DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on 18 February 2026.
Claims 1 – 4, 8 – 13, 21 – 23, and 27 are presented for examination.
The following is a FINAL office action upon examination of application number 18/545821. Claims 1 – 4, 8 – 13, 21 – 23, and 27 are pending in the application and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
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
In the response filed 18 February 2026, Applicant amended claims 1, 13, and 27.
Amendments to claims 1, 13, and 27 are insufficient to overcome the 35 USC § 101 rejection. Therefore, the 35 USC § 101 rejection of claims 1 – 4, 8 – 13, 21 – 23, and 27 are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, Applicant argues that claims do not recite judicial exception of abstract ideas without significantly more. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While there may be an issue with computational inefficiency and network bandwidth waste in digital component campaigns, how the computer is made more efficient is not claimed, and network bandwidth waste is not an improvement to technology to reduce what is run through the processor. This amounts to an improvement to the business method of how to prevent bidding against oneself in an auction. Training a model offline further indicates that this is not technology related, as mathematical models can easily be trained by updating parameters and inputs associated with certain outputs. That is merely a utilization of technology or an “apply it” when it becomes an AI model trained online without any claim to how that is being performed. Separating online and offline training is not an improvement to a computer or technology. Rather, this is a choice to segregate data to process in a more organized fashion, but the computer itself is not improved. The computer is applied using less data, but the computer is not changed by virtue of installing this method on the generic computer.
In the remarks regarding independent claims 1, 13, and 27, Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose the amended claim limitations. Examiner agrees. The prior art rejections are withdrawn.
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 – 13, 21 – 23, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas without significantly more. The independent claims recite receiving, from a merchant, digital component campaign information comprising a base conversion value, one or more additional conversion values, a base bid value, one or more additional bid values, and ground truth data indicating one or more qualifying consumers; receiving, from a publisher, a request for a digital component; generating, by executing a first stage model trained offline using the ground truth data, one or more consumer embedding representations; generating, by executing a second stage model trained offline using the ground truth data, one or more merchant embedding representations, wherein at least one of the first or second stage model is trained offline; determining, based on the request for the digital component and the one or more consumer and merchant embedding representations, by executing the model at least one of: (i) a new consumer probability representing a probability a consumer to be presented the digital component is a new consumer, or (ii) a new qualifying consumer probability representing a probability the consumer to be presented the digital component is a new qualifying consumer; and dynamically adjusting, based on the one or more additional bid values or the one or more additional conversion values, and at least one of the new consumer probability or the new qualifying consumer probability, at least one of a resulting bid value or a resulting conversion value associated with the digital component. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance section 2106 of the MPEP (hereinafter, MPEP 2106).
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the method, the system, and the computer-readable storage media are directed to an eligible categories of subject matter. Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A prong 1 of MPEP 2106, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting concepts of marketing, which falls into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106. The claimed invention also recites an abstract idea that falls within the “mental processes” grouping, as independent claims describe receiving data and determining probability along with adjusting probability. The limitations reciting the abstract idea in independent claims are receiving, from a merchant, digital component campaign information comprising a base conversion value, one or more additional conversion values, a base bid value, one or more additional bid values, and ground truth data indicating one or more qualifying consumers; receiving, from a publisher, a request for a digital component; generating, by executing a first stage model trained offline using the ground truth data, one or more consumer embedding representations; generating, by executing a second stage model trained offline using the ground truth data, one or more merchant embedding representations, wherein at least one of the first or second stage model is trained offline; determining, based on the request for the digital component and the one or more consumer and merchant embedding representations, by executing the model at least one of: (i) a new consumer probability representing a probability a consumer to be presented the digital component is a new consumer, or (ii) a new qualifying consumer probability representing a probability the consumer to be presented the digital component is a new qualifying consumer; and dynamically adjusting, based on the one or more additional bid values or the one or more additional conversion values, and at least one of the new consumer probability or the new qualifying consumer probability, at least one of a resulting bid value or a resulting conversion value associated with the digital component.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the MPEP 2106, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to processors, artificial intelligence model, embedding representations (specification defines as numbers), and non-transitory computer-readable storage media, to implement the abstract idea. However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are directed to the use of generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the MPEP 2106) and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are directed to: processors, artificial intelligence model, embedding representations (specification defines as numbers), and non-transitory computer-readable storage media. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment, though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, and it is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of concepts of determining a threshold of qualifications and further clarifying how the probability is determined, by way of examples, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claims) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 4, 8 – 13, 21 – 23, and 27 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
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 AMANDA GURSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7am to 5pm EST.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/AMANDA GURSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights