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
Status of Claims
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17 (e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/20/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-4 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on11/20/2026 have been fully considered and discussed in the next section. Applicant is reminded that the claims must be given its broadest, reasonable interpretation.
With regard to claims 1-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101:
Applicant argues that “The claim's steps are tied to a concrete technological context: a content serving system operating over networks to deliver content to client devices. This is analogous to the scenario in DDR Holdings, where claims solving the problem of retaining website visitors were found eligible because "the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks." Here, the problem of biased conversion data and inaccurate automated predictions arises in the realm of Internet advertising systems, which is a context that did not exist in the pre-Internet world. Claim 1's solution (filtering conversion event data using statistical criteria and adjusting model outputs with bias values) manipulates how the computer system processes and uses data, rather than simply implementing a manual process on a computer. Like in DDR, the claim "specif[ies] how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result...that overrides the routine and conventional" outcome of using raw biased data. The ordered combination of steps (filtering outlier data, training a model on refined data, and adjusting outputs with a bias factor) yields a result that is not the routine or expected way an online ad system would operate absent the claimed subject matter. This integration into the functionality of a content-serving system indicates a practical application of the abstract ideas, rather than an attempt to monopolize the concepts of data filtering or targeted advertising per se (page 3/7)”.
Examiner disagrees. The instant claims bear no similarity to the DDR Holdings decision, because the instant claim merely “filtering conversion event data using statistical criteria and adjusting model outputs with bias values factors, adjusting outputs with a bias factors, manipulates, and uses data” in the manner in which it is received, whereas the claims in DDR Holding describe how the user interface manipulates the data in such a way that rather than directed the user to page requested by the link as would normally occur in a networking environment, the invention changes the normal functioning of such networking environment and instead of sending the claim to a landing page of the link, the invention displays the landing page as part of the currently accessed domain. The instant invention does nothing that could even be remotely similar to the claims of DDR.
The claims in DDR, the claimed technology "overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events" by detecting suspicious network activity, generating reports of suspicious activity, and receiving and integrating the reports using one or more hierarchical monitors.
In DDR Holdings, the court found that the additional elements did amount to more than merely instructing that the abstract idea should be applied on the Internet. “ the additional elements" of the claims in both the DDR decision (new networking protocol) provided the technological solution to a technological problem. In the instant case, there is no arrangement of devices which could be considered "additional elements" and no new networking protocol which could be considered an "additional element". The only additional elements in the instant case are a general-purpose computer with generic computer components which are merely used as tools to apply the abstract idea. As such, the office actions "apply it" characterization is entirely consistent with the December 5, 2025 guidance update to MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the applicant's arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
Furthermore, “filtering conversion event data using statistical criteria and adjusting model outputs with bias values factors, adjusting outputs with a bias factors, manipulates, and uses data” are part of the abstract idea itself, they are not capable of transforming the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 and not capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b.
Only technological improvements rooted in the "additional elements" of a claim are capable of transforming an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2, and only "additional elements" are capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b.
Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. In the instant case the only additional elements are “system, machine learning model and client device”; which are just general-purpose computers with generic computing components upon which the abstract idea is applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 or be considered significantly more under Step 2b.
Thus, any purported technological improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is rooted solely in the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using the general-purpose computer, and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied.
Improvements of this nature are improvement to an abstract idea which are improvements in ineligible subject matter (SAP v. Investpic decision: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.).
As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “just as in Desjardins, the presence of these mathematical steps does not automatically render the claim ineligible; instead, they must be considered in the context of the claim as a whole. Like the claims in Desjardins, the present claim recites a concrete machine- learning training procedure that uses those mathematical operations for a technical purpose. In Desjardins, the Board found that the claim limitation "adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance on the first machine learning task" constituted an improvement to how the machine-learning model operates. Likewise, amended claim 1 here includes steps of filtering the inputs used to train a model and using bias values to account for outlier behavior while focusing learning on events associated with typical conditions. These steps go far beyond mere data reporting; they actively modify the model's parameters to solve a concrete problem (for example, avoiding "unforeseen bias" in conversion probability models). Just as the Desjardins panel noted that the claim "provides technical improvements ... by addressing challenges in continual learning and model efficiency" and uses "less of their storage capacity" while enabling "reduced system complexity", our amended claim's filtering and bias-adjustment steps likewise yield a specific improvement in ML system performance. In both cases, the claimed steps "improve the functioning of a computer" (here, the trained model) rather than merely automating a generic business or data- collection process. Because the mathematical operations in claim 1 are thus integrated into a specific practical application, the claim as a whole is not directed to an abstract idea. The ARP in Desjardins ultimately held that although the independent claims "may recite an abstract idea," they were "not directed to an abstract idea" when viewed as a whole, because they "integrate[d] the abstract idea into a practical application". The same reasoning applies here. Amended claim 1 integrates its abstract mathematical concept into a machine-learning training method that yields a tangible technical benefit: a model that better trains a model to not be misguided by "unforeseen bias" while still accounting for said bias. In short, the claim is directed to a particular, non-generic improvement in how a machine learning system operates, not to the abstract idea of data analysis or content filtering alone (page 4/7)”.
Examiner disagrees. The instant claims bear no similarity to the Ex Parte Desjardins Holdings decision, because the instant claim merely filtering the inputs used to train a machine learning model and using bias values to account for outlier behavior while focusing learning on events associated with typical conditions, whereas Ex Parte Desjardins (claims to a method of training a machine learning model were directed to improvements in the machine learning technology itself and additionally included data structure elements reciting adjustments in values to plurality of performance parameters while preserving prior values). Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential), in which the specification identified the improvement to machine learning technology by explaining how the machine learning model is trained to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about 2 previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting,” and that the claims reflected the improvement identified in the specification. Indeed, enumerated improvements identified in the Desjardins specification included disclosures of the effective learning of new tasks in succession in connection with specifically protecting knowledge concerning previously accomplished tasks; allowing the system to reduce use of storage capacity; and the enablement of reduced complexity in the system. Such improvements were tantamount to how the machine learning model itself would function in operation and therefore not subsumed in the identified mathematical calculation.
Further more, the use of ML model fails to (a) improve another technology or technical field and (b) improve the functioning of the computer itself and (c) applies the abstract idea with or by use of, a particular machine, which is a generic computer performing generic computer functions and are not seen to recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Indeed, the identified improvements recited by Applicant are really, at best improvements to the performance of the abstract idea (e.g., improvements made in the underlying business method (filtering the inputs used to train a model, adjusting using bias values to account for outlier behavior while focusing learning on events associated with typical conditions) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology.
As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “In Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft, the court emphasized that many software improvements "by their very nature, may not be defined by particular physical features but rather by logical structures and processes". The eligibility inquiry instead turns on whether the claims improve computer functionality. Similarly, McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco held that claims specifying "unconventional rules" for automating lip-sync animation were patent eligible because they claimed a specific technical process. Like those cases, the present claim recites a specialized training algorithm for a machine learning model, not a general-purpose abstract concept. For these reasons, and in line with Desjardins and the cited Federal Circuit authorities, amended claim 1 should be viewed as directed to a specific technical improvement rather than an abstract idea. The claim's mathematical computations are embedded in a concrete application (the training of an ML model to achieve improved performance), and therefore the claim as a whole is patent-eligible under § 101. Accordingly, claim 1 is believed to overcome the 101 rejection. Claim 11 is believed to comprise at least some similar features, and is thus believed to overcome the 101 rejection as well (page 4/7)”.
Examiner disagrees. In the Enfish decision the "additional element" of the self-referential database was considered an improved database, invented by the inventor, that operated in a manner different from traditional databases. the McRO decision overcame 35 USC 101 under Step 2a, Prong 1 because they did not recite an abstract idea. While this makes an analysis under Step 2a, Prong 2 unnecessary, the court did find that the claims recite an improvement to a computer-related technology which is a consideration under Step 2a, Prong 2. Since, the claims did not recite an abstract idea, each and every limitation of the claim would be an "additional element" of the claim. The execution of these "additional elements" resulted in an improvement to a computer-related technology and, as such, would also overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 2. In Ex Parte Desjardins (claims to a method of training a machine learning model were directed to improvements in the machine learning “ additional element” technology itself and additionally included data structure elements reciting adjustments in values to plurality of performance parameters while preserving prior values).
