DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 09/30/2025.
Claims 5-7, 13-15, and 19-20 are canceled.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are currently amended.
Claims 1-4, 8-12, and 16-18 are currently pending and examined below.
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 1-4, 8-12, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-4, 8-12, and 16-18 is/are directed towards a statutory category (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (Step 1, Yes).
Claim 1 recites (additional elements underlined):
A system, comprising:
at least one processor; and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause the at least one processor to:
receive an impression estimation request,
determine, based on the impression estimation request, an item set including at least one item proposed to be advertised with an advertising campaign in a time period,
execute a first machine learning model on historical sales data of the item set to:
generate control sales data for the item set in the time period when the item set is sold without the advertising campaign in the time period, and
determine a control mean and a control variance of a first probability distribution of the control sales data,
obtain metadata associated with the impression estimation request, wherein the metadata comprises: a variance adjustment factor, a match rate, an impression frequency, a target sales lift for the item set with the advertising campaign, and a confidence level associated with the target sales lift,
execute two linear regression1 models on the target sales lift and the control variance to predict a test mean and a test variance, respectively, of a second probability distribution of test sales data for the item set in the time period when the item set is sold with the advertising campaign in the time period,
train a second machine learning model using output data of the first machine learning model and historical transaction data to optimize the confidence level associated with the target sales lift,
execute the second machine learning model on the control mean, the test mean, the test variance, and the metadata to:
generate a number of impressions needed to detect the target sales lift for the item set with the advertising campaign compared to the control sales data in the time period, and
transmit the estimated impression data to a computing device before the advertising campaign starts.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations outlined above that describe or set forth the abstract idea, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s). That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified below, nothing in the claim precludes the limitations from practically being performed in the mind. These limitations are considered a mental process because the limitations include an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. These limitations are also similar to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” and/or “collecting and comparing known information” which were determined to be mental processes in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). The Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). The mere nominal recitation of the additional elements identified below do not take the claims out of the mental process grouping. Therefore, the claim recite a mental process (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth an advertising/marketing activity. Advertising/marketing fall within the certain method of organizing human activity enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations outlined above also describe or set forth a fundamental economic principle or practice because advertising/marketing is related to commerce and economy, a commercial interaction (e.g., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations), and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Therefore, the claim recites a certain method of organizing human activity (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
The limitations outlined above that describe or set forth the abstract are also considered mathematical concepts at least because target sales lift for the item set with the advertising campaign is determined. These limitations are similar to “organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations” which was determined to be a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The Examiner notes that “[t]here is not particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, 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 calculation when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)). Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical concept (Step 2A Prong One, Yes).
In Step 2A Prong Two, these additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) that perform generic computer functions. The additional element(s) are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. The additional element(s) amount adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception. Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) does not integrate the judicial exception similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. “[T]he 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 pp 10-11 of FairWarning IP, LLC. v. Iatric Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The additional elements also amount to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Further, the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. The additional elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s). Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, improves any other technology or technical field, applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, applies the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses 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 claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. (Step 2A Prong Two, No).
In Step 2B, the additional elements also do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons set forth with respect to Step 2A Prong Two. The Examiner notes that revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be reevaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. The additional elements amount no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computer(s) and/or generic computer component(s) (Step 2B, No).
Claims 2-4 and 8 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 1 (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes).
Claim 2 recites the additional elements of “via a user interface”. Claims 3-4 recite the additional elements of “wherein the at least one processor is configured to”. Claim 8 recites the additional elements of “via a user interface at the computing device.” However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 9 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 9 also recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One (i.e., mathematical concept, certain method of organizing human activities, and mental processes). Claim 9 recites the additional elements of “computer-implemented”, “machine learning”, “training a second machine learning model”, and “to a computing device”. However, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 10-12 and 16 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 1 (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes).
Claims 11-12 do not recite any other additional elements other than those recited in claim 9. Therefore, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 9, claims 11-12 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 16 recites the additional elements of “via a user interface at the computing device”. However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, claim 17 also recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One (i.e., mathematical concept, certain method of organizing human activities, and mental processes). Claim 17 recites the additional elements of “A non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by at least one processor, cause at least one device to perform operations comprising”, “machine learning”, “training a second machine learning model”, and “to a computing device”. However, for the same reasons explained above with respect to claim 1, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 18 recite further limitations that also fall within the same abstract ideas identified above with respect to claim 1 (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes).
Claim 18 recites the additional elements of “wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one device to perform further operations comprising”. However, these additional elements also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more because they amount to adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Prior Art
The Examiner notes that the claims currently overcome prior art. After an exhaustive search, the Examiner was unable to find prior art that discloses or renders obvious the limitations: receiving from a computing device an impression estimation request, determining, based on the impression estimation request, an item set including at least one item proposed to be advertised with an advertising campaign, determining a target sales lift for the item set with the advertising campaign, generating estimated impression data based on the target sales lift, and transmitting the estimated impression data to the computing device. While the concepts of determining a sales forecast for an item, calculating an effectiveness of a promotion, and determining incremental lift of a product due to an advertisement are known in the prior art, the Examiner was unable to find prior art that estimates the number of advertisement impressions needed to detect a target sales lift for an item to be advertised with an advertising campaign within a reasonable amount of time. The closest prior art are the following:
Conway et al. (US 2016/0034928 A1) discloses a system and method for promotional forecasting in a retail environment. Conway also determines a lift factor for each of a plurality of promotional variables based on regression analysis of sales history information (¶ 7), a training component (¶¶ 8 and 34), receiving a request to generate projected sales from a user (¶¶ 28 and 36), weekly sales data (¶ 31), promotion duration (¶ 32), and using multiple linear regression models (¶ 42). However, as explained above, Conway does not estimate the number of advertisement impressions needed to detect a target sales lift for an item to be advertised with an advertising campaign.
