DETAILED ACTION
Request for Continued Examination (RCE)
A request for continued examination (RCE) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 25, 2026 has been entered.
Status
This communication is in response to Applicant’s RCE and accompanying “PRELIMINARY AMENDMENT AND RESPONSE TO FINAL REJECTION” (hereinafter “Amendment”), both of which were filed on February 25, 2026. In the Amendment, Applicant amended Claims 1 and 13; cancelled no claim(s); and added no claim(s). Claims 4 and 16 were previously cancelled. Therefore, Claims 1-3, 5-15 and 17-24 remain pending and presented for examination. Of the pending claims, Claims 1 and 13 remain independent claims.
The present application, filed after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ).
Priority/Benefit Claim
No claim(s) for benefit or priority exists in this application and, therefore, the effective filing date of this application is its filing date of January 23, 2024.
No U.S. domestic benefit claim has been made in this application.
No foreign priority has been claimed in this application.
CPC
Examiner notes the following Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) subclasses
G06Q 30/0242, G06Q 30/0244 and G06Q 30/0246 as listed below:
G06Q 30/00 Commerce
G06Q 30/02 • Marketing; Price estimation or determination; Fundraising
G06Q 30/0241 •• Advertisements
G06Q 30/0242 ••• Determining effectiveness of advertisements
G06Q 30/0244 •••• Optimization
G06Q 30/0246 •••• Traffic
Response to Amendments
A Summary of the Response to Applicant’s Amendment:
Applicant’s Amendment overcomes all previous § 112(b) rejections to Claims 13-15 and 17-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of the AIA ; therefore, the Examiner withdraws all previous § 112(b) rejections to Claims 13-15 and 17-24. However, Applicant’s Amendment introduces new § 112(b) rejections to the independent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of the AIA ; therefore, the Examiner submits the § 112(b) rejections to Claims 1-3, 5-15 and 17-24, as provided below.
Amendment does not overcome § 101 rejections to Claims 1-3, 5-15 and 17-24; therefore, the Examiner asserts/maintains § 101 rejections to Claims 1-3, 5-15 and 17-24, as provided below.
Applicant’s arguments are found to be not persuasive; please see Examiner’s “Response to Arguments” provided below.
Claim Objection
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: grammatical error since Claim 1 lacks a period. “Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period” in accordance with MPEP § 608.01(m). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the America Invents Act (AIA ):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-15 and 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the AIA as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. “A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear” (MPEP § 2173.05(e)).
Regarding independent Claims 1 and 13, since it is unclear as to what the phrases “the network” each make antecedent reference to in the independent claims, Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. In other words, there is insufficient antecedent basis for each of the phrases “the network” recited in Claims 1 and 13 (bolding emphases added by Examiner). Consequently, independent Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under § 112(b). For example, it is unclear as to whether the phrase “the network” recited in Claims 1 and 13:
references first recited “a global communication network”;
references second introduced “a network”, which may or may not include the global communication network; or
references some combination of “a global communication network” and “a network” introduced in each of Applicant’s independent claims.
For purposes of this Office action, “the network”, as recited in Claims 1 and 13, is understood to be any network. Appropriate corrections are required.
In addition, Claim 1 twice introduces the phrase “at least one client database” and, therefore, insufficient antecedent basis exists for “the at least one client database” recited in Claim 1. Consequently, Claim 1 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of the AIA . For example, it is unclear as to whether the phrase “the at least one client database” recited in Claim 1:
references first recited “at least one client database”;
references second recited “at least one client database”, which may or may not be the first recited “at least one client database”; or
references both the first and second recited “at least one client database” in Claim 1.
For purposes of this Office action, “the at least one client database”, as recited in Claim 1, is understood to be any previously recited at least one client database. In summary, since there is insufficient antecedent basis for each of the phrases “the at least one client database” recited in Claim 1, Claim 1 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of the AIA .
Appropriate corrections are required.
Furthermore regarding independent Claims 1 and 13, since it is unclear as to what the phrases “the at least one conversion rate”, “the at least one average order value” and “the at least one incremental lift rate” each make antecedent reference to in the independent claims, Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. In other words, there is insufficient antecedent basis for each of the phrases “the at least one conversion rate”, “the at least one average order value” and “the at least one incremental lift rate” recited in each of Claims 1 and 13 (bolding emphases added by Examiner). Consequently, independent Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under § 112(b).
(1) For example, it is unclear as to whether the phrase “the at least one conversion rate” recited in Claims 1 and 13:
references “at least one monthly conversion rate”;
references “at least one annual conversion rate”;
references another at least one conversion rate previously recited in Claims 1 and 13; or
references some combination of the multiple recitations of “at least one…conversion rate” in each of Applicant’s independent claims.
Appropriate corrections are required.
(2) In another example, it is unclear as to whether the phrase “the at least one average order value” recited in Claims 1 and 13:
references “at least one monthly average order value”;
references “at least one annual average order value”;
references another “at least one…average order value” previously recited; or
references some combination of the multiple recitations of “at least one…average order value” in each of Applicant’s independent claims.
Appropriate corrections are required.
(3) In yet another example, it is unclear as to whether the phrase “the at least one incremental lift rate” recited in Claims 1 and 13:
references “at least one monthly incremental lift rate”;
references “at least one annual incremental lift rate”;
references another “at least one…incremental lift rate” previously recited; or
references some combination of the multiple recitations of “at least one…incremental lift rate” in each of Applicant’s independent Claims 1 and 13.
Appropriate corrections are required.
In summary, since insufficient antecedent basis exists for each of the phrases “the at least one conversion rate”, “the at least one average order value” and “the at least one incremental lift rate” recited in independent Claims 1 and 13, Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under § 112(b) of the AIA . For purposes of this Office action, “the at least one conversion rate”, as recited in Claims 1 and 13, is understood to be any conversion rate recited in the independent claims. For purposes of this Office action, “the at least one average order value”, as recited in Claims 1 and 13, is understood to be any average order value recited in the independent claims. For purposes of this Office action, “the at least one incremental lift rate”, as recited in Claims 1 and 13, is understood to be any incremental lift rate recited in the independent claims. Appropriate corrections are required.
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 1-3, 5-15 and 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” (MPEP § 2111). In view of this standard and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, Claims 1-3, 5-15 and 17-24 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 1: Claims 1-3, 5-15 and 17-24 satisfy Step 1 enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Step 2A: Claims 1-3, 5-15 and 17-24 are rejected under § 101 because Applicant’s claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The rationale for this finding is that Applicant’s claims recite analyzing advertising performance based on various advertising metrics/scores (e.g., conversion rate, order value, lift rate, etc.) with mathematical analysis (e.g., “identifying outliers within…data based upon outlier factors… exclude the… outliers from the…data”), as more particularly recited in Applicant’s pending claims save for recited (non-abstract claim elements):
“a global communications network that is accessible by consumers”;
“a server comprising a processor, a storage device, a memory unit, and a network device”;
“at least one client database in communication with the server” via the network and comprising “client data stored” on the database;
a receiver in communication with the server via the network, the receiver comprising a display unit and an input device, wherein the display unit comprises a graphical user interface (GUI) configured to display and wherein the input device is operable by a user to select;
each of Applicant’s recited processes/operations of: receiving data, broadcasting to the receiver (via the network device for display on the display unit), providing, displaying, storing and accessing;
(only Claim 1 and corresponding dependent claims) a computer implemented system comprising: the server and the at least one database, wherein the processor is in communication with the at least one client database and the receiver via the network device, wherein the network device is configured to enable communication between the processor, the storage device, the memory unit, a network, and the at least one database.
(only Claims 2 and 14) providing access and displaying via the receiver; and
(only Claims 12 and 24) accessing a third-party digital database containing third-party data, converting the third-party data to the same format type, and broadcasting to the receiver.
