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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/25/2025 has been entered.
This office action is responsive to RCE filed on 11/25/2025. Claims 1, 3-6, 11, 13-16, and 21 are amended. Claims 2 and 12 are canceled. Claims 1, 3-7, 11, 13-17, and 21 are pending examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/25/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
3. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,816,702 because the patent and the application under examination name the same inventive entity. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in Patent No. 11,816,702 recite the entirety of limitations of claims 1-21 of the instant application. For example, application independent claims 1, 11, and 21 are anticipated by patent independent claims 1, 11, and 20 because patent independent claims 1, 11, and 20 recite additional features such as “providing a plurality of user devices each associated with a buyer or seller with access to a centralized transaction platform server based on authentication information provided by the buyer or the seller, wherein the authentication information is verified by one or more integrated third party systems accessible by the buyer or the seller, wherein seller accounts of a plurality of seller third party servers and buyer accounts of a plurality of buyer third party servers are automatically mapped; receiving, by the centralized transaction platform server, data regarding inventory of a plurality of sellers from the plurality of seller third party servers of the one or more integrated third party systems, wherein the data is received via an application programming interface (API) in which the API syncs data between the integrated third party system and the centralized transaction platform server in accordance with the mapped accounts; aggregating a collection of available inventory of the seller systems based on the data regarding the inventory of the seller systems from the one or more integrated third party system, wherein the aggregated inventory includes the mapped seller accounts of the plurality of seller third party servers; modifying the graphical user interface for the first user device of the buyer, to present a custom display of the filtered list of real-time inventory based on the one or more selected filters; creating a third proposal based on the real-time list of real-time digital inventory via a third-party application programming interface (API) integrated to a white-label API customized for a respective integrated third party system associated with the third-party API, wherein the third proposal is associated with a third URL link to a third proposal web page; providing the first proposal, the second proposal, and the third proposal, via the centralized transaction platform server to respective ad server operators without accessing respective third party servers; and automating approval of the first proposal, the second proposal, and the third proposal based on approved workflows, wherein respective digital inventory associated with each proposal is published to a corresponding web page using a corresponding URL link, wherein the approval is synced with the plurality of third party servers and the centralized transaction platform server” wherein application independent claims 1, 11, and 21 do not recite these features and is essentially broader than patent independent claims 1, 11, and 20. Therefore patent claims 1, 11, and 20 of Patent No. 11,816,702 are in essence a “species” of the generic invention of application independent claims 1, 11, and 21. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claims 2-10 (Dependent on Claim 1) and claims 12-20 (Dependent on Claim 11) do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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 1-7, 11-17, and 21 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are drawn to method (i.e., a process), claim(s) 11 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine/manufacture), and claim(s) 21 is/are drawn to non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1, 11, and 21 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-7, 11-17, and 21 are directed to integrated management of advertising campaigns. Specifically, claim(s) 1, 11, and 21 recite(s) wherein each user accesses the transaction based on authentication information provided by the user; integrating one or more third party using the authentication information provided by the user, wherein the authentication information is verified by one or more third party accessible by the user; automatically mapping one or more accounts associated with each of the user, each associated with a set of first party data; synchronizing in real-time the set of first party data in accordance with the mapped accounts via an application programming interface (API); normalizing the data received from the different third party associated with each aggregated collection of available digital content inventory; generating a graphic user interface that presents a real-time list of available digital content inventory based on a set of targeting criteria applied to the synchronized data, wherein the graphical user interface further includes one or more filters selectable to filter an aggregated collection of available digital content inventory based on data received from the different third party, each filter corresponding to one or more filter categories associated with different targeting criteria; modifying the graphical user interface to present a custom display of the filtered list of real-time inventory based on the one or more selected filters, and storing one or more custom workflows, and automating approval of a proposal based on the custom workflows, which is grouped within the Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
The Claim limitations are listed under Methods Of Organizing Human Activity, and grouped as following:
wherein each user accesses the transaction based on authentication information provided by the user; integrating one or more third party using the authentication information provided by the user, wherein the authentication information is verified by one or more third party accessible by the user; automatically mapping one or more accounts associated with each of the user, each associated with a set of first party data; synchronizing in real-time the set of first party data in accordance with the mapped accounts via an application programming interface (API); which is similar to the concept of (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations),
normalizing the data received from the different third party associated with each aggregated collection of available digital content inventory; generating a graphic user interface that presents a real-time list of available digital content inventory based on a set of targeting criteria applied to the synchronized data, which is similar to the concept of (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations),
