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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I (claims 1-16) in the reply filed on 11/11/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that search and examination of all the claims as originally presented can be made without serous burden. This is not found persuasive because, as noted in the requirement for restriction, Invention I has separate utility such as positive/negative/unknown (PNU) categorization (as shown in Figs 5A-5B in the Specification) and Invention II has separate utility such as bid price recommendation using positive/negative/ unknown (PNU) data (as shown in Fig. 6 of the Specification). See MPEP § 806.05(j). Inventions I and II are directed to related inventions, however the related inventions are distinct because: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect. Specifically, the function of positive/negative/unknown (PNU) categorization (Invention I) can have materially different function than bid price recommendation using positive/negative/ unknown (PNU) data (Invention II). Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
All the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) The inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(b) The prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(c)The inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/11/2025.
Priority
Applicant has not claimed priority to another application. Application 18/647,355 was filed 4/26/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
No IDS has been submitted.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s claims, filed 11/11/2025, have been entered. Claims 17-20 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application and claims 1-16 have been examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Fig. 6, element 605. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test the claims are directed to statutory categories. Specifically, the method, as claimed in claims 1-16, are directed to a process (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A (prong 1), claim 1, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations (emphasis added) that recite an abstract idea:
receiving data associated with one or more assets in an auction;
receiving information indicating price buckets for the auction;
receiving, for one of the one or more assets:
a bid request; and
an indication of whether the bid request resulted in a win or a loss;
determining, via a model and based on the bid request and based on the indication of whether the bid request resulted in a win or a loss, whether the price bucket is categorized as one of positive, negative, and unknown; and
calculating, based on the determining, a bid price.
These limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity, such as performing commercial interactions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Certain methods of organizing human activity are defined by MPEP 2106.04 as including “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).” In this case, the abstract ideas recited in representative claim 1 are certain methods of organizing human activity because calculating a bid price based on data associated with one or more assets in an auction is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Independent claim 10 recites the same abstract idea as recited in independent claim 1. As such, the analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1 is the same for independent claims 1 and 10 as described above for independent claim 1.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception (see MPEP 2106.04). As stated in the MPEP, when “an additional element merely recites the words ‘apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
receiving, by a computing device, data associated with one or more assets in an auction;
receiving information indicating price buckets for the auction;
receiving, for one of the one or more assets:
a bid request; and
an indication of whether the bid request resulted in a win or a loss;
determining, via a machine learning model and based on the bid request and based on the indication of whether the bid request resulted in a win or a loss, whether the price bucket is categorized as one of positive, negative, and unknown; and
calculating, based on the determining, a bid price.
In this case, representative claim 10 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
receiving, by a computing device, data related to one or more assets in an auction;
receiving, for one of the one or more assets:
a bid request; and
an indication of whether the bid request resulted in a win or a loss;
determining, based on the bid request the indication of whether the bid request resulted in a win or a loss, whether a price bucket is categorized as one of positive, negative, and unknown; and
calculating, based on the determining, a new bid price.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment (“by a computing device”, “via a machine learning model”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (receiving information). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. This is because the additional elements of claims 1 and 10 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea) (see Figs. 1-2; paragraphs [0015]-[0023] and [0035]). The specification indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. The description demonstrates that these additional elements are merely generic devices such as a generic computer. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered pair, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional elements are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not transform or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technology environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
In addition to the above, the recited receiving steps (even assuming arguendo they do not form part of the abstract idea, which the Examiner does not acquiesce), are at best little more than extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering, presentation of data) that contributes nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed system (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claims 1 and 10 do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claims 1 and 10, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 1 and 10 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claims 1 and 10 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network,
storing or retrieving information from memory,
presenting offers
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claims 1 and 10 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claims 1 and 10 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 2-7 and 11-14
Dependent claim(s) 2-7 and 11-14, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claim(s) 2-7 and 11-14 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim(s) 1 and 10 or provide further embellishments of the limitations recited in independent claim claim(s) 1 and 10.
Claims 2-7 and 11-14 set forth:
wherein the receiving further comprises receiving data from first-price auctions.
wherein the receiving further comprises receiving data from second-price auctions.
wherein the price buckets are generated based on a quantile of a plurality of bid requests.
wherein determining that a price bucket is categorized as positive comprises determining that a bid request belongs to the price bucket and that it is a winning bid request.
wherein determining that a price bucket is categorized as negative comprises determining that a market price for one or more assets is equal to or lower than the bid request.
wherein determining that a price bucket is categorized as unknown is based on one or more of:(a) determining that there is incomplete information relating to whether a bid amount is lower than the bid request and can win; and(b) determining that there is incomplete information relating to whether a bid amount is the same as a clearing price for the auction.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of calculating a bid price based on data associated with one or more assets in an auction. The claims do not set forth any further additional limitations, and therefore such abstract embellishments are applied to the additional limitations recited in claim(s) 1 and 10, which do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim(s) 1 and 10.
Thus, dependent 2-7 and 11-14 are ineligible.