In contrast, the claims of the instant invention do recite an abstract idea under Step 2a, Prong 2. The only "additional elements" of the instant claims are a general-purpose computer with generic computer components executing software. Thus, the instant claims merely apply the abstract idea using the general-purpose computer with generic computer components which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application. Hence, the purported improvement of the instant claims is an improvement to an abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matter (see the SAP V. Investpic decision and the Recentive Analytics decision).
Indeed, the identified improvements recited by Applicant are really, at best improvements to the performance of the abstract idea (e.g., improvements made in the underlying business method (mathematical computations are embedded in a concrete application) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology. As thus, amended claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Amended claim 1 is NOT directed to a specific technical improvement.
As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception subject matter, specifically an abstract idea. The analysis for this determination is explained below:
Step 1, determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claim(s) 1-10 are directed to a process (i.e. a method); claim (s) 11-20 are directed to a manufacture (i.e. a non transitory computer medium).
The claimed invention is directed to at least one judicial exception (i.e a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 for instance recite(s) the following abstract idea of “ identifying a first plurality of sets of event information associated with a first plurality of conversion events; filtering the first plurality of sets of event information to identify a second plurality of sets of event information and a third plurality of sets of event information, wherein the second plurality of sets of event information is associated with a plurality of typical conversion events identified from among the first plurality of conversion events and wherein the third plurality of sets of event information is associated with a plurality of outlier conversion events identified from among the first plurality of conversion events; performing, using the second plurality of sets of event information to generate a learning model; calculating, for a plurality of content items, a plurality of bias values associated with the plurality of content items based on the third plurality of sets of event information; receiving, by a content serving system, a request for content; responsive to receiving the request for content, for the plurality of content items, determining a plurality of associated conversion probabilities using the learning model and the plurality of bias values; and selecting, based upon the plurality of associated conversion probabilities, a content item from the plurality of content items for presentation”.
The limitations as detailed above of “identifying a first plurality of sets of event information associated with a first plurality of conversion events; filtering the first plurality of sets of event information to identify a second plurality of sets of event information and a third plurality of sets of event information, wherein the second plurality of sets of event information is associated with a plurality of typical conversion events identified from among the first plurality of conversion events and wherein the third plurality of sets of event information is associated with a plurality of outlier conversion events identified from among the first plurality of conversion events; performing, using the second plurality of sets of event information to generate a learning model; receiving, by a content serving system, a request for content associated with a client; responsive to receiving the request for content, for the plurality of content items, determining a plurality of associated conversion probabilities using the model generated using the filtered sets of conversion event information and (ii the plurality of bias values calculated based on the third plurality of sets of event information excluded from the filtered sets of conversion event information; and selecting, based on the plurality of associated conversion probabilities, a content item from the plurality of content items for presentation” , as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content.
Also, the recitation of : calculating, for a plurality of content items, a plurality of bias values associated with the plurality of content items based on the third plurality of sets of event information; and determining a plurality of associated conversion probabilities also fall within mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas as it relates to (relations, equations and/or calculations). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of “ machine learning model and client device”. The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong Two=Yes). When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the additional elements of “ machine learning model and client device”, to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computers communicating over a general purpose network (as evidenced from paragraphs 23-31 and 78); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations are considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, storing and/or transmitting data:
receiving, by a content serving system, a request for content associated with a client device ;
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e.MPEP Step 2B=No).
For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible. Same Judicial analysis is applied here to independent claims 1 and 10.
The dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 appears to merely further limit the abstract idea of Certain methods of organizing Human Activity” as it relates to mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas as it relates to (relations, equations and/or calculations). which is considered part of the abstract idea and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2B=No).
Thus, the dependent claims further narrows the abstract idea and/or recite additional elements previously rejected in the independent 1 and 11.
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter, none of the cited reference discloses the claimed features of independent of claims. As such, the examiner, has been unable to find prior art that discloses the combination of the claimed features. Thus, the claims contain subject matter that would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant to be able to overcome the Claim rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 101
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Polager et al, US Pub No: 2023/0186234 A1, teaches systems and methods for electronic determination of conversion rates
Myers et al, US Pub No: 2016/0292722 A1, teaches systems and methods for selecting an Ad campaign among advertising campaigns having multiple Bid strategies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Affaf Ahmed whose telephone number is 571-270-1835. The examiner can normally be reached on [M- R 8-6 pm ].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. 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 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.
/AFAF OSMAN BILAL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622