wherein the graphical user interface further includes one or more filters selectable to filter an aggregated collection of available digital content inventory based on data received from the different third party, each filter corresponding to one or more filter categories associated with different targeting criteria; modifying the graphical user interface to present a custom display of the filtered list of real-time inventory based on the one or more selected filters, and storing one or more custom workflows, and automating approval of a proposal based on the custom workflows; which is similar to the concept of (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as third party server systems, user devices, transaction platform server, devices, server system, platform server, system, communication interface, communication network, processor, non transitory computer readable storage medium merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link(s) the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the third party server systems, user devices, transaction platform server, devices, server system, platform server, system, communication interface, communication network, processor, non transitory computer readable storage medium perform(s) the steps or functions of wherein each user accesses the transaction based on authentication information provided by the user; integrating one or more third party using the authentication information provided by the user, wherein the authentication information is verified by one or more third party accessible by the user; automatically mapping one or more accounts associated with each of the user, each associated with a set of first party data; synchronizing in real-time the set of first party data in accordance with the mapped accounts via an application programming interface (API); normalizing the data received from the different third party associated with each aggregated collection of available digital content inventory; generating a graphic user interface that presents a real-time list of available digital content inventory based on a set of targeting criteria applied to the synchronized data, wherein the graphical user interface further includes one or more filters selectable to filter an aggregated collection of available digital content inventory based on data received from the different third party, each filter corresponding to one or more filter categories associated with different targeting criteria; modifying the graphical user interface to present a custom display of the filtered list of real-time inventory based on the one or more selected filters, and storing one or more custom workflows, and automating approval of a proposal based on the custom workflows. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a third party server systems, user devices, transaction platform server, devices, server system, platform server, system, communication interface, communication network, processor, non transitory computer readable storage medium to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of integrated management of advertising campaigns. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the third party server systems, user devices, transaction platform server, devices, server system, platform server, system, communication interface, communication network, processor, non transitory computer readable storage medium perform(s) the steps or functions of wherein each user accesses the transaction based on authentication information provided by the user; integrating one or more third party using the authentication information provided by the user, wherein the authentication information is verified by one or more third party accessible by the user; automatically mapping one or more accounts associated with each of the user, each associated with a set of first party data; synchronizing in real-time the set of first party data in accordance with the mapped accounts via an application programming interface (API); normalizing the data received from the different third party associated with each aggregated collection of available digital content inventory; generating a graphic user interface that presents a real-time list of available digital content inventory based on a set of targeting criteria applied to the synchronized data, wherein the graphical user interface further includes one or more filters selectable to filter an aggregated collection of available digital content inventory based on data received from the different third party, each filter corresponding to one or more filter categories associated with different targeting criteria; modifying the graphical user interface to present a custom display of the filtered list of real-time inventory based on the one or more selected filters, and storing one or more custom workflows, and automating approval of a proposal based on the custom workflows. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of integrated management of advertising campaigns. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 2-10, and 12-20 further describe the abstract idea of integrated management of advertising campaigns. Claim(s) 2-10, and 12-20 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a memory, server systems, platform server, third party networks, system to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of integrated management of advertising campaigns. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the memory, server systems, platform server, third party networks, system perform(s) the steps or functions of storing one or more custom workflows associated with a first one, and automating approval of a proposal associated based on the custom workflows; wherein the custom workflows are associated with one or more approval rules, wherein automating approval is based on the approval rules; syncing the automated approval transaction; publishing one or more of the real-time inventory from the filtered list to a web page based on the automated approval; wherein the proposal includes the set of targeting criteria, and further comprising determining the set of targeting criteria based on one or more business rules associated with the custom workflow; dynamically applying the business rules to a set of available digital content inventory in real-time, and generating the real-time list of available digital content inventory based on the dynamically applied business rules. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of integrated management of advertising campaigns. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Subject Matter Overcoming the Cited Prior Art
5. As detailed in the Office Action the Examiner has not applied a prior art rejection to Claim(s) 1-7, 11-17, and 21 when viewed in combination with the corresponding independent claims, however the claim(s) has/have been rejected other grounds as detailed in the Office Action.
In reference to independent claims 1, 11 and 21, the Office is unaware of any references that teach, individually or without an unreasonable combination of references, the combination of limitations steps found in the claims especially limitation that says: “wherein each user device accesses the transaction platform server based on authentication information provided by the user device; integrating one or more third party server systems using the authentication information provided by the user device, wherein the authentication information is verified by one or more third party server systems accessible by the user device; automatically mapping one or more accounts each maintained at different third party server systems, the accounts associated with the user devices, each third party server system further maintaining third party data associated with one or more of the user devices; synchronizing in real-time, a set of first party data of the plurality of user devices, between the different third party server systems and the transaction platform server in accordance with the mapped accounts via an application programming interface (API); normalizing the data received from the different third party server systems associated with each aggregated collection of available digital content inventory; storing one or more custom workflows in memory associated with a first one of the server systems, and automating approval of a proposal associated with the first server system based on the custom workflows.”. No reference found that would teach the above limitation(s).
