Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This is Final Office Action in response to amendments filed on 8/19/2025. Claims 1-4, 8-13, and 17-19 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-19 are pending and addressed below.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites, “if the brand specified in the the search query matches one or more of the included brands.” This limitation should recite, “if the brand specified in the search query matches one or more of the included brands.”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-19 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 10 is directed to a system, and claim 19 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Thus, claims 1, 10, and 19 are directed to statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1, 10, and 19 recite, “receiving, by one or more processors, campaign information associated with one or more campaigns from digital content providers, wherein the campaign information includes a selection of one or more brands; receiving, by the one or more processors from a publisher, a request for a sponsored digital content item for display on a content page of a publisher, the request associated with a search query received by the publisher; determining, by the one or more processors based on the search query and the one or more specified brands, one or more candidate campaigns; determining, by the one or more processors, an intent of the search query and a brand specified in the search query that matches the intent; determining, by the one or more processors based on the intent of the search query and the specified brand, one or more candidate campaigns, the one or more candidate campaigns including brands that match the intent of the search query and excluding brands matching a name of the specified brand but not matching the intent of the search query; selecting, by the one or more processors, a selected campaign of the one or more candidate campaigns; and providing to the publisher a digital content item associated with the selected campaign for publishing in association with a response to the search query.” These limitations, except for the italicized portions and under their broadest reasonable interpretations, recite certain methods of organizing human activity because the steps of receiving, determining, selecting, and providing are all directed to advertising 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 recites the additional elements of “one or more processors”, “a memory”, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”, and that the content providers are digital. 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. 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 independent 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 one or more processors”, “a memory”, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”, and that the content providers are digital are generic computing elements, since par. 56, 59, and 60 describe these elements as generic. As such they are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the independent claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18, 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 and 10 without significantly more.
Claims 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, and 13 further limit the one or more candidate campaigns and the specified brand” and are part of the same abstract idea as the independent claims. Claims 4 and 13 have the additional element of a user interface, which is just a generic computing element that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more because it is generically recited.
Claims 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, and 16 further limit the brand library of claims 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, and 13 and are also part of the same abstract idea. Claims 5 and 14 have the additional element of a URL, which is just a generic element that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more because it is generically recited.
Claims 8 and 17 recite, “ranking, by the one or more processors based on a determined degree of the match, the one or more candidate campaigns.” The ranking step also recites the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity since it is ranking campaigns which are advertising activities.
Claims 9 and 18 recite, “receiving, by the one or more processors from the digital content providers of the one or more campaigns, bids on a highest ranked one or more available products; and providing, by the one or more processors for output on the content page of the publisher based on a winning bid, the selected campaign as a sponsored digital content item.” The steps of receiving and providing also recite the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity since it is receiving bids and providing a campaign which are advertising activities.
As such, when claims 1-19 are considered individually, as a whole, or in combinations, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 8, 10, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lentz (P.G. Pub. No. 2018/0365723), in view of Binas (P. G. Pub. No. 2016/0086224).