However utilizing advertising metrics to analyze/score advertising performance as currently recited in Applicant’s pending claims and further explained below — see page 15 of Applicant’s September 2025 amendment noting that Applicant’s claims deal with and address “digital advertising analysis” (bolding and underlining emphases added by Examiner) — is within a certain method of organizing human activity — (i) fundamental economic principle or practice; and/or (ii) commercial interaction (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) as well as a mathematical concept {i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. Also see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I}. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) provides examples of “fundamental economic principles or practices” and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) provides additional discussion and examples of commercial or legal interactions. Applicant’s judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea exception) is not integrated into a practical application because each claim as a whole, having the combination of additional elements beyond the judicial exception(s), does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception and, therefore, the pending claims are “directed to” a judicial exception under USPTO Step 2A. More specifically, each claim as a whole does not appear to reflect the combination of additional elements as: (1) improving the functioning of a computer itself or improving another technology or technical field, (2) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine/manufacture that is integral to the claim, (3) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (4) 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. Instead, any improvement is to the underlying abstract idea of advertising performance analysis based on advertising metrics/scores (e.g., conversion rate, order value, lift rate, etc.). SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12590, Slip. Op. 13 (Fed. Cir. May 15, 2018) (“What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract realm.”). Although Applicant’s claims recite “identifying outliers within…data based upon outlier factors… exclude the… outliers from the…data”, “the outlier factors includ[ing]…a statistical extreme parameter…defined by a statistical high point and a statical low point”, identifying scores and generating scores, these techniques encompass mathematical concepts in the form of formulas, equations, and calculations which also have been determined to constitute abstract ideas. This is consistent with Applicant’s Title “AGGREGATED MEDIA PERFORMANCE CALCULATION…” (bolding emphases added by Examiner). See Memorandum, "Grouping of Abstract Ideas" and cases cited in footnote 12, such as enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (84 Fed. Reg. 50). As noted on page 4 of the “October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility” issued by the USPTO, Examiner notes that a claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of “determining” a variable or number using mathematical methods or “performing” a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim, in light of the specification, encompasses one or more mathematical calculations. Applicant’s additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not appear to be integrated into a practical application since they embody mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or mere use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, do no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., a global communications network 140 including a server 110, a receiver 130 (operable by a user) and databases 120, 150, such as illustrated in Figure 1 of Applicant’s drawings}, and amount to no more than combining the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of receiving data, broadcasting to a receiver, providing, displaying, storing and accessing, as further explained below. For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s pending claims are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) analysis of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2B: Under Step 2B enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), Applicant’s instant claims do not recite limitations, taken individually and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea because Applicant’s claims do not recite, as further explained in detail below, an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, an application with or by a particular machine, a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, unconventional steps confining the claim to a particular useful application, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Examiner also notes that albeit limitations recited in the Claims 1-3 and 5-12 are performed by the generically recited “a processor in communication with the…database” while Claims 13-15 and 17-24 are performed by the generically recited “a processor” of a server via a network device of the server, these claim limitations taken individually and in combination are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (e.g., server) and require no more than a generic computer to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., a global communications network 140 including a server 110, a receiver 130 (operable by a user) and databases 120, 150, such as illustrated in Figure 1 of Applicant’s drawings}, and no more than a combination of the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of receiving data, broadcasting to a receiver, providing, displaying, storing and accessing, as further explained below. As mentioned above, the claim elements in addition to the abstract idea arguably include:
“a global communications network that is accessible by consumers”;
“a server comprising a processor, a storage device, a memory unit, and a network device”;
“at least one client database in communication with the server” via the network and comprising “client data stored” on the database;
a receiver in communication with the server via the network, the receiver comprising a display unit and an input device, wherein the display unit comprises a graphical user interface (GUI) configured to display and wherein the input device is operable by a user to select;
each of Applicant’s recited processes/operations of: receiving data, broadcasting to the receiver (via the network device for display on the display unit), providing, displaying, storing and accessing;
(only Claim 1 and corresponding dependent claims) a computer implemented system comprising: the server and the at least one database, wherein the processor is in communication with the at least one client database and the receiver via the network device, wherein the network device is configured to enable communication between the processor, the storage device, the memory unit, a network, and the at least one database.