The most relevant prior art identified by the Examiner is 10248973. It teaches receiving, from an ad exchange, a bid request for an advertisement space for a viewing user. The approaches further comprise retrieving logged data associated with the viewing user, the logged data corresponding to the viewing user's online exposure to web content including at least one of commercial webpages, online representations of services or products having purchase information, and advertisements. A first advertiser and a second advertiser who have entered into an advertising collaborating relationship to respond to bid requests are identified. A determination is made as to whether a portion of the retrieved logged data for the viewing user is associated with the first advertiser or with the second advertiser. Additionally, based on the determining, one of the first advertiser and the second advertiser is selected to submit a bid for the advertisement space in response to the bid request, but it does not teach wherein each user device accesses the transaction platform server based on authentication information provided by the user device; integrating one or more third party server systems using the authentication information provided by the user device, wherein the authentication information is verified by one or more third party server systems accessible by the user device; automatically mapping one or more accounts each maintained at different third party server systems, the accounts associated with the user devices, each third party server system further maintaining third party data associated with one or more of the user devices; synchronizing in real-time, a set of first party data of the plurality of user devices, between the different third party server systems and the transaction platform server in accordance with the mapped accounts via an application programming interface (API); normalizing the data received from the different third party server systems associated with each aggregated collection of available digital content inventory; storing one or more custom workflows in memory associated with a first one of the server systems, and automating approval of a proposal associated with the first server system based on the custom workflows. Therefore, it lacks the combination of claimed elements as claimed by the independent claims.
The most relevant prior art found by the Examiner is 20110106593. It teaches generates a list of coupon codes that are available for a consumer to apply to a service. The system determines coupon codes that are active and that are associated with criteria that are satisfied by the consumer, including, e.g., eligibility criteria, usage criteria, and so forth. For example, a particular coupon code is applicable to members of a certain health plan and employment group, and the system makes the particular coupon code available to consumers that are members of the certain health plan and employment group. The system generates a graphical user interface that when rendered on a display device renders a visual representation of the list of coupon codes that are available for the consumer. The coupon codes included in the list are selectable such that a user may select a coupon code that is available to the user and apply the coupon code to a service, but its missing some of the features of the limitation of wherein each user device accesses the transaction platform server based on authentication information provided by the user device; integrating one or more third party server systems using the authentication information provided by the user device, wherein the authentication information is verified by one or more third party server systems accessible by the user device; automatically mapping one or more accounts each maintained at different third party server systems, the accounts associated with the user devices, each third party server system further maintaining third party data associated with one or more of the user devices; synchronizing in real-time, a set of first party data of the plurality of user devices, between the different third party server systems and the transaction platform server in accordance with the mapped accounts via an application programming interface (API); normalizing the data received from the different third party server systems associated with each aggregated collection of available digital content inventory; storing one or more custom workflows in memory associated with a first one of the server systems, and automating approval of a proposal associated with the first server system based on the custom workflows. Therefore, it lacks the combination of claimed elements as claimed by the independent claims.
All these references listed above teaches some of the features in the limitations of the claim but when combining it becomes not obvious and the references would teach the claim as a whole.
Examiner note: none of the references or combined references teach the combination of limitations of claim 1, 11, and 21 or no reference found that would teaches the combination of limitations of claim 1, 11, and 21, especially claim limitations: wherein each user device accesses the transaction platform server based on authentication information provided by the user device; integrating one or more third party server systems using the authentication information provided by the user device, wherein the authentication information is verified by one or more third party server systems accessible by the user device; automatically mapping one or more accounts each maintained at different third party server systems, the accounts associated with the user devices, each third party server system further maintaining third party data associated with one or more of the user devices; synchronizing in real-time, a set of first party data of the plurality of user devices, between the different third party server systems and the transaction platform server in accordance with the mapped accounts via an application programming interface (API); normalizing the data received from the different third party server systems associated with each aggregated collection of available digital content inventory; storing one or more custom workflows in memory associated with a first one of the server systems, and automating approval of a proposal associated with the first server system based on the custom workflows, and which is an idea of Integrated systems arnd method for integrated management of advertising campaigns are provided. The system provides a user device with access to a centralized transaction platform server based on authentication information provided by the user device, which is verified by one or more integrated third party systems utilized by the one or more users. The system receives data regarding inventory from the one or more integrated third party systems, wherein the data is received via an application programming interface (API). When taken as a whole, the claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious. Therefore, the prior art rejection has been withdrawn.