Regarding claim 1, Lentz teaches
1. A method, comprising: receiving, by one or more processors, campaign information associated with one or more campaigns from digital content providers ([0025] "an Integrated Value Exchange and Referral (IVER) system is described that may provide affiliate providers (APs)[digital content providers] with a capability to generate product-service campaign(s) that filter and aggregate a set of product-service offerings for presentation to consumers, based on predetermined selection criteria." See also [0026].),
wherein the campaign information includes a selection of one or more brands ([0029] "For example, an AP of "Brand A" products may exclusively present product-service offerings associated with "Brand A" on the white-label platform. In some cases, however, the AP may selectively present product-service offerings associated with "Brand B" on the same white-label platform.");
receiving, by the one or more processors from a publisher, a request for a sponsored digital content item for display on a content page of a publisher ([0078] "FIG. 6 illustrates an example architecture of an Integrated Value Exchange and Referral (IVER) system 602. The IVER system 602 may provide affiliate provider(s) with a capability to generate a product-service campaign that filters and aggregates product-service offerings from multiple electronic storefronts."),
the request associated with a search query received by the publisher ([0027] "For example, the consumer portal of an IVER application may be configured to provide consumers with access to one or more product-service campaign(s) presented via the IVER system. A consumer may search, purchase, comment, or refer product-service offerings via the consumer portal.");
selecting, by the one or more processors, a campaign of the one or more candidate campaigns ([0028] "The IVER application may also dynamically update existing product-service campaigns, or create new product-service campaigns, to reflect a consumer's current search trends and search terms. For example, a consumer may search for a particular product-service offering via the consumer portal of the IVER application. In doing so, IVER system may dynamically retrieve product-service offerings that match the consumer's search trend and/or search terms, and selectively update an existing product-service campaign or create a new product-service campaign." [0029] "A white-label platform may be configured to exclusively present a selection of product-service offerings associated with the AP or selected by the AP for presentation. For example, an AP of "Brand A" products may exclusively present product-service offerings associated with "Brand A" on the white-label platform. See also [0031].); and
providing to the publisher a digital content item associated with the selected campaign for publishing in association with a response to the search query ([0029] "For example, an AP of "Brand A" products may exclusively present product-service offerings associated with "Brand A" on the white-label platform. In some cases, however, the AP may selectively present product-service offerings associated with "Brand B" on the same white-label platform. In doing so, an AP is afforded the benefit of filtering out and aggregating a listing of product-service offerings for presentation to consumers, via a consumer portal of the IVER application." [0031] In a non-limiting example, consider a first AP that deals with "Brand A" and "Brand B" sporting merchandise. First AP may be competing with second AP that deals with a similar category of product-service offerings, namely "Brand C" sporting merchandise. The first AP may generate a white-label platform that presents product-service offerings associated with "Brand A" and "Brand B." The white-label platform may be accessible to a consumer via a consumer portal of their respective IVER application. Thus, a consumer that searches for sporting merchandise via a consumer portal that accesses the white-label platform of the first AP, is presented with product-service offerings exclusively associated with "Brand A" and "Brand B," excluding a presentation of competing "Brand C" merchandise of the second AP.).
Lentz teaches determining based on a search query and the specified brand one or more candidate campaigns, see at least par. 0028-0031 but not specifically
determining, by the one or more processors, an intent of the search query and a brand specified in the search query that matches the intent;
determining, by the one or more processors based on the intent of the search query and the specified brand, one or more candidate campaigns,
the one or more candidate campaigns including brands that match the intent of the search query
and excluding brands matching a name of the specified brand but not matching the intent of the search query.
However, Binas teaches
determining, by the one or more processors, an intent of the search query and a brand specified in the search query that matches the intent; determining, by the one or more processors based on the intent of the search query and the specified brand, one or more candidate campaigns, the one or more candidate campaigns including brands that match the intent of the search query and excluding brands matching a name of the specified brand but not matching the intent of the search query ([0020] "For example, a user who is viewing a map may submit a query for "pizza" and, in response thereto, the map may be populated with graphical objects associated with businesses that are related to pizza. In one or more implementations, the graphical objects may be populated on the map in areas that coincide with where the associated businesses are physically located. However, in one or more instances the names of the businesses, e.g. "Luigi's Italian," "Del Piero's," [brands] etc., may not necessarily include the query, e.g. "pizza." [intent]. If the user selects a graphical object associated with a business, the system may retrieve advertising content items[candidate campaigns] that are presented to the user along with information related to the business. If the presented advertising content items are selected based solely on information related to the business [brand] that does not include the query [intent], e.g. the business name, the advertising content items may not accurately reflect the user's intent in viewing the map, e.g. searching for pizza in a geographic area. For example, if the name of a selected pizza restaurant is "Del Piero's," the user may be presented with advertising content