DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to papers filed on 10/28/2025.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, while the claims herein are directed to a method and/or system, which could be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes), the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, the claims recite, in part, receiving input information corresponding to campaign requests that were received during a period of time for a user this is based on interactions, wherein the period of time is at least one of an out of budget period of time or an end of campaign period of time; determining a request metric based on the input information; determining an impression metric based on the input information; determining a missed click metric based on the input information; determining a recommended additional value for distributing additional network content for the user based on the request metric, the impression metric, and the missed click metric; generating and sending a interface to be displayed, the interface including a function that enables an interaction with the interface to apply the recommended additional value, and applying, based on the interaction with the interface, the recommended additional value to cause the additional network content to be distributed in real-time relative to the interaction with the interface.
The limitations, as drafted and detailed above, is directed towards recommendation of an advertising campaign budget based on metrics related to the campaign, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, and more particularly commercial interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements of one or more processors (claim 1), non-transitory computer readable media (claim 1), a computer system (claim 11), one or more user devices (claims 1 and 11), and graphical user interface (claims 1 and 11). The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving, determining, generating, sending, and applying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. There are no additional functional limitations to be considered under prong two.
Accordingly, the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the
judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes).
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using one or more processors (claim 1), non-transitory computer readable media (claim 1), a computer system (claim 11), one or more user devices (claims 1 and 11), and graphical user interface (claims 1 and 11) to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent- eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat' l Ass' n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computer (see Applicant specification Figures 1-3, Paragraphs 0019-0046); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility.
The dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 appear to merely limit specifics of the input information, multiplying the campaign requests by a multiplier, specifics of the multiplier, multiplying a missed request by a ratio, multiplying a missed impression by a factor, multiplying the missed click metric by a factor, updating the additional budget by a timing factor, specifics of the additional budget, and generating functions for daily and total recommended budgets, and therefore only limit the application of the idea, and not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The one or more processors (claim 1), non-transitory computer readable media (claim 1), a computer system (claim 11), one or more user devices (claims 1 and 11), and graphical user interface (claims 1 and 11) are each functional generic computer components that perform the generic functions of receiving, determining, generating, sending and applying, all common to electronics and computer systems.
Applicant's specification does not provide any indication that the one or more processors (claim 1), non-transitory computer readable media (claim 1), a computer system (claim 11), one or more user devices (claims 1 and 11), and graphical user interface (claims 1 and 11) are anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Prior art Kline (U.S. Pub No. 2006/0074746) teaches recommending increasing of a campaign budget based on historical information, but that historical information has to do with historical costs and not missed clicks (See Paragraph 0063). Likewise, none of the required metrics of the independent claim appear to be taught by Kline.
Prior art Chan (U.S. Pub No. 2012/0084125) teaches a model that gathers data pertaining to lost opportunity (specifically referenced as potential clicks that were missed) and presenting that information to an advertiser (See Paragraph 0027). However, Chan appears to leave decisions on how to adjust budget up to the advertiser, and does not discuss recommendations for additional budget being determined by the system.
Prior art Collins (U.S. Pub No. 2007/0027760) teaches an estimate tool to estimate performance with an input target monthly budget (See Paragraph 0100). The estimate graph will display the number of clicks that would theoretically be missed with the budget (See Paragraph 0101). However, this is not based on received campaign requests in an out of budget or end of campaign period of time. Likewise, none of the required metrics of the independent claim being determined from the received campaign requests appear to be taught by Collins.
Prior art Yuan (U.S. Pub No. 2015/0213481) teaches a time tuning tool that collects statistical information on performance while the campaign is live and suggests increasing or decreasing ad budgets for time periods (See Paragraphs 0052-0053). However, the performance of the campaign that is tracked has to do with how the campaign performs against peer campaigns, and does not appear to be related to missed clicks (See Paragraph 0054).
None of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, appear to teach each and every limitation recited in the independent claims. Therefore, Claims 1-20 as currently written are novel and non-obvious over prior art. However, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is currently pending and represents a barrier to allowability. Examiner notes that any amendments made to the claims in an attempt to correct pending rejections could drastically alter the claim scope and could open up the possibility of prior art being applied in a future action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues “the USPTO's August 4, 2025 Memorandum states that "[t]he specification does not need to explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, and [t]he claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification". However, the key to this portion of the August 4th 2025 memo centers around the fact that the specification must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one or ordinary skill in the art. In this particular application, the specification is only ever focused on using technology to apply the abstract idea or on an improvement to an abstract idea, which is still merely an abstract idea and ineligible. Therefore, it would not be apparent to one of ordinary skill that there would be any technological improvement from reading the specification, but rather merely an improvement to ways of budgeting an advertising campaign.
Applicant argues “Representative amended claim 1 as a whole integrates into a practical application because the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer system and the technical field of distributing network content”, and “First, it would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the claimed invention improves the functioning of the computer system by saving computing resources that a conventional computer system would need to expend for each separate request to access each individual metric used to determine whether and how to increase additional network that is provided. The claimed invention reduces the need for that by determining a recommended additional value for providing additional network content and providing a graphical user interface (GUI) that includes a function to do that just through an interaction with the GUI without having to access each individual metric. Second, it would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that the claimed invention improves the technical field of distributing network content by providing a graphical user interface (GUI) that allows to distribute the additional network content in real-time relative to an interaction with the GUI. Without the GUI, the additional network could not be distributed in real-time to when the needs arises”. However, the computer system itself is never actually improved, but rather operates as intended. The computer hardware does not become a faster or more streamlined computer due to the process. Rather, the process itself that is performed may be apparent to one skilled in the art as being faster, but that is merely the abstract idea and is not statutory. In the SAP decision (See SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), the courts found that an improvement made to the abstract idea is not patent eligible. SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because there are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract. With respect to the GUI, the same analysis is applied. The GUI operates as performed, and merely applies the abstract idea. Any improved speed is merely provided by the application of general purpose computing elements. Examiner also notes that MPEP 2106 states "the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement”. In order for a technical improvement to transform an abstract idea under Step 2a, Prong 2, the improvement must be rooted in the "additional elements". Further, only additional elements can be considered significantly more under Step 2b, which in this particular situation are all merely general purpose. And finally, Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One states that if the disclosure does not assert that it invented the "interactive interface", a generic interactive interface that provides information to and accepts user input is a generic computer element. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 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 MICHAEL BEKERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3256. The examiner can normally be reached 9PM-3PM EST M, T, TH, F.
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.
/MICHAEL BEKERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621