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
This action is in reply to the communication filed on 07/06/2026.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 07/06/2026 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 “Even assuming, for purposes of discussion, that claim 1 recites a mathematical concept or a commercial interaction at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim as a whole integrates any such concept into a practical application at Step 2A, Prong Two. The claim recites a specific way of training and using a machine-learning conversion-rate prediction model by separating conversion-event training data into different data paths, using affinity data for model training, excluding outlier data from that training, and accounting for the excluded outlier data through a separate bias calculation path at serving time. Thus, the claim is not a generic instruction to apply statistics or advertising logic on a computer, but instead recites the disclosed machine-learning training and serving arrangement reflected in the specification. MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.05(a); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567, at 8-10 (PTAB Sept. 26, 2025) (precedential). (page 3/6)”.
Examiner disagrees. MPEP 2106.04 (a) requires and explains that examiners determine if a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identified the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites the abstract idea, and (2) evaluating whether the identified specific limitations(s) fall within at least one of the three groupings of abstract ideas : Mathematical concepts MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I); Certain methods of organizing human activity MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) and Mental processes MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Here, the steps of “training and using an algorithm conversion-rate prediction model by separating conversion-event training data into different data paths, using affinity data for model training, excluding outlier data from that training, and accounting for the excluded outlier data through a separate bias calculation path at serving time”, is directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis.
Since analyzing data is part of the abstract idea itself, any improvement obtained by automating the analyzing of the data in an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matters (see SAP v. Investpic: 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, the claims as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors because they merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based on the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
In order for a claim to overcome a rejection under Step 2a, Prong 2, the purported improvement must be rooted in the “additional elements” of the claim in a manner other than merely applying the abstract idea using a “ machine learning model and/ or a predictive model”, which are general-purpose computer with generic computer components. “Additional elements” are defined as those elements of a claim that are not part of the abstract idea itself. The only “additional elements” in the claims are a computer system comprising a data store which is a general-purpose computer with generic computer components that is used as a tool to merely apply the abstract idea. As such, the “additional elements” of the claim, whether considered individually or as a whole, are incapable of transforming the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2.
The argued limitations that purportedly result in the argued improvement are all part of the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using the general-purpose computer with generic computer components. Improvements of this nature are improvements rooted solely in the abstract idea itself and are considered an improvement to an abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matter (see MPEP 2106.05(a) - “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement”; and MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) - “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology”; and the 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.).
Furthermore, 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 “ machine learning model and/ or a predictive 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.
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).
As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “Claim 1 recites the specific filtering-unit architecture and split data flow by which affinity data is used to train the conversion-rate prediction model while outlier data is excluded from training and separately routed to a bias calculation unit for use in content-serving predictions. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2025). The amended claim is likewise different from claims directed to mathematical analysis of selected information and presentation of results. The claimed bias values and conversion probabilities are not claimed in isolation as the end result of mathematical analysis. Instead, those calculations are part of the recited machine- learning training and serving architecture that defines which conversion-event records are used to generate the trained conversion-rate prediction model and separately accounts for excluded outlier records through bias values used at serving time. Accordingly, claim 1 is not analogous to claims where the asserted advance lies solely in mathematical analysis of information. SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 1167-68 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016). For at least these reasons, amended claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A because the claim as a whole integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application. If Step 2B is reached, the ordered combination of the filtering unit, affinity-data path, outlier-data path, conversion-rate prediction model training, model-data loading, bias calculation unit, and content-serving determination also provides significantly more than the alleged abstract idea for the same reasons. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is respectfully requested. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18 (2014); BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 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. Therefore, withdrawal of the rejection and allowance of the pending claims is respectfully requested. (4/6)”.
Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s arguments here are similar to the one addressed above in the proceeding section.
Also, the instant claimed invention and Bascom have different claim sets and different fact patterns. in Bascom, the Courts concluded that the claim limitation takes as an “ordered combination” under step two are an inventive concept, sufficient for patent eligibility under 35 USC 101. Because of the ordered combination elements, the claims in Bascom were considered to improve the functionality of the computer, and thus amounted to significantly more.
Unlike the arrangement in BASCOM Global Internet Services Inc. V. AT&T Mobility LLC, the instant claims do not constitute an arrangement of parts, but rather conventional machine learning. In the instant claims’ invocation of machine learning model and client device not transform the claimed subject matter into patent-eligible applications. As evident by Applicant’s specification paragraph 53 , Referring to Fig. 6, in general, machine learning training system 614 may be configured to use training data 612 to train (such as via, e.g., data labeling techniques, etc.) a conversion rate prediction (pCVR) model 618. In some embodiments, training data 612 may comprise the first plurality of sets of event information. In some embodiments, machine learning training system 614 may be configured to include filtering unit 620. As such Applicant is using a generic machine learning model to train data.
That is “Machine learning” is a burgeoning and increasingly important field and may lead to patent-eligible improvement in technology . today, we had only that patents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied , are patent ineligible under 35 USC § 101 “ Recentive Analytics v. Fox Corp”.