items that are generally relevant to, e.g., "Del Piero's," "Del," and/or "Piero," but that are not necessarily relevant to pizza. As such, there may be a low likelihood that the presented advertising content items will have relevance to the user outside of the business they are already viewing. Therefore there may be a low likelihood that the user will click on one of the presented advertising content items. However, if the advertising content items are retrieved based at least in part on both the name of the business, e.g. "Del Piero's," and the query, e.g. "pizza," then the user may be presented with advertising content items that may be relevant to, e.g., "Del Piero's" and/or "pizza," such as other pizza restaurants. As such, there may be a high likelihood that the presented advertising content items [candidate campaigns] will have relevance to the user outside of the business that they are already viewing, and therefore a high likelihood that the user will click on one of the presented advertising content items." This paragraph also explains "excluding brands matching a name of the specified brand but not matching the intent of the search query because it will not show advertising content items that include the business name but not the intent.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify how the candidate campaign is selected of Lentz by adding determining, by the one or more processors, an intent of the search query and a brand specified in the search query that matches the intent; determining, by the one or more processors based on the intent of the search query and the specified brand, one or more candidate campaigns, the one or more candidate campaigns including brands that match the intent of the search query and excluding brands matching a name of the specified brand but not matching the intent of the search query, as taught by Binas, since Lentz and Binas are analogous art and in order for the presented advertising content items to have a high likelihood of relevance to the user and a high likelihood that the user will click on the advertising content items (Binas, [0020]).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Lentz teaches
10. A system, comprising: memory; and one or more processors, the one or more processors configured to execute operations comprising ([0081]):
19. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, which when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to execute a method comprising ([0081] and [0083]):
receiving campaign information associated with one or more campaigns from digital content providers ([0025] "an Integrated Value Exchange and Referral (IVER) system is described that may provide affiliate providers (APs)[digital content providers] with a capability to generate product-service campaign(s) that filter and aggregate a set of product-service offerings for presentation to consumers, based on predetermined selection criteria." See also [0026].),
wherein the campaign information includes a selection of one or more brands ([0029] "For example, an AP of "Brand A" products may exclusively present product-service offerings associated with "Brand A" on the white-label platform. In some cases, however, the AP may selectively present product-service offerings associated with "Brand B" on the same white-label platform.");
receiving, from a publisher, a request for a sponsored digital content item for display on a content page of a publisher ([0078] "FIG. 6 illustrates an example architecture of an Integrated Value Exchange and Referral (IVER) system 602. The IVER system 602 may provide affiliate provider(s) with a capability to generate a product-service campaign that filters and aggregates product-service offerings from multiple electronic storefronts."),
the request associated with a search query received by the publisher ([0027] "For example, the consumer portal of an IVER application may be configured to provide consumers with access to one or more product-service campaign(s) presented via the IVER system. A consumer may search, purchase, comment, or refer product-service offerings via the consumer portal.");
selecting a campaign of the one or more candidate campaigns ([0028] "The IVER application may also dynamically update existing product-service campaigns, or create new product-service campaigns, to reflect a consumer's current search trends and search terms. For example, a consumer may search for a particular product-service offering via the consumer portal of the IVER application. In doing so, IVER system may dynamically retrieve product-service offerings that match the consumer's search trend and/or search terms, and selectively update an existing product-service campaign or create a new product-service campaign." [0029] "A white-label platform may be configured to exclusively present a selection of product-service offerings associated with the AP or selected by the AP for presentation. For example, an AP of "Brand A" products may exclusively present product-service offerings associated with "Brand A" on the white-label platform. See also [0031].); and
providing to the publisher a digital content item associated with the selected campaign for publishing in association with a response to the search query ([0029] "For example, an AP of "Brand A" products may exclusively present product-service offerings associated with "Brand A" on the white-label platform. In some cases, however, the AP may selectively present product-service offerings associated with "Brand B" on the same white-label platform. In doing so, an AP is afforded the benefit of filtering out and aggregating a listing of product-service offerings for presentation to consumers, via a consumer portal of the IVER application." [0031] In a non-limiting example, consider a first AP that deals with "Brand A" and "Brand B" sporting merchandise. First AP may be competing with second AP that deals with a similar category of product-service offerings, namely "Brand C" sporting merchandise. The first AP may generate a white-label platform that presents product-service offerings associated with "Brand A" and "Brand B." The white-label platform may be accessible to a consumer via a consumer portal of their respective IVER application. Thus, a consumer that searches for sporting merchandise via a consumer portal that accesses the white-label platform of the first AP, is presented with product-service offerings exclusively associated with "Brand A" and "Brand B," excluding a presentation of competing "Brand C" merchandise of the second AP.).
