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
1. This is in response to the applicant's communication filed on 11/21/2025, wherein:
Claims 1, 3-10 and 12-19 are pending. Claims 1, 10 and 19 has been amended. Claims 2 and 11 have been canceled by the Applicant.
Examiner Notes:
2. As indicated in previous OA, Independent claims 1, 10 and 19 as a whole recites a combination of limitations that have been found as novelty {the combination of the closest prior art of record {the combination of Rosen et al; (US 2022/0172247 A1), Goldberg et al; (US 2015/0019323 A1), and Woolf; (US 2023/0259695 A1)} teaches elements of the claimed invention. However, it would be hind-sight reasoning to combine the individual elements disclosed in the prior-art in order to achieve Applicant's claimed invention.
However, amended independent claims 1, 10, 19 and their dependency are still rejected under 101 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.
3. The claimed invention (Claims 1, 3-10 and 12-19) is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract ideas including “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, and/or “Mental Processes” which has/have been identified/found by the courts as abstract ideas in MPEP 2106.04(a). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because It/they is/are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications:
4. Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a statutory Category?
Claims 1-9: Yes, these claims are method, and therefore are directed to the statutory class of process.
Claims 10-18 Yes, these claims are system, which recites a hardware processor….; machine learning classifier…., and therefore are directed to the statutory class of machine and article of manufacture.
Claim 19: No, Independent claim 19 states "a computer-readable medium…….”. This can broadly be interpreted as encompassing a signal. See the David Kappos memo titled “Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media” dated 1/26/2010 and available at: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/notices/101_crm_20100127.pdf. Adding “non-transitory” media should remedy this 101 issue. For example, amending to state “a non-transitory computer-readable medium…” should fix this 101 issue.
5. Step 2A prong 1, Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B:
Independent claim 10 (Step 2A, Prong I): is directed to an abstract idea of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, and/or “Mental Processes”:
Claim 10, limitations 2-5 of receive a plurality of brand sentiments associated with a first advertiser (limitation 1); identify a position of the at least one dynamic advertising region in the webpage and at least one content item shown in proximity to the at least one dynamic advertising region (limitation 2); determine (i) a plurality of sentiments for the at least one content item shown in proximity to the at least one dynamic advertising region; (ii) a plurality of similarity scores, wherein each similarity score is a probability that a sentiment from the plurality of sentiments for the at least one content item is similar to a sentiment from the plurality of brand sentiments; and (iii) an aggregate similarity score based on the plurality of similarity scores (limitation 4); in response to determining that the aggregate similarity score is within a first range of predetermined values, generate an approval list associated with the first advertiser that includes the webpage (limitation 5); and transmit one or more bids for placing an advertisement within the at least one dynamic advertising region based on the generated approval list (limitation 6) fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea because these steps mainly describe the concepts of commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions).
In addition, limitation 2 mentioned above of “identify a position of the at least one dynamic advertising region in the webpage and at least one content item shown in proximity to the at least one dynamic advertising region” also falls within the abstract “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas since this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a human being can observing/evaluating/analyzing the webpage in order to identify a position of the at least one dynamic advertising region and at least one content item shown in proximity to the at least one dynamic advertising region.
