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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/26/2025 has been entered.
This is a Non-Final Office Action in response to the RCE filed. Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, and 18 are amended. Claims 7, 14, and 20 were previously cancelled. Therefore, Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 are pending addressed below.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that the limitations “so as to support online advertising with real-time performance-based ad ranking and recommendation” are intended results and given little patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 4, 8-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 recite, “the supply data is associated with a user and context information related to a display ad opportunity associated with the ad auction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the underlined limitation. Therefore, claims 2 and 9 are indefinite. For purpose of examination this limitation will be interpreted as “the supply data is associated with a user and context information related to a display ad opportunity associated with an ad auction”. Examiner suggests amending as such.
Claim 4 recites, “computing the predicted performance metric for the candidate ad via low rank field weighted factorization machines comprises”. It is unclear to which “the candidate ad” this limitation is referring because claim 4 depends on claim 1 and claim 1 recites, “computing the predicted performance metric for each of the plurality of candidate ads”. Therefore, claim 4 is indefinite. For purpose of examination this limitation will be interpreted as ““computing the predicted performance metric for each of the plurality of the candidate ads via low rank field weighted factorization machines comprises”. Examiner suggests amending as such.
Claim 11 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 4.
Claim 8 recites, “A machine readable and non-transitory medium having information recorded thereon for online advertising with real-time performance-based advertisement ranking and recommendation, wherein the information, when read by the machine.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the underlined limitation. Therefore, claim 8 is indefinite. For purpose of examination this limitation will be interpreted as “A machine readable and non-transitory medium having information recorded thereon for online advertising with real-time performance-based advertisement ranking and recommendation, wherein the information, when read by a machine.” ”. Examiner suggests amending as such.
Claims 9-13 are also rejected because of their dependencies on claim 8.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 6 recites, “computing the second supply related matrix VS, the first demand related matrix UD, and the second demand related matrix VD.” Claim 6 depends on claim 5 and claim 5 recites, “computing a first demand related matrix UD, and computing a second demand related matrix VD”, and claim 5 depends on claim 4 which recites, “computing a second supply related matrix VS”. Since both claim 4 and claim 5 recite the limitations of claim 6, claim 6 is not further limiting claim 4 and 5.
Claims 13 and 19 are also rejected for similar reasons as claim 6.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Under step 1, claim 1 is directed to a method, claim 8 to a medium, and claim 15 to a system. Thus, claims 1 , 8, and 15 are directed to statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Independent claims 1 and 8 recite, “for online advertising with real-time performance-based advertisement ranking and recommendation…comprising: receiving online ad auction data; determining, for each of a plurality of candidate ads included in the ad auction data, a predicted performance metric via low rank field weighted factorization machines by: processing the online ad auction data to identify supply data and demand data; determining a diagonal vector d based on the supply data and the demand data; generating supply related matrices based on the supply data and demand related matrices based on the demand data; determining a P matrix by summing a product of the supply related matrices and a product of the demand related matrices; and computing the predicted performance metric for each of the plurality of candidate ads based on a formulation including the diagonal vector d and the P matrix; ranking the plurality of candidate ads based on their corresponding predicted performance metrics; and selecting one of the ranked plurality of candidate ads as a winning ad according to a predetermined selection criterion and displaying the winning ad via an online platform, so as to support the online advertising with real-time performance-based ad ranking and recommendation.” Independent claim 15 recites, “A system for online advertising with real-time performance-based advertisement ranking and recommendation, comprising: a low rank field-weighted factorization machine (FwFM) predicted performance (P-P) metric determiner implemented by a processor and configured for receiving online ad auction data; determining, for each of a plurality of candidate ads included in the ad auction data, a predicted performance metric via low rank field weighted factorization machines by: processing the online ad auction data to identify supply data and demand data; determining a diagonal vector d based on the supply data and the demand data; generating supply related matrices based on the supply data and demand related matrices based on the demand data; determining a P matrix by summing a product of the supply related matrices and a product of the demand related matrices; and computing the predicted performance metric for each of the plurality of candidate ads based on a formulation including the diagonal vector d and the P matrix; a P-P metric based ad ranking unit implemented by a processor and configured for ranking the plurality of candidate ads based on their corresponding predicted performance metrics; and a winning ad selection unit implemented by a processor and configured for selecting one of the ranked plurality of candidate ads as a winning ad according to a predetermined selection criterion and an output device implemented by a processor and configured for displaying the winning ad via an online platform, supporting the online advertising with real-time performance-based ad ranking and recommendation.” These limitations, except for the italicized portions and under their broadest reasonable interpretations, recite certain methods of organizing human activity because the claims are for real-time performance based advertisement ranking and recommendation and for determining and computing predicted performance metrics for a plurality of ads, which are all directed to advertising and marketing activities and behaviors. The Examiner notes that although the claim limitations are summarized, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim and all of the claim elements individually, as a whole, and in ordered combination.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claims recite the additional elements of a machine readable and non-transitory medium, a machine, a medium, a low rank field-weighted factorization machine (FwFM) predicted performance (P-P) metric determiner, a P-P metric based ad ranking unit, a winning ad selection unit, a processor, an output device, and an online platform. These computing elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. The additional element of displaying the winning ad via an online platform is an additional element that is insignificant extra solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements when considered individually or as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The independent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a machine readable and non-transitory medium, a machine, a medium, a low rank field-weighted factorization machine (FwFM) predicted performance (P-P) metric determiner, a P-P metric based ad ranking unit, a winning ad selection unit, a processor, an output device, and an online platform. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are not significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional element of displaying the winning ad via an online platform is an additional element that is insignificant post solution activity. Displaying ads on an online platform is well-known in the art per [0050] of Kuehr-McLaren (P. G. Pub. No. 2005/0102195). Therefore, when the additional elements are considered individually or in combination, they are not significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-19, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to the same abstract idea of Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15 without significantly more.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 recite, “wherein: the supply data is associated with a user and context information related to a display ad opportunity associated with the ad auction; and the demand data is associated with the plurality of candidate ads and includes information characterizing each of the plurality of candidate ads.” These limitations further narrow the supply and demand data and are also part of the same abstract idea as the independent claims.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 recite, “wherein the determining the diagonal vector d comprises: accessing the supply data and the demand data; determining a first matrix U and a transpose matrix UT thereof; obtaining a vector e and a corresponding square diagonal matrix diag(e); and computing a diagonal vector d based on UT diag(e) U, wherein U and e are learned via machine learning based on training data.” These limitations also recite an abstract idea and are mathematical concepts and concepts performed in the human mind.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 recite, “wherein the computing the predicted performance metric for the candidate ad via low rank field weighted factorization machines comprises: extracting the supply data from the online ad auction data; based on the extracted supply data, computing a first supply related matrix Us, and computing a second supply related matrix Vs.” These limitations also recite an abstract idea and are mathematical concepts and concepts performed in the human mind.
Claims 5, 12, and 18 recite, “further comprising: extracting the demand data from the online ad auction data; and based on the extracted demand data, computing a first demand related matrix Ud, and computing a second demand related matrix Vd.” These limitations also recite an abstract idea and are mathematical concepts and concepts performed in the human mind.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 recite, “further comprising computing the second supply related matrix Vs, the first demand related matrix Ud, and the second demand related matrix Vd.” These limitations also recite an abstract idea and are mathematical concepts and concepts performed in the human mind.
As such, when claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 are considered individually, as a whole, or in combinations, the claims are not patent eligible.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 are potentially allowable for the same reasons as given in the Non-Final Office action dated 10/18/2024, once the above rejections have been overcome.
An updated search found:
Chen (US 2022/0383126) discusses using low rank factorization matrices.
However, Chen and all of the other prior art references previously mentioned do not teach to the specificity of the claims.
Response to Argument
All previous 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn due to claim amendments.
On pages 13-15, Applicant states “The claims are not directed to any of the judicial exceptions and therefore the claims are not directed to an abstract idea…The Office Action alleges that the claims recite "mathematical concepts, mental concepts performed in the human mind and using paper and pencil, and certain methods of organizing human activity." See, Office Action at pages 5-6. Applicant respectfully disagrees for at least the following reasons. First, the claim as a whole is directed to online advertising with real-time performance-based advertisement ranking and recommendation, which does not fall in mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes…The recited claim features cannot be performed in the human mind at least because the human mind cannot process online data and cannot output content for display via an online platform, and thus the claims do not fall within the "Mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Also, online data processing and utilization of low rank field weighted factorization machines to select an online advertisement and display it on an online platform are not directed to mathematical concepts. Further, these claim features extend far beyond fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), and thus do not fall within the enumerated group of Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. “advertising with real-time performance-based advertisement ranking and recommendation” falls in the certain methods of organizing activity” as explained in the updated 101 rejection above. Furthermore, per the 101 rejection above, The displaying step is not considered part of the abstract idea but an additional element. Therefore, Examiner is not persuaded.
On pages 16-18, Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application and states, “The recited features of claim 1 are clearly tied to a practical application, i.e., utilizing an alternative low rank field weighted factorization machines (FwFM) approach to support online advertising with real-time performance-based ad ranking and recommendation. The claims provide an improvement in technical fields of online data analytics in online content recommendation (e.g., online advertisements recommendation). Particularly, the claims provide "an alternative low rank FwFM approach that reduces the rank of the field-interaction matrix rather than pruning small field-interaction weights as in the conventional solutions. The low rank FwFM approach according to the present teaching allows faster scoring of predicted performance metrics even with multi-value fields with a much-simplified computation construct and process, yet maintains the accuracy enjoyed when deploying FwFM. The low rank FwFM as disclosed herein achieves integration of multi-value features in prediction more effectively and, thus, better supports online advertising with real-time performance-based ad ranking and recommendation." (Para. [0022]) "Given that field-weighted factorization machines FwFMs consider full interactions among different columns, although they have more representation power and are more accurate, they are slower to compute due to complexity so that FwFM in conventional treatment is less appropriate for real-time large scale ad ranking where tens of thousands of ads need to be ranked in a matter of milliseconds." (Para. [0033]) "It is in this context that the present teaching is developed to attain the representation power of FwFM in ad ranking yet derive a computationally feasible scheme suitable for real-time large scale ad ranking." Para. [0034]. All the above-mentioned improvements provided by the claims are in technology.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. “reduces the rank of the field-interaction matrix” may be an improvement to the business methods but it is not an improvement to technology or a technical improvement. The claims are still using generic computing elements to perform the functions. Therefore, Examiner is not persuaded.
On pages 18-20, Applicant argues that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, points to the limitations of claim 1, and states, “Also, the specification, at least paras. [0037]-[0039] and FIGS. 4 and 5, clearly discloses how the low rank field weighted factorization machines compute the predicted performance metric based on a formulation including the diagonal vector d and the P matrix.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention may be an improvement to the business methods but the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIE P. BRADY whose telephone number is (571)272-4855. The examiner can normally be reached Tues-Thurs 8:00 - 2:00 ET.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at (571)270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/MARIE P BRADY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622