(only Claims 2 and 14) providing access and displaying via the receiver; and
(only Claims 12 and 24) accessing a third-party digital database containing third-party data, converting the third-party data to the same format type, and broadcasting to the receiver.
However, each of these components is recited at a high level of generality that taken individually and in combination perform corresponding generic computer functions of receiving data, broadcasting to a receiver, providing, displaying, storing and accessing — there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology since the additional elements taken individually and collectively merely provide generic computer implementations known to the industry. Furthermore, Examiner notes that none of the processes/steps recited in the pending claims taken individually and in combination impose a meaningful limit on the claim’s scope since none of recited processes/steps taken individually and in combination involve activity that amounts to more than generic computer functions/activity. The steps/processes of receiving, broadcasting, providing, displaying, storing and accessing, as currently recited individually and in combination in Applicant’s claims, are considered to be generic computer functions since they involve having the abstract idea combined with insignificant extra-solution activity, and generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use previously known to the industry — each of the steps of receiving encompasses a data input/loading or retrieving function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360; see Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716‐17; see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and see Mayo Collaborative Serv. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)}; each of the steps of accessing and identifying encompasses a data recognition/inquiry function or retrieving function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014), hereinafter “Content Extraction”, for data recognition); each of the steps of storing is a data saving or depositing function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360; Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988 (Fed. Cir. 2014), hereinafter “Cyberfone”; and Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014), hereinafter “Content Extraction”, for data storage}; and each of the steps of generating encompasses a simple mathematical/financial function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Alice Corp., Bilski, Freddie Mac, and In re Abele}; and each of the steps of broadcasting, providing and displaying encompasses a data output/transmittal function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716‐17; see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and see Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2014)}. In addition, Examiner notes that Applicant’s disclosure mentions that “any …computational unit that may be used as the processor 111 as understood by those skilled in the art…. may be configured to perform one or more method 200 aspects of an embodiment of the present invention” (quote from paragraph [0045] of Applicant’s as-filed specification), such as “exemplary process 200” illustrated in “FIGS. 2A-2D” (quoted phrases from paragraph [0039] of Applicant’s as-filed specification). Also see the “July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility” document, at page 7, second and sixth bullet points (July 30, 2015) regarding various well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computer. Employing well-known computer functions individually and in combination to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the computer-implemented abstract idea in Flook (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 19 U.S.P.Q. 193 (1978)) to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s pending claims do not satisfy Step 2B enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Consequently, based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, Claims 1-3, 5-15 and 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. For information regarding 35 U.S.C. 101, please see Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) guidance and instructional materials at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility, which includes guidance, memoranda, and updates regarding SME under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
No information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed in this application.
Applicant is notified of 37 CFR 1.51(d): “Applicants are encouraged to file an information disclosure statement in nonprovisional applications.”
Applicant is also notified of 37 C.F.R. 1.56, which states that each inventor named in the application has a duty to disclose information material to patentability.
Applicant is notified of MPEP § 2001.06(b): “prior art references from one application must be made of record in another subsequent application if such prior art references are ‘material to patentability’ of the subsequent application”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Amendment filed on February 25, 2026, have been fully considered and are not persuasive in view of the § 112(b) rejections listed above.
Applicant's Arguments in the Amendment
(Pages 11-14) Applicant asserts that the pending claims, as currently amended, are drawn to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner’s Response to Applicant's Arguments
Please see updated/modified § 101 rejections above in view of the § 112(b) rejections regarding pending claims being drawn to ineligible subject matter in view of considering all relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole including amended portions of the independent claims.