Independent claim 10, Step 2A (Prong II): Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea(s) as pointed out above. This judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements (e.g., a/the hardware processor of a server device, a machine learning classifier executing on the server device; an advertising network…) to perform abstract steps/limitations 2-6 mentioned above. The additional element(s) in all of the steps is/are -recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using a generic computer component (e.g., a/the hardware processor of a server device, a machine learning classifier executing on the server device; an advertising network….…); thus, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in claim 10, limitation 1-2 and 6 of accessing a webpage that contains at least one dynamic advertising region via a hardware processor (limitation 1); and receive a plurality of brand sentiments associated with a first advertiser via a hardware processor of a server device (limitation 2 ); and transmit one or more bids to an advertising network for placing an advertisement within the at least one dynamic advertising region based on the generated approval list via a hardware processor of the server device (limitation 6) are merely receiving data/ gathering data, and transmitting data/sending data which are considered as “insignificant extra solution activity”; thus, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Again, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components (e.g., a/the hardware processor of a server device, a machine learning classifier executing on the server device; an advertising network……) to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; thus, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For the above-mentioned reasons, viewed the claim as a whole, the additional elements/additional limitations individually and in combination do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Independent claim 10 (step 2B): The additional element in claim 10 (e.g., a/the hardware processor of a server device, a machine learning classifier executing on the server device; an advertising network… …) is/are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications; thus, it is/they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. In other word, the additional element(s) “a/the hardware processor of a server device, a machine learning classifier executing on the server device; an advertising network….…” is/are amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) of steps/limitations 2-6 mentioned above. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in claim 10, the limitation 1-2 and 6 of accessing a webpage that contains at least one dynamic advertising region via a hardware processor (limitation 1); and receive a plurality of brand sentiments associated with a first advertiser via a hardware processor of a server device (limitation 2 ); and transmit one or more bids to an advertising network for placing an advertisement within the at least one dynamic advertising region based on the generated approval list via a hardware processor of the server device (limitation 6) are merely receiving data/ gathering data, and transmitting data/sending data which are considered as “insignificant extra solution activity”. Thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea(s). See MPEP 2106.05(g).
When revaluating the limitation 1-2 and 6 of accessing a webpage that contains at least one dynamic advertising region via a hardware processor (limitation 1); and receive a plurality of brand sentiments associated with a first advertiser via a hardware processor of a server device (limitation 2 ); and transmit one or more bids to an advertising network for placing an advertisement within the at least one dynamic advertising region based on the generated approval list via a hardware processor of the server device (limitation 6) in step 2B here, the receiving data/ gathering and transmitting data/sending data are also well-understood, routine and conventional activities. The use of generic computer to store information, transmit/display information/data and receive/gather information/data through an unspecified generic computer does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea, and is/are considered as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. According to MPEP 2106.05 (d), elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields are e.g., "Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93”.
Thus, evidences has been provided to show these additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity according to MPEP 2106.07 (a) (III). Therefore, for the above-mentioned reasons, viewed as a whole, even in combination, the above additional steps/additional elements/additional limitations do not amount to significantly more/do not provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
As per independent claims 1 and 19: Alice Corp. also establishes that the same/similar analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, a method claim 1 and a computer-readable medium claim 19 are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same/similar reasons as the method claim(s) 10. The additional components (i.e., a/the hardware processor of a server device; a machine learning classifier executing on the server device; an advertising network; a computer-readable medium containing computer executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform….…..) described in independent claims 1 and 19 add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. Again, these additional components are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications; thus, it is/they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). At best, the claim(s) 1 and 19 are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3-9 and 12-18 are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claims 1 and 10 without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As the result, looking at the limitations/steps/additional elements as an ordered combinations adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. Therefore, dependent claims 3-9 and 12-18 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Prior Art that is pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure
6. The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rosen et al; (US 2022/0172247 A1), wherein teaches A method and an information processing apparatus for classifying subject matter of content in a webpage are described. The method comprises receiving a webpage, extracting content from the webpage and identifying keywords from the extracted content. The keywords are identified based on keywords contained in a taxonomy stored by the information processing apparatus that associates the keywords with categories of subject matter. The information processing apparatus assigns an importance score to the keywords identified from the extracted content. Context scores associated with categories or subcategories of subject matter within the taxonomy are calculated based on the importance scores of the identified keywords. The content is classified as being associated with the category of subject matter based on the context scores.
