DETAILED ACTION
This in in reference to communication received 19 September 2025. Claims 1 – 20 are pending for examination. 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 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.
Independent claim 1 representative of claim 11, in part, describes a method directed to managing allocation budget of an advertising campaign when determination is made that an occurrence of a possible occurrence of an upcoming event (a future event) which may have an affect on an allocated advertising budget, and may require additional impressions due to potential increase in popularity of the first campaign. Based at least in part on the occurrence of the future event associated with the first platform. a respective rate of impression generation is calculated by monitoring a number of user interactions with the digital content while the digital content is presented to the users, and budget impressions from another campaign is reallocated to the first campaign.
These limitations describe marketing/sales/advertising activities. Monitoring consumption of impression in a marketing campaign, monitoring consumption of presented impressions, when it is determined that demand for the impressions will increase at first campaign, budgeted impressions from second campaign is reallocated to the first campaign.
In addition, the aforementioned claims recite additional functional elements that are associated with the judicial exception, including: performing data analysis to identify a rising trend in user traffic in plurality of digital campaign (e.g., advertising campaign)); identifying, one of the plurality of advertising campaign that may experience a spike in user activity; and, reallocating the committed budget from other advertising campaign(s) to the identified campaign, which, pursuant to MPEP 2106.04, is aptly categorized as a method of organizing human activity (i.e. advertising). Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Represented claim 11, which do recite statutory categories (machine, product of manufacture, for example), the same analysis as above applies to these claims since the method steps are the same. However, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. These claims add the generic computer components (additional elements) of a system comprising one or more hardware processors and a memory (claim 11).
The control circuitry is recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
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 element of the processor, memory, and non-transitory machine-readable medium amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
When taken as an ordered combination, nothing is added that is not already present when the elements are taken individually. When viewed as a whole, the marketing activities amount to instructions applied using generic computer components.
As for dependent claims 2 – 3, 6 – 9, 11 – 12 and 15 – 18, these claims do not recite any additional technical elements, and simply disclose additional limitations that further limit the abstract idea with details regarding defining parameters that will be considered to identify platform that may realized spike in user traffic, defining eligibility criteria to consider before the budget will be reallocated which may result in termination of the campaign whose budget was redistributed;
Therefore, claims 1 – 20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter, as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of U.S. Patent Application 11,961,113 (Notice of Allowance issued and allowance fees are paid by the applicant). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
Application: 18/613,015
US Patent 11,961,113
identifying, using processing circuitry, a first digital campaign for a first platform and a second digital campaign for a second platform, wherein the first digital campaign and the second digital campaign are each allocated a respective number of budgeted digital impressions, wherein a digital impression comprises the presentation of digital content to a user on a digital platform;
identifying, using processing circuitry, at least two advertisement campaigns, each campaign of the at least two advertisement campaigns associated with a respective subject being advertised and each campaign allocated a respective number of budgeted impressions;
calculating for each advertisement campaign of the at least two advertisement campaigns, using the processing circuitry, a respective rate of impression generation;
determining, in real-time, using processing circuitry, an occurrence of a future event associated with the first platform that is expected to result in a spike in popularity with the first platform;
determining, at a predetermined time before completion of any of the at least two advertisement campaigns, a future performance metric for each of the at least two advertisement campaigns based on the respective rate of impression generation for each campaign;
While a plurality of digital impressions are respectively being presented on the first platform and the second platforms simultaneously calculating, in real-time, using the processing circuitry, for the first digital campaign and the second digital campaign, a respective rate of impression generation based at least in part on the occurrence of the future event associated with the first platform, wherein the rate of digital impression generation is automatically calculated using the processing circuitry by monitoring a number of user interactions with the digital content while the digital content is presented to the users on the respective digital platforms within a defined time period;
identifying, using the processing circuitry, a high-performing campaign of the at least two advertisement campaigns based on whether the future performance of the high-performing campaign is greater than or equal to a respective predetermined future performance metric threshold;
comparing, using the processing circuitry, a first rate of impression generation associated with the first digital campaign to a second rate of impression generation associated with the second digital campaign;
identifying at least one low-performing campaign of the at least two advertisement campaigns based on whether the future performance metric of the low-performing campaign is less than the respective predetermined future performance metric threshold;
determining that the first digital campaign will require a higher number of budgeted impressions than was previously allocated to accommodate the expected spike in the popularity of the first platform;
determining, using the processing circuitry, a redistribution of the respective number of budgeted impressions from the second digital campaign to the first digital campaign based at least in part on the first rate of impression generation and the second rate of impression generation, wherein the redistribution is performed by simultaneously adjusting data associated with the first digital campaign and the data associated with the second digital campaign, wherein the data associated with the first digital campaign and the data associated with the second digital campaign are stored in a digital impression budget database; and
determining, using the processing circuitry, a redistribution of allocations of the number of budgeted impressions from the at least one low-performing campaign to the high-performing campaign;
automatically causing to be implemented, using the processing circuitry, the redistribution from the second digital campaign to the first digital campaign based at least in part on the simultaneous adjusting of the data associated with the first digital campaign and the data associated with the second digital campaign in the digital impression budget database.
causing to be implemented, using the processing circuitry, the redistribution amongst the high-performing campaign and the at least one low-performing campaign; and
ending the at least one low-performing campaign.
Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent. See In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 804.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument that pending claimed amended invention is eligible for patent because amended invention recites a technological solution to a technical problem, namely to dynamically manage multiple digital campaigns (e.g., presented simultaneously on various digital platforms) in real-time, by simultaneously performing real- time calculations and adjustments of campaign data, across multiple campaigns, in response to a live event, such as a spike in popularity of a particular digital platform. Managing the presentation of digital impressions disbursed across multiple digital campaigns requires using complex processing techniques to perform such simultaneous operations associated with each platform. Thus, making dynamic adjustments to the data in the database based on changes due to popularity experienced by a platform, and automatically performing a redistribution of impressions, in real-time, in response to the adjustments goes beyond simple automation or a mere "method of organizing human activity.", is acknowledged and considered.
However, upon further review, it is deemed that the claimed invention is not eligible for patent under 35 USC 101 and have been responded to in the Rejection under 35 USC 101 section.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pham US Publication 2019/0102807 teaches system and method for automatically modifying disrupted pacing plan for digital content distribution.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Naresh Vig whose telephone number is (571)272-6810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 06:30a - 04:00p.
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.
/NARESH VIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
January 26, 2026