Furthermore, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of representative claim 1 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Under Step 2B, the claim is also analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. Although additional elements are recited, representative claim 1 merely invokes such additional elements of “filtering unit, affinity-data path, outlier-data path, conversion-rate prediction model training, model-data loading, bias calculation unit, and content-serving determination” as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e. computer) being applied on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such, an purported improvement in what the applicant calls a technical field is an improvement in ineligible subject matter. In order for an improvement to a technology or technological filed to overcome a 35 USC 101 rejection, the purported improvement must be rooted in the "additional elements" which in this case they are not. The claimed additional elements are merely a general purpose computer upon which an abstract idea is merely being applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2.
Accordingly, the instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Since representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, representative claim 1 is “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES). “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) ” . As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of representative claim 1 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO). As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. The claim rejection of claims 1-20 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 directed to a system and a method which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes). However, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea:
identifying a first plurality of sets of event information associated with a first plurality of conversion events, wherein each of the sets of event information from the first plurality of sets of event information comprises a characteristic delay time value, such that the first plurality of sets of event information characterizes a first plurality of characteristic delay time values;
iteratively calculating a value from the first plurality of characteristic delay time values;
filtering, by a filtering unit of an algorithm and based up the iteratively calculated values, training data comprising the first plurality of sets of event information to generate filtered sets of conversion event information by identifying (i) a second plurality of sets of event information for inclusion in the filtered sets of conversion event information and (ii) a third plurality of sets of event information for exclusion from the filtered sets of conversion 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;
supplying, by the filtering unit, affinity data comprising the second plurality of sets of event information to a conversion-rate prediction model of the algorithm;
supplying, by the filtering unit, outlier data comprising the third plurality of sets of event information to a bias calculation unit;
performing, using the affinity data comprising filtered sets of conversion event information including the second plurality of sets of event information and excluding the outlier data comprising the third plurality of sets of event information, to generate a trained conversion-rate prediction algorithm;
loading model data corresponding to the trained conversion-rate prediction model to the content serving system;
calculating, by the bias calculation unit and for a plurality of content items, a plurality of bias values associated with the plurality of content items based on the outlier data comprising the third plurality of sets of event information excluded from the machine learning model training;
receiving, a request for content associated;
responsive to receiving the request for content, for the plurality of content items, determining, by the content serving system, a plurality of associated conversion probabilities using (i) the trained conversion-rate prediction model corresponding to the model data loaded to the content serving system 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;
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
Also, the recitation of : calculating, by the bias calculation unit and for a plurality of content items, a plurality of bias values associated with the plurality of content items based on the outlier data comprising the third plurality of sets of event information excluded from the machine learning model training 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, server and a client device” (e.g. a general purpose computer with generic computer components) to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and one or more generic computer component.
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, storing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying data and, as such, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
receiving, by a content serving system, a request for content associated with a client device;
More The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and generic computer components performing a generic computers function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and generic computer components. 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 one or more computers, or merely uses computers 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. “PEG” Revised 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. Specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “machine learning model, server and a client device”, to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and one or more 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 one or more computers, 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 one or more general-purpose computer and generic computer components (as evidenced from paragraphs 23-31, 53-54 and 78 of the applicant’s specification) and the affinity v Direct TV decision which states that a database is a generic computer component); 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, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, displaying, storing, and/or transmitting data (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
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., “PEG” 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 claim 11.
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, based on the detailed analysis above, 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant were to be able to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections identified above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The most relevant prior the examiner has found is:
Polager et al, US Pub No: 2023/0186234 A1, teaches Consistent with disclosed embodiments, systems, methods, and computer readable media for electronically tracking conversion scores of wirelessly tagged products may be provided. Embodiments may include at least one processor configured to access a retail establishment layout having at least one location designated as a fitting room; receive via at least one wireless receiver, wireless signals from a plurality of wireless tags attached to associated products; access a data structure linking each product with a wireless tag and a product family; determine, based on the wireless signals, each product that is newly in the fitting room; for each product newly in the fitting room, increase an engagement count for the associated product family; for each product family, receive an indication of each sale and increase a sale count for the product family; and calculate, from the engagement count and the sale count, a conversion score for each product family.
Myers et al, US Pub No: 2016/0292722 A1, teaches Methods and systems are described for selecting an engaging ad campaign among advertising campaigns having different types of bid strategies. In one embodiment, an advertising system designed for selecting relevant and engaging ad campaigns for delivering to a device of a user includes an adaptive decision unit having filter logic for filtering eligible ad campaigns, a storage medium to store instructions of the system, and processing logic coupled to the storage medium. The processing logic is configured to execute the instructions of the system to receive and process an ad request from the device upon initiation of a software application on the device, filter eligible ad campaigns, convert each bid strategy of the filtered ad campaigns into an effective cost-per-mille (CPM) strategy, compare effective CPM strategies for the filtered ad campaigns, and select an ad campaign based on the comparison of the effective CPM strategies.
As thus, none of the cited reference discloses the claimed features of the independent claims 1 and 11.
Accordingly, the claims subject matter of claims 1-20 would be allowable over the prior art, if the applicant would able to overcome the claim rejections under 35 USC 101 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant' s disclosure.
Ho et al, US Pub No: 2007/0078717 A1, teaches Methods and apparatuses for sorting seller listings or advertisements of a seller network. One embodiment includes: determining an indicator of potential revenue that is expected to be generated from presentation of advertisements, based on statistical data indicating performance of the advertisements; and presenting one or more of the advertisements based at least partially on the indicator of potential revenue
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 files within TWO MONTHS from 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.
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 [ Mon-Thursday 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
Prosecution Insights