Goldberg et al; (US 2015/0019323 A1), wherein teaches in para 0008: In Block 200 of FIG. 2, Advertiser 105 of FIG. 1 initiates an online advertising campaign with the goal of promoting their content, product or service to the maximum degree possible. In addition, Advertiser 105 defines the attributes of an audience who has a heightened interest in their content, product or service, and thus is susceptible to their advertisements. In Block 202, Media agency 110 creates the advertising campaign in accordance with Advertiser 105's targeted consumer attributes. In Block 204 Supply Side Platform (SSP) 125 determines audience reach of publishers on their platform using data from Publisher 140 and DMP 120, and obtains ad space availability, along with the specifications of the ad space, from publishers. These specifications may include the size of the available ad space, the location of the ad space with respect to other web page elements, and the content being published in the space located adjacent to and surrounding the available ad space, among others. In the example of FIGS. 1 and 2 this information is communicated to DSP 115 through DMP 120. Going through DMP 120 provides the opportunity for DMP-120 to augment the information with processed data and data from Data Sources 150 before it is communicated to DSP 115. Such processed data may include an analysis of consumer data collected from appliance users who have previously visited the publisher's website, an analysis of the demographics of the audience usually served by the publisher, an analysis of the possible affect on the advertiser's brand by the content in close proximity to the location of the available ad space, and an analysis of how advertising content and content layout can be optimized for effectiveness in the available ad space. In Block 206 DSP 115 determines an appropriate advertising campaign publisher utilizing the ad campaign received from Media Agency 110, and data from DMP 120. In Block 208 Ad Exchange 130 manages negotiations between DSP 115 and SSP 125 for the buying of ad space from a publisher on the SSP. At the conclusion of negotiations, DSP 115 selects a publisher to publish the ad campaign. In the example of FIGS. 1 and 2 Publisher 140 is selected. DSP 115 then delivers the ad campaign to Ad Exchange 130, Ad Exchange 130 delivers the ad campaign to Content Delivery Network 135 and Publisher 140 delivers the available ad space to Content Delivery Network 135, as shown in Block 210. In Block 212 Content Delivery Network combines the ad campaign from Ad Exchange 130 with the ad space from Publisher 140 and delivers the result to Publisher 140. The combined ad campaign and ad space is then published by Publisher 140 to the Web in Block 214 and the appliance user views the web published ad campaign on Network Connected Appliance 145 in Block 216.
Woolf; (US 2023/0259695 A1), wherein teaches A content selection platform for selecting content for display on a webpage, comprising the steps of: identifying webpage data, webpage data being data presented on a webpage; analyzing the webpage data; retrieving content related to the webpage data from a content database; and, providing the retrieved content in order that the retrieved content to be inserted into the webpage for display at a display position on the webpage.
Canney et al; (US 12,026740 B1), wherein teaches The present disclosure relates to systems and methods for tracking content across multiple content outlets. Content items, characterized by first metadata, and content slots, characterized by second metadata, can be received. Third metadata for digital content slots can be generated. Fourth metadata can be received. A recommended content item package can be provided based on a comparison between a combination of the first metadata, the second metadata, and the third metadata and the fourth metadata. The recommended content item package can include a content file and a metadata file. A performance and a measurement of the recommended content item package can be determined by executing the metadata file to track the content file across one or more of the content slots and the potential digital content slots. The performance and the measurement can be provided.
Richman et al; (US 2013/0054356 A1), wherein teaches Contextualization services may deliver an advertisement to display on or within the real estate or boundaries of an image on a page being loaded. An agent on the client may contextualize a page being loaded or displayed to identify and send contextual data to the contextualization service of the server. The page may be designed, configured or constructed for placement of an advertisement as part of or over an image on the part, such as a footer of the advertisement. The contextualization service may use the contextual data to select a campaign from a plurality of campaigns to deliver an advertisement for the image. Based on the selected campaign, the contextualization service may send an advertisement to the agent for display as part of the image on the page. Instead of having an advertisement predetermined or fixed prior to the display of the image on the page, the present solution dynamically contextualizes the page and/or the image at the point of loading or displaying the page and the contextualization is based on the content of the page being loaded/displayed.
Marcus et al; (US 2014/0195329 A1), wherein teaches Systems, methods, and media for presenting an advertisement are provided. In some embodiments, systems for presenting an advertisement are provided, the systems comprising: at least one hardware processor that: receives information relating to an advertisement space; determines at least one score for each of a plurality of segments for a potential advertisement for the advertisement space; selects a segment from the plurality of segments for the advertisement space based on the at least one score for the plurality of segments; selects an advertisement for the segment selected; and causes the advertisement to be presented in the advertisement space.