Regarding claims 8, 9, 15, and 16
Dependent claim(s) 8, 9, 15, and 16 sets forth:
wherein the machine leaning model comprises a classification model having one branch of a neural network for each of the price buckets.
receiving additional data; and training the machine learning model based on the additional data.
Such recitations merely embellish the abstract idea of calculating a bid price based on data associated with one or more assets in an auction. While the claim(s) do set forth the additional elements of “a neural network” and “training the machine learning model”, these recitations are similar to the additional limitations in claims 1 and 10, as they do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is these additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technical environment. The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs [0003], [0024], [0035] indicates that while exemplary general-purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and thus do not act to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. Further, the “training” of a “machine learning model” comprising a “neural network” is recited at a high level and amounts to merely applying the abstract idea.
Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to using a computer to apply the abstract idea and amount to no more than a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Thus, dependent claim 8, 9, 15, and 16 are also ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sarkhel et al. (US 2021/0374809 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sarkhel et al., hereinafter Sarkhel, discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, data associated with one or more assets in an auction (Figs. 1-2, 4; ¶¶0103-0106);
receiving information indicating price buckets for the auction (Figs. 1-2, 4; ¶¶0087-0106);
receiving, for one of the one or more assets:
a bid request (Figs. 1-2, 4; ¶¶0103-0106); and
an indication of whether the bid request resulted in a win or a loss (Figs. 1-2, 4; ¶¶0103-0106);
determining, via a machine learning model and based on the bid request and based on the indication of whether the bid request resulted in a win or a loss, whether the price bucket is categorized as one of positive, negative, and unknown (Figs. 1-2, 4; ¶¶0087-0106; Examiner notes “panic mode” is comparable to unknown); and
calculating, based on the determining, a bid price (Figs. 1-2, 4; ¶0044 in view of ¶¶0087-0106).
Regarding claim 2, Sarkhel discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the receiving further comprises receiving data from first-price auctions (Figs. 1-2, 4; ¶0029 in view of ¶¶0103-0106).
Regarding claim 3, Sarkhel discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the receiving further comprises receiving data from second-price auctions (Figs. 1-2, 4; ¶0029 in view of ¶¶0103-0106).
Regarding claim 4, Sarkhel discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the price buckets are generated based on a quantile of a plurality of bid requests (Figs. 1-2, 4; ¶0022, ¶0025, ¶0027, ¶¶0053-0055 and ¶¶0087-0106).
Regarding claim 5, Sarkhel discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining that a price bucket is categorized as positive comprises determining that a bid request belongs to the price bucket and that it is a winning bid request (Figs. 1-2, 4; ¶¶0087-0106).
Regarding claim 6, Sarkhel discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining that a price bucket is categorized as negative comprises determining that a market price for one or more assets is equal to or lower than the bid request (Figs. 1-2, 4; ¶¶0087-0106; Examiner notes only selecting losing bid amounts from a “normal distribution of historical data” is comparable to “a market price”).
Regarding claim 7, Sarkhel discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining that a price bucket is categorized as unknown is based on one or more of:
(a) determining that there is incomplete information relating to whether a bid amount is lower than the bid request and can win; and
(b) determining that there is incomplete information relating to whether a bid amount is the same as a clearing price for the auction (¶0104).
Regarding claim 9, Sarkhel discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving additional data (Figs. 1-4; ¶0106); and
training the machine learning model based on the additional data (Figs. 1-4; ¶0106).
Regarding claims 10-14 and 16, the claims disclose substantially the same limitations, as claims 1, 4-7, and 9. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claims 1, 4-7, and 9, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claims 10-14 and 16 are rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claims 1, 4-7, and 9.
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkhel in view of Jagannathan et al. (US 2025/0131461 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Sarkhel discloses the method of claim 1. While Sarkhel discloses wherein the machine leaning model comprises a model for each of the price buckets (¶¶0022-0025, ¶0054, ¶0081, ¶0094),
Sarkhel does not explicitly disclose the machine learning model comprises a classification model having one branch of a neural network for each of the price buckets. However, in the field of prediction using a machine learning model (abstract), Jagannathan et al., hereinafter Jagannathan, teaches a machine learning model can be a classification model having a plurality of branches of a neural network for each metric (Fig. 3; ¶¶0052-0053 and ¶0081). The step of Jagannathan is applicable to the method of Sarkhel as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to machine learning models. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the machine learning model as taught by Sarkhel with the neural network classification model as taught by Jagannathan. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the method of Sarkhel in order to use a machine learning model that leverages a deep neural network to act as a classifier to predicting metrics (¶0052).
Regarding claim 15, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 8. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 8, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 8.
Examiner’s Comment
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Reference C of the Notice of References Cited Paliwal et al. (US 2022/0027959 A1) discloses constructing training data for a machine learning model from information from past auctions including historical wins and losses in order to predict accurate bid win prices.
Reference U of the Notice of References Cited “Optimal Real-time Bidding Policies for Contract Fulfillment in Second Price Auctions” discloses updating a bidding plan over time in second price auctions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY B SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6 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, Jeff Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
LINDSEY B. SMITH
Examiner
Art Unit 3688
/LINDSEY B SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688