Lentz teaches determining based on a search query and the specified brand one or more candidate campaigns, see at least par. 0028-0031 but not specifically
determining an intent of the search query and a brand specified in the search query that matches the intent;
determining based on the intent of the search query and the specified brand, one or more candidate campaigns,
the one or more candidate campaigns including brands that match the intent of the search query
and excluding brands matching a name of the specified brand but not matching the intent of the search query.
However, Binas teaches
determining an intent of the search query and a brand specified in the search query that matches the intent; determining based on the intent of the search query and the specified brand, one or more candidate campaigns, the one or more candidate campaigns including brands that match the intent of the search query and excluding brands matching a name of the specified brand but not matching the intent of the search query ([0020] "For example, a user who is viewing a map may submit a query for "pizza" and, in response thereto, the map may be populated with graphical objects associated with businesses that are related to pizza. In one or more implementations, the graphical objects may be populated on the map in areas that coincide with where the associated businesses are physically located. However, in one or more instances the names of the businesses, e.g. "Luigi's Italian," "Del Piero's," [brands] etc., may not necessarily include the query, e.g. "pizza." [intent]. If the user selects a graphical object associated with a business, the system may retrieve advertising content items[candidate campaigns] that are presented to the user along with information related to the business. If the presented advertising content items are selected based solely on information related to the business [brand] that does not include the query [intent], e.g. the business name, the advertising content items may not accurately reflect the user's intent in viewing the map, e.g. searching for pizza in a geographic area. For example, if the name of a selected pizza restaurant is "Del Piero's," the user may be presented with advertising content items that are generally relevant to, e.g., "Del Piero's," "Del," and/or "Piero," but that are not necessarily relevant to pizza. As such, there may be a low likelihood that the presented advertising content items will have relevance to the user outside of the business they are already viewing. Therefore there may be a low likelihood that the user will click on one of the presented advertising content items. However, if the advertising content items are retrieved based at least in part on both the name of the business, e.g. "Del Piero's," and the query, e.g. "pizza," then the user may be presented with advertising content items that may be relevant to, e.g., "Del Piero's" and/or "pizza," such as other pizza restaurants. As such, there may be a high likelihood that the presented advertising content items [candidate campaigns] will have relevance to the user outside of the business that they are already viewing, and therefore a high likelihood that the user will click on one of the presented advertising content items." This paragraph also explains "excluding brands matching a name of the specified brand but not matching the intent of the search query because it will not show advertising content items that include the business name but not the intent.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify how the candidate campaign is selected of Lentz by adding determining an intent of the search query and a brand specified in the search query that matches the intent; determining based on the intent of the search query and the specified brand, one or more candidate campaigns, the one or more candidate campaigns including brands that match the intent of the search query and excluding brands matching a name of the specified brand but not matching the intent of the search query, as taught by Binas, since Lentz and Binas are analogous art and in order for the presented advertising content items to have a high likelihood of relevance to the user and a high likelihood that the user will click on the advertising content items (Binas, [0020]).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Lentz teaches
further comprising ranking, by the one or more processors based on a determined degree of the match, the one or more candidate campaigns ([0028] "The IVER application may also dynamically update existing product-service campaigns, or create new product-service campaigns, to reflect a consumer's current search trends and search terms. For example, a consumer may search for a particular product-service offering via the consumer portal of the IVER application. In doing so, IVER system may dynamically retrieve product-service offerings that match [degree of match] the consumer's search trend and/or search terms, and selectively update an existing product-service campaign or create a new product-service campaign.").
Claims 2, 4-7, 11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lentz (P.G. Pub. No. 2018/0365723), in view of Binas (P. G. Pub. No. 2016/0086224), in further view of Lombard (P. G. Pub. No. 2014/0279038).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Lentz and Binas discuss including a specified brand is the brand matches the search query (see above) but does not specifically teach
wherein determining the one or more candidate campaigns comprises consulting a specified brand inclusion list of included brands for which an associated campaign should be included in the candidate campaigns if the brand specified in the search query matches one or more of the includes brands.
However, Lombard teaches
wherein determining the one or more candidate campaigns comprises consulting a specified brand inclusion list of included brands for which an associated campaign should be included in the candidate campaigns if the brand specified in the search query matches one or more of the includes brands (Figs. 2A and 2B shows a list of brands and a brand that is included in campaigns.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify how brands are chosen of Lentz and Binas, by adding wherein determining the one or more candidate campaigns comprises consulting a specified brand inclusion list of included brands for which an associated campaign should be included in the candidate campaigns if the brand specified in the search query matches one or more of the includes brands, as taught by Lombard, since Lentz, Binas, and Lombard are analogous art and in order to have more control with which brands can be included in the campaign.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Lentz and Binas discuss including a specified brand is the brand matches the search query (see above) but does not specifically teach
wherein the selection of the one or more brands comprises selection through a user interface of brands listed in a brand library.
However, Lombard teaches
wherein the selection of the one or more specified brands comprises selection through a user interface of brands listed in a brand library (Figs. 2A and 2B, [0042] "Brand Manager home page 200 allows a user acting in the role of a Brand or Campaign Manager to select a brand to manage from pull down menu 202. A Brand or Campaign Manager may manage more than one brand. For example, a Brand or Campaign Manager working for an agency may have several clients with separate brands, or a single company may have several product lines that are marketed as separate brands. Once a brand is selected, manage campaign hypertext link 210 may be selected which takes a user to Brand Manager Campaign List screen 200A shown in FIG. 2C. Navigation options in the top right comer of Brand Manager home page 200 include: Campaign Name 204 is a pull-down list of existing campaigns by brand (menu shown expanded in FIG. 2B ).").
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify how brands are chosen of Lentz and Bians, by adding wherein the selection of the one or more specified brands comprises selection through a user interface of brands listed in a brand library, as taught by Lombard, since Lentz, Binas, and Lombard are analogous art and in order to have more control with which brands can be included in the campaign.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Lentz and Binas do not specifically teach
wherein the brand library identifies one or more uniform resource locators (URLs) associated with each brand.
However, Lombard teaches
wherein the brand library identifies one or more uniform resource locators (URLs) associated with each brand ([0043] "FIG. 2C illustrates the Brand Manager Campaign List screen 200A which lists all of existing campaigns (published or unpublished) with action links to show 220-directs the browser to the campaign domain universal resource locator (URL) the user originally set for the campaign,").
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Lentz and Binas, by adding wherein the brand library identifies one or more uniform resource locators (URLs) associated with each brand, as taught by Lombard, since Lentz, Binas, and Lombard are analogous art and in order to direct a browser directly to the campaign (Lombard, [0043]).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Lentz and Binas do not specifically teach
wherein the brand library identifies a business associated with each brand.
However, Lombard teaches
wherein the brand library identifies a business associated with each brand (Fig. 3A shows in #308 "Business Name" for the brand).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Lentz and Binas, by adding wherein the brand library identifies a business associated with each brand, as taught by Lombard, since Lentz, Binas, and Lombard are analogous art and in order to identify the business associated with the brand.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Lentz and Binas do not specifically teach
wherein the brand library identifies an industry, product, or service associated with each brand.
However, Lombard teaches
wherein the brand library identifies an industry, product, or service associated with each brand ([0027] "Brands are the unique identifiers of a specific product or solution-those entities which would typically have their own unique social media page, such as but not limited to a Facebook page." See also [0031].).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lentz, by adding wherein the brand library identifies an industry, product, or service associated with each brand, as taught by Lombard, since Lentz, Binas, and Lombard are analogous art and in order to identify the industry associated with the brand.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lentz (P.G. Pub. No. 2018/0365723), ), in view of Binas (P. G. Pub. No. 2016/0086224), in further view of Brown (P. G. Pub. No. 2016/0063572).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Lentz and Binas discuss including a specified brand is the brand matches the search query (see above) but does not specifically teach
wherein the selection of one or more specified brands includes a specified brand exclusion list of excluded brands for which the campaign should not be included as a candidate campaign if the one or more specified brands match the search query.