Attenberg et al; (US 2012/0010927 A1), wherein teaches Systems, methods, and media for rating websites for safe advertising are provided. In accordance with some embodiments of the disclosed subject matter, the method comprises: extracting one or more features from a piece of web content; applying a plurality of statistical models to the extracted features to generate a plurality of ordinomial estimates, wherein each ordinomial estimate represents a probability that the web content is a member of one of a plurality of severity groups; determining a posterior ordinomial estimate for the web content by combining the plurality of ordinomial estimates; generating a risk rating that encodes severity and confidence based on the determined posterior ordinomial estimate, wherein the risk rating identifies whether the web content is likely to contain objectionable content of a given category; and providing the risk rating for determining whether an advertisement should be associated with the web content.
Simmons et al; (US 2012/0323674 A1), wherein teaches In embodiments of the present invention, improved capabilities are described for creating and using Synthetic User Identifiers within an advertising analytic platform for the purpose of targeting the placement of advertising within an available channel based at least in part on Synthetic User Identifier information.
Gross et al; (US 2013/0226690 A1), wherein teaches A system and method searches, identifies, tests and/or evaluates websites and content related ads for suitability. The results can be used to target ads more effectively to users and identify and promote services to prospective advertising affiliates as part of an advertising campaign.
Henkin et al; (US 2010/0138452 A1), wherein teaches Various techniques are disclosed for facilitating on-line contextual analysis and/or advertising operations implemented in a computer network. According to some embodiments, various aspects may be used for enabling advertisers to provide contextual advertising promotions to end-users based upon real-time analysis of web page content which may be served to an end-user's computer system. In at least one embodiment, the information obtained from the real-time analysis may be used to select, in real-time, contextually relevant information, advertisements, and/or other content which may then be displayed to the end-user, for example, via real-time insertion of textual markup objects and/or dynamic content. According to specific embodiments, various operations may be performed for adapting or modifying a conventional context-based advertising systems to improve various features such as, for example, ad relevance estimation, click-through rate estimation, advertisement selection and layout, balancing exploration and exploitation, etc.
Further, see additional references cited in PTO-892.
Response to Arguments
7. The Office respectfully submits that Applicant’s arguments regarding about 101 have been fully considered. However, they are not they are not persuasive. Please see the Office’s responses back to the Applicant below.
8. Responding back to the Applicant’s arguments regarding 101 on pages 8-11 of the Applicant’s remarks:
On pages 9-10, Applicant argued: “Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 1 was amended to more particularly recite the features of (1) "determining, using a machine learning classifier executing on the server device, (i) a plurality of sentiments for the at least one content item shown in proximity to the at least one dynamic advertising region; (ii) a plurality of similarity scores, wherein each similarity score is a probability that a sentiment from the plurality of sentiments for the at least one content item is similar to a sentiment from the plurality of brand sentiments; and (iii) an aggregate similarity score based on the plurality of similarity scores," (2) "generating, using the processor of the server device, an approval list associated with the first advertiser that includes the webpage"; "in response to determining that the aggregate similarity score is within a first range of predetermined values," and (3) "transmitting, using the processor of the server device, one or more bids to an advertising network for placing an advertisement within the at least one dynamic advertising region based on the generated approval list."……..It is plainly apparent from the language of the claim that such a method is clearly not a) mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations); b) certain methods of organizing human activity; and c) mental processes. Therefore, the claims are directed to patentable subject matter.”
The Office’s response: However, the Office respectfully submits the limitations that the Applicant are referring above {e.g., determining (i) a plurality of sentiments for the at least one content item shown in proximity to the at least one dynamic advertising region; (ii) a plurality of similarity scores, wherein each similarity score is a probability that a sentiment from the plurality of sentiments for the at least one content item is similar to a sentiment from the plurality of brand sentiments; and (iii) an aggregate similarity score based on the plurality of similarity scores," (2) "generating an approval list associated with the first advertiser that includes the webpage"; "in response to determining that the aggregate similarity score is within a first range of predetermined values," and (3) "transmitting, one or more bids for placing an advertisement within the at least one dynamic advertising region based on the generated approval list} are abstract idea, which fall under the subgroup of “advertising, marketing” from the abstract idea group of “Commercial or legal interaction”, belongs to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea.