September 2025: On pages 14-15 of Applicant’s amendment filed on September 8, 2025, Applicant argued that the 2025 claims “recite specific technical improvements to digital advertising analysis systems” (page 14) via “generating seasonal factors based on client data” such as to “determine a conversion rate seasonal factor based on…monthly conversion rate and at least one annual conversion rate”. However, Examiner noted that Applicant’s 2025 claims did not disclose any improvements or inventive concepts rooted in technology. “Generating seasonal factors based on client data” such as to “determine a conversion rate seasonal factor based on…monthly conversion rate and at least one annual conversion rate” amounted to no more than an improvement to an underlying abstract idea of advertising performance analysis using advertising rates/metrics/scores. Similarly, “outlier detection and exclusion” such as to “identify outliers included in the client data 151 and/or the client data subsets based upon outlier factors” as well as “identifying and removing data points”, as argued by Applicant on page 14 of the September 2025 amendment, was merely a mathematical concept that improved nothing more than Applicant’s underlying abstract idea. “What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract realm”. In addition, “generating seasonal factors for multiple metrics” such as to “determine an average order value seasonal factor based on… monthly average order value and… annual average order value”, as argued by Applicant on page 15 of the September 2025 amendment, encompassed merely utilizing a mathematical concept to improve nothing more than Applicant’s underlying abstract idea. While it may be true that Applicant’s “described technical processing addresses…problems in digital advertising analysis” (quoted from page 15 of the September 2025 amendment with bolding and underlining emphases added by Examiner), Examiner noted that none of Applicant’s 2025 claims were required to improve any computer related technology or to improve upon the functioning of the computer itself. In another words, Applicant’s 2025 claims did not disclose any improvements or inventive concepts rooted in technology. Consequently, Applicant's arguments constituted no more than a general allegation that the 2025 claims provides a plurality of improvements under § 101.
February 2026: Applicant generally argues on pages 12-13 of Applicant’s Amendment filed on February 25, 2026, that the pending claims recite “advertising carried out on a global communications network” (page 12) and “ ‘…advertising carried out on the global communications network,’ thereby tying the claimed system to a specific technological environment and application” (quote extracted from page 13 of Applicant’s 2026 Amendment). However, However, Examiner notes receiving or transmitting data over a network (e.g., “Internet” per Applicant’s specification), e.g., using the Internet to gather data has been recognized by courts to be computer functions that are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions as claimed individually and collectively in each of Applicant's pending claims (see sixth bullet point on page 7 of the “July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility” document, under § IV. (July 30, 2015)). Employing well-known computer functions individually and in combination to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more. Using a global communications network and “a server comprising a processor, a storage device, a memory unit, and a network device” and “at least one client database in communication with the server” via the network and comprising “client data stored” on the database is simply a network of information accessible via an internet portal, i.e. a mere application of an abstract concept to a technological field, and is not a technical improvement of the Internet (i.e. the underlying technology). See filed spec. para. [0042] that “The network 140 may comprise … any other communication network … communication to, from, and between the server 110…the receiver 130, and the at least one client database 150 as understood by those skilled in the art” (bolding and underlining emphases added). The recited “receiver” may comprise a “touch-screen display, game controller, joystick, track pad, speech recognition device, and any other input component … that is operable by a user to input selections to and with the receiver 130 as understood by those skilled in the art” (bolding and underlining emphases added). Applicant’s additional elements, taken individually and in combination, are not integrated into a practical application since they embody mere use of generic computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and do no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Furthermore, Applicant generally argues that “The claims recite a specific improvement… by providing … normalized performance analytics across different metrics using metric-specific seasonal factors” (page 13 of Feb. 2026 Amendment) and “the presently claimed invention provides a… system[] that provides … normalized performance analytics across different metrics using metric-specific seasonal …” (page 14 of Feb. 2026 Amendment). However, Examiner notes that such alleged improvements or inventive concepts are not rooted in computer technology, but instead are no more than an improvement to the underlying abstract idea of advertising performance analysis using advertising rates/metrics/scores. Similarly, “specific processing steps of determining metric-specific seasonal factors, identifying outliers based on outlier factors”, as argued by Applicant on page 13 of Applicant’s February 2026 amendment, is merely a mathematical concept that improves nothing more than Applicant’s underlying abstract idea. Applicant’s claims do not disclose any improvements or inventive concepts rooted in technology. “What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract realm”. While it may be true that Applicant’s “described technical processing addresses…problems in digital advertising analysis” (quote from page 15 of the 2025 amendment), Examiner notes that none of Applicant’s pending claims are required to improve any computer related technology or to improve upon the functioning of the computer itself.