NPL Reference
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The NPL “Creating Transactional Push Campaigns” describes “Be it a fintech app, a travel app, a food delivery app, or an e-commerce app. They all share something in common - a heavy reliance on Push Notifications to convey contextual updates and time-sensitive information. So no matter the app you're marketing, your ability to deliver timely communication in a highly personalized manner is one of the biggest drivers of customer retention. This is why we bring to you - Transactional Campaigns, your one-stop solution to communicating critical messages instantly! Simply launch your campaign and set up the Transactional Campaign API for the Campaign ID - we'll personalize the message and send it as soon as the API is triggered. You can sit back and watch the retention metrics go up.”.
Pertinent Art
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A. Reference#US20200202392A1 teaches similar invention which describes a system for advertising is disclosed, the system comprising a communication devices; an advertising mediums for displaying an advertisement; a vendors; an advertising agency; and a computer-readable medium coupled to the communication device having instructions stored thereon which when executed by the communication device, cause the communication device to perform operations. The operations includes, receiving a request for proposal (RFP) from the advertising agency; determining advertising mediums that matches with the RFP; transmitting a RFP notification to the vendors of the determined advertising mediums, wherein each of the vendors receives a distinctive Uniform Resource Locator (URL) within the notification; receiving a response from one of the vendors; generating and transmitting a proposal based on the response received from the vendors to the advertising agency; receiving a selection of the advertising mediums from the advertising agency; and generating a contract for advertising on the selected advertising medium.
B. Reference#US20180096417A1 teaches similar invention which describes systems and methods are provided for object discovery and object mapping through an application with a Graphical User Interface (GUI). Objects are discovered through an object recommendation channel and through user input of key words and/or key phrases. Each object includes an Intensity of Interest (IoI), which is a relative preference for an object reflected by relative size in the object map. Additionally, the object map provides a visual display which indicates relationships among objects..
C. Reference#US20140257935A1 teaches similar invention which describes a computer-based integrated advertising management platform implements ad pricing options via a Business Rules Management System configured to enable rules-based pricing while avoiding large, multi-dimensional sets of rate tables that must be stored to cover all possible combinations of options. A user makes selections on an ad booking form, pricing rules are checked in the background, and the remaining options and current price displayed to the user are updated. The Rules Engine incorporates an integrated third-party Drools BRMS. Client applications access BRMS functions through a "BRMSEngine" abstraction layer, which preloads rules in compiled binary form to build a rules cache for best performance.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One, Step 2A Prong Two, and Step 2B and would overcome the 101 rejection. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As for Step 2A Prong One, of the Abstract idea is directed towards the abstract idea of integrated management of advertising campaigns which is grouped within the Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)), (MPEP § 2106.04).
B. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong Two. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As for Step 2A Prong Two, the claim limitations do not include additional elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, and the claim is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception and the claim limitation simply describe the abstract idea. The limitation directed to integrated management of advertising campaigns does not add technical improvement to the abstract idea. The recitations to “third party server systems, user devices, transaction platform server, devices, server system, platform server, system, communication interface, communication network, processor, non transitory computer readable storage medium” perform(s) the steps or functions of wherein each user accesses the transaction based on authentication information provided by the user; integrating one or more third party using the authentication information provided by the user, wherein the authentication information is verified by one or more third party accessible by the user; automatically mapping one or more accounts associated with each of the user, each associated with a set of first party data; synchronizing in real-time the set of first party data in accordance with the mapped accounts via an application programming interface (API); normalizing the data received from the different third party associated with each aggregated collection of available digital content inventory; generating a graphic user interface that presents a real-time list of available digital content inventory based on a set of targeting criteria applied to the synchronized data, wherein the graphical user interface further includes one or more filters selectable to filter an aggregated collection of available digital content inventory based on data received from the different third party, each filter corresponding to one or more filter categories associated with different targeting criteria; modifying the graphical user interface to present a custom display of the filtered list of real-time inventory based on the one or more selected filters, and storing one or more custom workflows, and automating approval of a proposal based on the custom workflows. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
C. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2B.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As for Step 2B, The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the limitation directed to integrated management of advertising campaigns does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Furthermore, using well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea does not constitute significantly more. The recitations to “third party server systems, user devices, transaction platform server, devices, server system, platform server, system, communication interface, communication network, processor, non transitory computer readable storage medium” are generically recited computer structure. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of integrated management of advertising campaigns. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAREK ELCHANTI whose telephone number is (571) 272-9638. The examiner can normally be reached on Flex Mon - Thur 7-7:00 and Fri 7-4:00.
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 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAREK ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621B