As indicated above under 101’s rejection in claim 10 (the same hold true for claims 1 and 19) in Step 2A Prong 1, the limitations 2-5 of receive a plurality of brand sentiments associated with a first advertiser (limitation 1); identify a position of the at least one dynamic advertising region in the webpage and at least one content item shown in proximity to the at least one dynamic advertising region (limitation 2); determine (i) a plurality of sentiments for the at least one content item shown in proximity to the at least one dynamic advertising region; (ii) a plurality of similarity scores, wherein each similarity score is a probability that a sentiment from the plurality of sentiments for the at least one content item is similar to a sentiment from the plurality of brand sentiments; and (iii) an aggregate similarity score based on the plurality of similarity scores (limitation 4); in response to determining that the aggregate similarity score is within a first range of predetermined values, generate an approval list associated with the first advertiser that includes the webpage (limitation 5); and transmit one or more bids for placing an advertisement within the at least one dynamic advertising region based on the generated approval list (limitation 6) fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea because these steps mainly describe the concepts of commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
Specifically, the claimed invention fall within the Abstract idea of “advertising, marketing” from the abstract idea group of “Commercial or legal interaction” ( “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”) because the abstract limitations mentioned above in claim 10 (the same hold true for claim 1 and 19) mainly describes determining a brand advertisement of the advertiser to place/allocate within an advertisement region in a webpage by: identifying a position of the advertisement region on a webpage, and a content item shown in proximity to the advertisement region; determining a plurality of sentiments (e.g., brand name, logo…etc., as indicated in Applicant’s publication US 2024/0257187 A1, para 0043) for the content item shown in proximity to the advertising region; determining a plurality of similar scores, wherein each similarity score is a probability that a sentiment from the plurality of sentiments for the content item (shown in proximity to the advertising region) is similar to a sentiment from the plurality of brands sentiments from the advertiser; determining an aggregate similarity score based on the plurality of similarity score; in response to determining that the aggregate similarity score is within a predetermined values, generate an approval associated with the advertiser; and transmitting one or more bids for placing an advertisement within the advertising region based on the generated approval list.
In addition, as mentioned above under 101’s rejection in Step 2A prong 1 of claim 10, limitation 2 mentioned above of “identify a position of the at least one dynamic advertising region in the webpage and at least one content item shown in proximity to the at least one dynamic advertising region” also falls within the abstract “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas since this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a human being can observing/evaluating/analyzing the webpage in order to identify a position of the at least one dynamic advertising region and at least one content item shown in proximity to the at least one dynamic advertising region.
For, the above mentioned reasons, the Office respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion that “It is plainly apparent from the language of the claim that such a method is clearly not……b) certain methods of organizing human activity; and c) mental processes”.
Furthermore, please note again that the additional elements (see Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B above under 101’s rejection) in claim 10 (the same hold true for claims 1 and 19) such as (e.g., a hardware processor of a server device, a machine learning classifier executing on the server device; an advertising network….) are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using a generic computer component (e.g., a hardware processor of a server device, a machine learning classifier executing on the server device; an advertising network.…); thus, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in claim 10, limitation 1-2 and 6 of accessing a webpage that contains at least one dynamic advertising region via a hardware processor (limitation 1); and receive a plurality of brand sentiments associated with a first advertiser via a hardware processor of a server device (limitation 2 ); and transmit one or more bids to an advertising network for placing an advertisement within the at least one dynamic advertising region based on the generated approval list via a hardware processor of the server device (limitation 6) are merely receiving data/ gathering data, and transmitting data/sending data which are considered as “insignificant extra solution activity”; thus, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). For the above-mentioned reasons, viewed the claim as a whole, the additional elements/additional limitations individually and in combination do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application, and are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
On page 10, Applicant further argued: “However, even if the claims were directed to an abstract idea (which applicant does not concede), amended claim 1 recites: "determining, using a machine learning classifier executing on the server device, (1) a plurality of sentiments for the at least one content item shown in proximity to the at least one dynamic advertising region; (ii) a plurality of similarity scores, wherein each similarity score is a probability that a sentiment from the plurality of sentiments for the at least one content item is similar to a sentiment from the plurality of brand sentiments; and (iii) an aggregate similarity score based on the plurality of similarity scores," "generating, using the processor of the server device, an approval list associated with the first advertiser that includes the webpage" "in response to determining that the aggregate similarity score is within a first range of predetermined values," and "transmitting, using the processor of the server device, one or more bids to an advertising network for placing an advertisement within the at least one dynamic advertising region based on the generated approval list." Applicant respectfully submits that these limitations, in combination with the other limitations of amended claim 1, amount to significantly more than the allegedly abstract idea identified by the Examiner.”
The Office’s response: The Office respectfully submits that looking at Applicant arguments above, many of these claimed features/limitations {e.g., determining (1) a plurality of sentiments for the at least one content item shown in proximity to the at least one dynamic advertising region; (ii) a plurality of similarity scores, wherein each similarity score is a probability that a sentiment from the plurality of sentiments for the at least one content item is similar to a sentiment from the plurality of brand sentiments; and (iii) an aggregate similarity score based on the plurality of similarity scores," "generating, an approval list associated with the first advertiser that includes the webpage" "in response to determining that the aggregate similarity score is within a first range of predetermined values," and "transmitting one or more bids for placing an advertisement within the at least one dynamic advertising region based on the generated approval list”} that were called “Abstract Idea(s) by the Office in Step 2A Prong 1 in the previous office action and also in 101 rejection above are said to be “amount to be significantly more” (additional elements in Step 2B) by the Applicant. The Office respectfully disagrees.
According to MPEP 2106.05(II): “Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Examiners should answer this question by first identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s))…..”. According to MPEP 2106.05(I)(A): “Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).”
As already pointed out under 101 rejection in Step 2A prong 2 and step 2B in claim 10 (the same hold true for claim 1 and 19), the additional elements/additional limitations {e.g., a/the hardware processor of a server device, a machine learning classifier executing on the server device; an advertising network…} are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; and the additional elements/additional limitations {e.g., accessing a webpage that contains at least one dynamic advertising region via a hardware processor (limitation 1); and receive a plurality of brand sentiments associated with a first advertiser via a hardware processor of a server device (limitation 2 ); and transmit one or more bids to an advertising network for placing an advertisement within the at least one dynamic advertising region based on the generated approval list via a hardware processor of the server device (limitation 6)} are merely receiving data/ gathering data, and transmitting data/sending data, which are considered as Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial. Therefore, these additional elements are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea/judicial exception. Further, when viewed the claim as a whole, these additional elements individually and in combination do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide inventive concept/ significantly more. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
For the above mentioned reasons, the Office respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion that “…..these limitations, in combination with the other limitations of amended claim 1, amount to significantly more than the allegedly abstract idea identified by the Examiner.”
On page 10, Applicant further asserted: “ Applicant also respectfully submits that, in light of these proposed amendments, the Examiner's rejection does not address all of the features of the claims as amended. Accordingly, the Examiner's rejection is moot with respect to the currently recited claims.”
The Office’s response: However, the Office respectively submit that the Office has walked through carefully and explained in details (Step 2A: Prong 1 and 2, and step 2B) with respect to actual amended claim limitations (individually as well as in combination) of why they are an “abstract idea, not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and not significantly more” based on MPEP 2106.04(a); MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(g); MPEP 2106.07(a) (III). See the details under 101 rejection above.
For the above-mentioned reasons, rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 for independent claim 10 still remain and/or given. Claims 1 and 19 recite similar features/limitations as in claim 12; thus, are rejected under 101 for the same/similar reasons as in claim 8. Dependent claims are dependent of their base claims 1 and 10. Applicant did not have any further argument for the dependent claims beyond their dependency on the independent claim, which have been addressed above. Therefore, the rejections on these claims remain and/or given.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thuy Nguyen whose telephone number is 571-272-4585 and fax number is 571-273-4585. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri, 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Hajime Rojas can be reached on 571-270-5491. The FAX number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-4585.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 1866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/THUY N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681