In view of the 112(b) issues above, Examiner notes that Applicant’s pending claims are properly rejected under § 101.
Examiner Notes
Since correspondence incoming to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is electronically stored and scanned as black and white images, a dark color with sufficient resolution is required so that each scanned image is legible. This requires a high contrast, with black graphics or text, and a white background. Gray or low-resolution text and lines sharply reduces reproduction quality and, therefore, the Examiner kindly requests that Applicant submit future amended language (e.g., "Track Changes" text) using a “black and white” color with high-resolution when corresponding with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The Office will not accept future non-compliant amendments.
Conclusion
The following references are considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, and are being made of record albeit the references are not relied upon as a basis for rejection in this Office action:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0380047 of Epstein et al. (hereinafter “Epstein”) for “determine the top matching keywords based thereon; wherein the relevancy prediction information comprises at least one of time of session, date of session, geo location, keyword match type, keyword class, publisher class, publisher ID, keyword ID, Adgroup ID, Adcopy ID, partial query length, partial query to keyword levenshtein distance, partial query to keyword Jaro similarity, organic ranking, publisher ID Click-Through Rate (CTR), publisher class CTR, keyword class CTR, keyword ID CTR, Adgroup ID CTR, Adcopy ID CTR, bid price, user device class, search frequency, historical performance, average order value (AOV), and conversion rate (CVR).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0221090 of Li et al. (hereinafter “Li”) for “a wide variety of data is used to both calculate conversion likelihood scores for each user and to determine an extent of similarity, e.g. a similarity score, between the various users. A blended score is determined for each user. The blended score takes into account both the conversion likelihood score for that user and also the conversion likelihood scores for other users that may be substantially similar to the given user, where the conversion likelihood scores for the similar users are weighted in accordance with a degree of similarity between the user and the similar user, for example, as expressed by the similarity score. The users with the highest blended score may then be targeted” —Li at ¶ [0032].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0106103 of Milana et al. (hereinafter “Milana”) for “Click Conversion Score” —Title of Milana.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0154717 of Saifee et al. (hereinafter “Saifee”) for “a publisher scoring algorithm. Various factors or variables are analyzed for publishers to determine a score associated with the publishers. The score may be a reflection of the success or value a publisher provides to an advertisement provider or an advertiser” —Abstract of Saifee.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0016473 of Anderson et al. (hereinafter “Anderson”) for “present invention concerns selecting and/or scoring content-relevant advertisements ("ads")” —Anderson at ¶ [0002]; and “Estimated or known performance parameters (e.g., selection rates, conversion rates, etc.) for the ad group may be considered in helping determine the best scoring ad group(s). Targeting criteria associated with the best scoring ad group(s) can be used as "criteria" to determine a final set of ads.” —Anderson at ¶ [0009].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mathew Syrowik whose telephone number is 313-446-4862. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 8:30 AM to 4:00 PM (Eastern Time). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf, can be reached at telephone number 517-270-3948. 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 Patent Center. Status information of published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information of unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, please contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free) or by email at EBC@uspto.gov. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conference using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, please email Mathew.Syrowik@USPTO.gov or applicant may use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form. For additional information or questions, please contact the Inventors Assistance Center at 1-800-786-9199 (toll free), 571-272-1000 (local), or 1-800-877-8339 (TDD/TTY).
/Mathew Syrowik/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights