DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of the Application
This action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed October 17, 2025. Claims 1, 6, 8, 13, and 15 have been amended. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-15, 17-18 and 20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/17/2025 has been entered.
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, 3-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, and 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-20 are directed toward at least abstract idea without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP § 2106, the rationale for this determination is explained below.
Representative claim 1 is directed towards a method, claim 8 is directed towards a system, claim 15 is directed towards a non-transitory medium, which are statutory categories of invention.
Although, claim 1 is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim however, is directed towards a judicial exception namely an abstract idea. The limitations that set forth the abstract idea recites: receiving a secondary content request being presented to a user at a specific time period interval from the plurality of different time period intervals; selecting, for the specific time period interval for the secondary content request; determine a category for the specific time period interval; determining a plurality of top shows for the category; selecting a show from the plurality of top shows; selecting secondary content for the target website based on the selected show; providing the selected secondary content to the user; receiving, feedback on an effectiveness of the selected secondary content for the specific time period interval. These limitations, comprise commercial interactions including, advertising, marketing or sales activities and business relations; as well as managing personal behavior, including following rules or instructions. As such, the limitations are directed towards the abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed as a whole under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (see MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements provided by the claim amount to merely using a computer as a tool to apply an abstract idea, and/or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. In particular the claim recites the additional elements: employing, by a computing system, a machine learning mechanism to train a plurality of category- determination models using pre-labeled categories for a plurality of websites and historical content presented on the plurality of websites for a plurality of different time period intervals, wherein each separate category-determination model of the plurality of category- determination models is trained for a separate time period interval in the plurality of different time period intervals; by the computing system, a target website being presented to; by the computing system, a category-determination model from the plurality of category-determination models employing by the computing system the selected category-determination model for the target website; by the computing system; by the computing system; by the computing system, for the target website, by the computing system, via the target website; by the computing system; employing, by the computing system, the machine learning mechanism to re-train the category-determination model based on the received feedback for the specific time period interval, which are recited at a high level of generality and are the mere use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract ideas, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Simply applying the abstract idea by a computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claim does not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claim does not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claim does not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claim does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claim is directed to abstract ideas.
The claim does 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 claim recites the additional limitations of a computing system, machine learning mechanism, website, a memory and processor (claim 8), which do not constitute significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment1. Viewing these limitations as a combination, the additional elements amount to no more than merely applying the exception using generic computer components, utilizing mathematical mechanisms of a computer. Moreover, the steps associated with training/retraining a category-determination model recite the idea of a solution or outcome and fail to recite details of how the training/retraining is to be accomplished. The retrained machine learning model is used as a tool to employ/apply the abstract idea as discussed above and merely recites when the training/retraining is to be performed. Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1 add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The additional elements of generic computer components and category-determination model (computing tool) are used to perform a marketing strategy. Merely applying an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the limitations of the claim as a whole, when viewed individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
A review of dependent claims 3-4, 6--7, likewise, do not recite any limitations that would remedy the deficiencies outlined above. The claims only further add to the abstract idea, with no elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more. For instance, claims 3-4, are directed to mathematical concepts because they merely gather, organize and/or use data through mathematical algorithms; claim 6-7 amount to extra-solution data gather to implement the abstract idea. Thus, while they may slightly narrow the abstract idea by further describing it, they do not make it less abstract and are rejected accordingly. Further still, claims 8, 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, 20 suffer from substantially the same deficiencies as outlined with respect to claims 1, 3-4, 6-7 and are also rejected accordingly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's filed arguments have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive.
A. Applicant argues regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that the amended claim 1 is not directed to a judicial exception because like the claims discussed in Example 39 of the USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, the recited limitation of employing a machine learning mechanism to train a category-determination model and employing the machine learning mechanism to re-train the category-determination model based on received feedback are similar to those in example 39. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Example 39 was found eligible because it was directed to a technique for training a neural network to identify facial images, which was not directed to an abstract idea. In contrast, the claims of the instant Application are not analogous because they have different claim sets, different fact patterns and do not reflect any improvement such as was disclosed by example 39. The claims are directed to an abstract idea and do not train a neural network how to identify any object. As the Deputy Commissioner noted that in example 39, the claim limitation “training the neural network in a first stage using the first training set” did not recite a judicial exception because it did not set forth or describe any abstract idea. Unlike Applicant’s claims which are directed to an abstract idea merely employed by a machine learning model.
As such, the claims as a whole, in view of Alice, do not connote an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Errol CARVALHO whose telephone number is (571)272-9987. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30-7:00 Alt Fri
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E CARVALHO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
1 See, Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2360 (2014) (noting that none of the hardware recited “offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,’ that is, implementation via computers” (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010))).
Prosecution Insights