Calabrese et al. (US 2021/0390578 A1) discloses a method, system, and media for estimating the causal effect of different content exposure levels.
Mudassir et al. (US 2019/0340633 A1) discloses a system and method for calculating and presenting information related to the effectiveness of a promotion.
Singhania et al. (US 2014/0244368 A1) discloses the concept of estimating production promotion sales lift.
Popescu et al. (US 2015/012081 A1) discloses a system that generates a sales forecast for an item based on sales history.
Davin et al. (US 2023/0334359 A1) discloses a system and method for determining increased value based on holdout impressions.
Kitts et al. (US 2020/0090191 A1) discloses a system and method for determining an effect that advertising has on sales.
Peris et al. (US 2021/0035163 A1) discloses a system and method for determining incremental lift.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the Remarks Applicant argues:
Argument A: “The present claims do not recite an abstract idea, but instead recite a machine learning based impression data estimation using multiple probability distributions, two linear regression models, and two machine learning models, which is not a mental process and cannot be performed by any human mind. […] The present claims are similar to Example 47, claim 3 and are patentable for similar reasons. […] Similar to Example 47, claim 3, the technical field and background sections of the present application identify the technical problem in prior systems, specifically, that a sponsor or an advertiser cannot determine the advertisement impressions needed to detect the targe sales lift before the advertising campaign starts, except based on subjective experience and random guesses. See, e.g., Specification, [0004]. Like Example 47, claim 3, the present claims recite an improvement in a technical field (in this case, the technical field of machine learning-based impression data estimation without actually running an advertising campaign, such that lots of computing resources, e.g., CPU, memory, network connections, can be saved compared to existing systems). Also similar to Example 47, claim 3, the present claims reflect technical improvements to the technical field of impression data estimation […]. These steps reflect a technical improvement by learning to estimate impression data needed to detect a target lift before even running an advertising campaign.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike in claim 3 of Example 47 which provided a technical solution to a technical problem of enhancing security by acting in real time to proactively prevent network intrusion, here the alleged improvement is entirely in the realm of the abstract idea (e.g., an improvement to the abstract idea). Unlike in DDR in which the claimed invention solved the business challenge of retaining website visitors that is particular to the Internet, here the claimed invention amounts to merely reciting the performance of a business practice (e.g., estimating advertisement impressions needed to detect sales lift) along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet. The claimed invention here is not necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. “We caution, however, that not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric challenges are eligible for patent” (see p. 22 of DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P. (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Similar to the claims in SAP, the claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter. Their subject is nothing but a series of mathematical calculations based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those calculations. The advance lies entirely in the realm of the abstract idea.
With regard to the argument that the claimed invention saves computing resources, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The computing resources required to actually run an advertising campaign is still the same. There is no improvements to the functioning of the computer if the computer is not used. Unlike in Enfish in which the claimed invention achieved other benefits over conventional databases such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements that provided improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, here the additional element are merely used as tools, in their ordinary capacity, to perform the abstract idea. “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other task (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Argument B: “In addition, Applicant respectfully submits that even if, arguendo, Applicant's independent claims could be directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, which the Office has not established and which Applicant does not concede, the claims are nevertheless patent eligible under Step 2B. The eligible Example 34 published with the 2014 Guidance (see 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility) described a claim found eligible by the Federal Circuit in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 119 USPQ2d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (BASCOM) under Step 2B. The present claims are similar to Example 34 and are patentable for similar reasons. Like the claim of Example 34, the present claims, even if reciting some known elements (e.g. machine learning models, impression data estimation, etc.), which the Office has not established and which Applicant does not concede, are directed to an inventive concept found in unconventional and non-generic combination of the alleged known elements. Also similar to the claim of Example 34, the present claims reflect a particular arrangement of elements (e.g. a first machine learning model executed to generate control mean and variance, two linear regression models executed to generate test mean and variance, a second machine learning model trained using output data of the first machine learning model and historical transaction data to optimize the confidence level, where the second machine learning model is executed on the control mean, the test mean, the test variance, and the metadata to generate the estimated impression data before and without any advertising campaign running), which results in an improvement in the technology of impression data estimation. Unlike the claimed system, previous impression data estimation cannot determine the advertisement impressions needed to detect the target sales lift before the advertising campaign starts, except based on subjective experience and random guess. As such, the present claims recite a "technology-based solution" of estimating advertisement impressions on the Internet without advertising campaign, which overcomes the disadvantages of prior art impression estimation systems. Thus like the claim of Example 34, when viewed as an ordered combination, the present claims include limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of impression estimation, and are patent eligible under Step 2B.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, unlike in Bascom in which the particular arrangement of known elements provided a technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering content, here 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 a computer, improves any other technology or technical field, applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition, applies the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses 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 claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. The claims at issue do not require any non-conventional computer, network or display components, or even a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known conventional pieces.
Second, the alleged improvement is entirely in the realm of the abstract idea. Similar to the claimed invention in SAP, the claimed invention here provides an advance in the advertising/marketing field, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.
Therefore, the claims as currently amended still do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAM REFAI whose telephone number is (313)446-4822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAM REFAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
1 The Examiner notes that linear regression can also be part of the abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One (i.e., mental process, mathematical concept, and certain method of organizing human activity).