However, Brown teaches
wherein the selection of one or more specified brands includes a specified brand exclusion list of excluded brands for which the campaign should not be included as a candidate campaign if the one or more specified brands match the search query ([0047] "In another embodiment, software is provided to remove items from one list based upon predefined conditions. For example, placing a domain in an organizational blacklist would automatically remove all instances of that domain in an advertisement level whitelist. This may occur, for example, if an advertiser no longer wants to associate their brand with a publisher that they had previously supported.").
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify how brands are chosen of Lentz and Binas, by adding wherein the selection of one or more specified brands includes a specified brand exclusion list of excluded brands for which the campaign should not be included as a candidate campaign if the one or more specified brands match the search query, as taught by Brown, since Lentz, Binas, and Brown are analogous art and in order for an advertiser to remove brands that they no longer want to be associated with (Brown, [0047]).
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lentz (P.G. Pub. No. 2018/0365723), ), in view of Binas (P. G. Pub. No. 2016/0086224), in further view of Gluhovsky (P. G. Pub. No. 2014/0108160).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Lentz and Binas do not specifically teach
further comprising: receiving, by the one or more processors from the digital content providers of the identified at least one or more campaigns, bids on the highest ranked one or more available products; and
providing, by the one or more processors for output on the content page of the publisher based on a winning bid, the at least one campaign as a sponsored digital content item.
However, Gluhovsky teaches
further comprising: receiving, by the one or more processors from the digital content providers of the identified at least one or more campaigns, bids on the highest ranked one or more available products (Fig. 3, [0085], [0086], [0088]); and
providing, by the one or more processors for output on the content page of the publisher based on a winning bid, the at least one campaign as a sponsored digital content item (Fig. 3 shows the winning bid of $2.75, Fig. 4 #414 "provide travel products [at least one campaign] to user based on ranking".).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify how products are selected of Lentz and Bins, by adding further comprising: receiving, by the one or more processors from the digital content providers of the identified at least one or more campaigns, bids on the highest ranked one or more available products; and providing, by the one or more processors for output on the content page of the publisher based on a winning bid, the at least one campaign as a sponsored digital content item, as taught by Gluhovsky, since Lentz, Binas, and Gluhovsky are analogous art and in order to only provide highest ranked products.
Response to Argument
All 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn due to claim amendments.
With regards to the 101 rejection, on page 7, Applicant states, “Claim 1 recites an improvement in the technical field of communication over a computing network, as it improves an accuracy of communication and reduces transmission of unwanted network traffic. For example, claim 1 determines candidate campaigns, excluding brands that do not match an intent of the search query even if the brand name is similar to text in the query. By intelligently and accurately detecting brands for inclusion, and intentionally excluding other brands, the claim prevents publishing of unwanted digital content items, thereby conserving power and network resources. For example, bandwidth is conserved by preventing transmission of such digital content items, power is conserved by omitting them from display, and bandwidth is further conserved by reducing unintended interaction with such digital content items. See Specification, [0025]. By improving the efficiency of network communications in this regard, claim 1 provides for the practical application of improving the technology.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order to overcome a 101 rejection under step 2a, prong 2 it is the "additional elements" that transform the abstract idea into a practical application. "Additional elements" are those elements that fall outside the abstract idea itself. (Assuming that the only additional elements are a computer) In the instant case the only additional element is a general purpose computer which is insufficient to transform the abstract idea into a practical application. Any improvements obtained regarding conserving power and network resources and reducing transmission of unwanted network traffic are clearly obtained by the practice of the steps identified as part of the abstract idea. Improvements of this nature are not patent eligible (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - 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. Therefore, Examiner is not persuaded.
With regard to the 102 rejection, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but they are moot since they are about the amended language. Examiner has introduced the prior art reference of Binas to teach the amended language.
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 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