see “universal inventory identifier”, paragraph 90), different BF values under each of the multiple placement identifiers, (“[0268] Referring to Table 1, in one example of this approach, four bidders present bids of $1.95, $1.50, $1.05, and $2.11”, paragraph 268), and revenues each corresponding to each of the BF
values, respectively paragraphs 148 and 169), with the teaching of HAN. One would have been motivated to provide functionality to combine the elements as claimed by known methods as show above and that in combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Also for clarification purposes, the prior Office action of record did not have possession of the currently amended portion(s) of the claim(s) that the Applicant is currently arguing. But , again, action on these newly amended limitations is contained herein.
Applicant argues: (remarks 12-17)
Claims Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. §101
Claims 1-20 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as allegedly being directed to
judicial exception. The Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Claim 1 is not directed to any of the judicial exceptions and therefore claim 1 is not directed
to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a) states:
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as….
The Office Action on page 3 alleges that claim recites an abstract idea because some
limitations cover "certain methods of organizing human activity, advertising, marketing or sales
activities or behaviors." Applicant respectfully disagrees for at least the following reasons.
Initially, amended claim is related to displaying a winning advertisement on a webpage,
which is not direct to a method of organizing human activity. Amended claim 1 recites
"displaying, via the online platform at the current placement venue, the winning advertisement
on the webpage." At least these recited claim features related to displaying a winning
advertisement on a webpage via an online platform extend far beyond "advertising, marketing or
sales activities or behaviors." Thus, claim 1 does not fall within the "Certain Method of
Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas as alleged by the Office Action. Also,
claim 1 does not fall within "Mathematical Concepts" or "Mental Processes" grouping of
abstract ideas.
Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 does not fall into any of the abstract idea
exceptions provided by the MPEP, and thus claim 1 is patent eligible under Prong One of the
Step 2A Analysis….
In response the Examiner asserts that the amended claims have been reviewed for patent protection eligibility. The claim recites a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as certain methods of organizing human activity, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. The method for setting a dynamic bid floor. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea which is a judicial exception.
Further, the Examiner above elaborated in a the facially sufficient analysis with is the base to establish a prima facie of unpatentability in this case. Thus, the claims are ineligible because the instant claims are directed solely to the recited judicial exception (abstract idea).
The additional elements presented in the instant claims “implemented on at least one processor, a memory, and a communication platform, via an online platform, on a webpage, captured in a tabulated form, wherein the tabulated form is organized to include: “a first column including multiple placement identifiers, a second column including different BF values under each of the multiple placement identifiers, identifier and a third column including revenues each corresponding to each of the BF values, respectively or a first column including multiple BFs, a second column including different placement identifiers under each of the multiple BF values, and a third column including revenues each corresponding to each of the placement identifiers, respectively”, do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea as the additional elements do not:
Improve another technology or technical field;
Improve the functioning of a computer itself;
Add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field;
Add meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the exception to a particular technological environment;
Improve computer related technology by allowing computer performance of a function not previously performable by a computer. The instant claim does not improve computer technology.
However, the Examiner agrees that the instant claim is in compliance with the utility requirement. The claimed invention has a readily apparent well-established utility (see MPEP 2107). But, per MPEP 2106 an invention also must have to comply with the Subject Matter Eligibility test under Alice framework (see MPEP 2106). The instant claims are directed to an abstract idea. None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination, provides eligibility, because taken as a whole, the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement an abstract idea with routine, conventional technology. Accordingly, the claims are ineligible (see complete and facially sufficient analysis of the rejection above).
Moreover, claim 1 is patent eligible because the claimed concepts are integrated into a
practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d) states: "after determining that a claim recites a judicial
exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole
integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A
Prong Two." MPEP 2106.04(d) also states "Limitations the courts have found indicative that an
additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a
practical application include: • An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an
improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§
2106.04(d)(l) and 2106.0S(a)."
Initially, as mentioned previously, the Office Action has improperly analyzed claim 1
when determining whether claim 1 recites a judicial exception because claim 1 does not fall into
any of the abstract idea exceptions - mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing
human activity, or mental processes.
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that claim 1 does recite an abstract idea (which
the Applicant disagrees), Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is patent eligible under
Prong Two of the Step 2A Analysis.
Claim 1 is clearly tied to a practical application, i.e., dynamically determining a dynamic
bid floor in a non-parametric manner (e.g., using a tabulated form) that maximizes revenue with
respect to the current placement venue based on bid-floor (BF)/revenue dependency information
captured in the tabulated form and displaying a winning advertisement on a webpage via an
online platform based on the dynamic bid floor….
In response the Examiner asserts that the claims were properly analyzed according with the last “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (2019 PEG), published in the MPEP 2103 through 2106.07(c). The claims are ineligible because are directed to the recited judicial exception (abstract idea) claimed. The Examiner notes that applicant amended the claims but added more detail to the abstract idea already claimed. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 1 provides an improvement to known technical problems in the technical field of
data analytics and application. Para. [0001]. For example, "[i]n some processes, the bid-floor
may be set as a static value and other processes, the bid-floor may be dynamically changed using
some parametric models. A static bid-floor is inflexible in terms of changes in the advertising
marketplace. A parametric-model based bid-floor modeling may be computationally burdensome
in real-time and may not capture the changing situation associated with the market."
Claim 1 improves computer technology, namely displaying a winning advertisement on a
webpage via an online platform, by a dynamic bid floor determined in a non-parametric manner
(e.g., using a tabulated form) that maximizes revenue with respect to the current placement
venue based on bid-floor (BF)/revenue dependency information captured in the tabulated form.
Therefore, for the reasons above, in the instant application, any claim limitation that the
Office Action may deem to be an abstract idea is integrated into a practical application as the
claimed concept provides a technical solution to one or more problems associated with
ineffectiveness of the traditional expert diversification scheme. Thus, Applicant respectfully
submits that, under Prong Two of the Step 2A Analysis, the claimed concept is integrated into a
practical application and therefore is not directed to a judicial exception. Therefore, Applicant
respectfully submits that claim 1 is directed to patent eligible subject matter….
In response the Examiner asserts that again, the instant claims are very useful for a dynamic bid floor. But, this is considered an abstract idea under the 2019 PEG test. In the claims and specification there is not an improvement to another technology or technical field; to the functioning of a computer itself; the claims do not add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field; the claims do not add meaningful limitations that amount to more than generally linking the use of the exception to a particular technological environment; the claims do not improve computer related technology by allowing computer performance of a function not previously performable by a computer. The instant claim does not improve computer technology.
Further, claim 1 amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. The Berkheimer
v. HP Inc, No. 2017-1437 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2018)1 ("Berkheimer") decision re-emphasized that,
"[a]t step two, we consider the elements of each claim both individually and 'as an ordered
combination' to determine whether the additional elements 'transform the nature of the claim' into
a patent eligible application." Berkheimer, pages 11 and 12. Berkheimer resolved that the
"inventive concept" is not restricted to only the additional elements, but may include one or
more allegedly abstract elements that, in combination with the additional elements, form the
claim's inventive concept. See Id, page 12 (stating, without reference to an "additional" element,
that "[t]he question of whether a claim element or combination of elements is well-understood,
routine and conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question of fact"). For example,
while the Berkheimer Court held independent claim 1 to be directed to "the abstract idea of parsing
and comparing data with conventional computer components, the Berkheimer Court nevertheless
concluded that dependent claim 4 (which depended on claim 1) was potentially patent-eligible. In concluding that claim 4 could be patent-eligible, the Berkheimer Court did not narrow the inventive concept to merely the additional limitation of "storing a reconciled object structure in the archive without substantial redundancy." Indeed, the general operation of storing data/object structures in some archive without substantial redundancy by itself would clearly have been found to be well understood, routine, and conventional. Despite this, however, the Berkheimer Court concluded that the claimed invention of claim 4 could be patent-eligible….
In response the Examiner asserts that the all claims have been reviewed for patent protection eligibility. The prima facie of unpatentability established in this case comprises independent and dependent claims.
The instant claims are considered individually and as a whole in this case. The facially sufficient analysis conducted to establish a prima facie of unpatentability explains with complete detail why the claims considered individually and as a whole are not patent eligible. See rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“An overview of computational challenges in online advertising”. IEEE. 2013. This article teaches “Online advertising is a large and rapidly growing business. The major players in the space, namely advertisers, publishers, and ad exchanges, are developing increasingly sophisticated systems, methods and tools to facilitate, manage, optimize and report on the performance of online advertising marketplaces and campaigns. Developing solutions that are both mathematically sound and practical draws on techniques from a variety of disciplines including machine learning, stochastic optimal control, information retrieval, data mining, natural language processing, and econometrics. In this paper, we provide an overview of the online advertising space, and identify, frame, and describe solution approaches to some of the major computational challenges in the space. We describe specific examples from industry applications, including ad inventory auctions, bidding and allocation strategies for ad inventory, inventory targeting, banner and landing page optimization, and performance estimation.”.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 MARIA VICTORIA VANDERHORST whose telephone number is (571)270-3604. The examiner can normally be reached on business hours from Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ashraf Waseem can be reached on 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.
/MARIA V VANDERHORST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621 1/26/2026
Prosecution Insights