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 .
Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 18, 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a final rejection dated October 16, 2025. In the RCE, submitted on December 18, 2025, claims 1, 5, 12, 14, and 18 were amended, claims 6 and 19 were cancelled, and claims 21-22 were added. Therefore, claims 1-5, 7-18, and 20-22 are currently pending and subject to the following non-final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on Pages 9-12 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
On Pages 10-11 of the Response, Applicant states “Claims 1 and 14 have been amended herein to recite additional elements that recite a structure for redistribution of traffic across variants that allows to dynamically adapt traffic splits between variants based on continuous rewards, leading to specific improvements in A/B testing systems…Consistent with the Examiner's suggestions, Claims 1 and 14 are amended herein to include the additional elements of (a) sending control signals to the one or more traffic routing devices to implement the new traffic allocation to each respective variant in the set of variants; and (b) sending, via the one or more traffic routing devices, the traffic to each respective variant in the set of variants according to the assigned new traffic allocation. Support for the amendments can be found in Claim 6 as filed and paragraph [0090] of the Specification as filed. The additional elements (a) and (b) clearly recite a structure for dynamically redistributing traffic across the set of variants based on the expected value of reward. These additional elements provide for improved overall performance and network bandwidth usage by using information of the expected value of rewards to identify the best-performing variants and proactively distributing or redistributing a larger proportion of traffic to the best-performing variants, thereby optimizing the traffic allocation/distribution in real-time (or near real-time).” Furthermore, Applicant cites to Paras. 27 and 28 of the specification to disclose “the improvements to A/B systems in terms of continuous optimization of traffic allocation and distribution.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Paras. 27 and 28 of the specification explain “[0027] For example, by continuously updating traffic allocation based on the expected value of rewards derived from continuous metrics, convergence on the optimal variant can occur more rapidly. This faster convergence reduces the computational overhead associated with prolonged A/B testing, as fewer iterations and less processing power are required to identify the preferred variant. Consequently, faster convergence enables more efficient use of CPU cycles and can be implemented using less powerful or fewer processors compared to traditional A/B testing methods. [0028] Moreover, the faster convergence on the optimal variant allows the A/B testing process to conclude sooner, resulting in memory and storage savings over time. As the system can more quickly identify and focus on the best-performing variants, there is a reduced need to maintain data and states for underperforming variants. This leads to a smaller memory footprint and more efficient utilization of storage resources. Furthermore, by adaptively allocating a larger proportion of user requests to the best-performing variants, the invention optimizes network bandwidth usage. Less traffic is wasted on suboptimal variants, resulting in improved overall system performance, reduced network load, and a better user experience. These technical improvements ultimately enhance the scalability of A/B testing infrastructures, enabling them to handle larger volumes of continuous reward data more efficiently with advanced techniques such as inference and sampling methods.” That is, the benefits and advantages are reflected for the optimal variant, while the independent claims only recite “sending….the traffic to each respective variant in the set of variants according to the assigned new traffic allocation.”
As such, Examiner suggests Applicant amend the independent claims to include language from new claims 21 and 22 (respectively) and to indicate that the iterative process converges when the optimal variant is then identified, and allocating the incoming traffic to the optimal variant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 (and similarly claim 22) recite “allocating a larger proportion of incoming traffic to the optimal variant.” It is unclear relative to what is the larger proportion is being allocated. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “allocating a larger proportion of incoming traffic to the optimal variant, relative to a proportion of traffic allocated to each variant in the set of variants.”
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 1-5, 7-18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-5, 17-13 and 21 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), and claims 14-18, 20, and 22 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1-5, 7-18 and 20-22 all fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claims 1 and 14 recite a series of steps of/functions of: sending traffic to each respective variant of a set of variants according to a respective initial traffic allocation for each respective variant of the set of variants; and iteratively: receiving reward data associated with each respective variant of a set of variants corresponding to continuous values representing an outcome measure for the respective variant; generating a posterior probability density function for each respective variant in the set of variants based on the reward data for the respective variant and a prior probability density function for the respective variant; performing a sampling operation on the posterior probability density function for each respective variant to generate an expected value of reward associated with each variant in the set of variants; assigning a new traffic allocation to each respective variant in the set of variants based on the expected value of reward associated with the respective variant; implanting the new traffic allocation to each respective variant in the set of variants; and sending the traffic to each respective variant in the set of variants according to the assigned new traffic allocation.
The claims as a whole recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations recited above, under broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity, e.g., commercial interactions. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 14 as a whole amount to: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract, or “apply it.”
The claims recite the additional elements of: (i) a user interface (claims 1 and 14); and (ii) memory comprising computer-executable instructions; and a processor configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the processing system to perform a method (claim 14); and (iii) one or more traffic routing devices, and sending control signals to the one or more traffic routing devices (claims 1 and 14)
The additional element of (i) a user interface is recited at a high-level of generality (See Paras. 85 and 110 disclosing a user interface), such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements of (ii) memory comprising computer-executable instructions; and a processor configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the processing system to perform a method, are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements of (iii) one or more traffic routing devices, and sending control signals to the one or more traffic routing devices (claims 1 and 14) are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (e.g., Fig. 1) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract, or “apply it”, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract, or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-5, 8-13, 15-18, and 21-22 further recite details which merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitiaitions. For these reasons, as described above with respect to claims 1 and 14, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2-5, 8-13, 15-18, and 21-22 are also ineligible.
Claims 7 and 20 recites substantially the same abstract idea as claims 1 and 14 respectively. The additional elements unencompassed by the abstract idea include a control interface. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components utilized in the implementation of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not include limitations sufficient, either alone or in combination, to amount to significantly more than the claimed abstract idea because the aforementioned additional elements merely serve as generic computer components utilized in the implementation of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Allowable over Prior Art
Claims 1-5, 7-18, and 20-22 are allowable over the prior art, because no prior art teaches the combination of limitations, in particular “iteratively performing the steps of: generating a posterior probability density function for each respective variant in the set of variants based on the reward data for the respective variant and a prior probability density function for the respective variant; performing a sampling operation on the posterior probability density function for each respective variant to generate an expected value of reward associated with each respective variant in the set of variants; assigning a new traffic allocation to each respective variant in the set of variants based on the expected value of reward associated with the respective variant; sending control signals to the one or more traffic routing devices to implement the new traffic allocation to each respective variant in the set of variants: and sending, via the one or more traffic routing devices, the traffic to each respective variant in the set of variants according to the assigned new traffic allocation” as recited in claim 1 (and similarly claim 14) with the other claim limitations. The claims however, are subject to the above 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections.
The closes prior art for the independent claims includes:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0398650 to Rosenbaum et al. (hereinafter “Rosenbaum”). Rosenbaum discloses one or more experimentation parameters or variables may include one or more of a traffic split ratio. In some cases, a multi-arm band (MAB) test may be utilized to determine an optimal virtual storefront template and may be utilized to dynamically allocate traffic to the different storefronts based on the success of each arm of the test.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0316845 to Grey et al. (hereinafter “Grey”). Grey discloses a recursive estimation loop is based on a Bayesian estimation loop that may then construct posterior probability density functions for the state variables based on all available information and sequences of received inputs and/or measurements.
“The Bayesian Approach to A/B Testing” by Siva Gabbi, dated January 28, 2023 (hereinafter “Gabbi”). Gabbi discloses calculating the p(X) value (probability of click-through) given the observed sample data is a product of prior and likelihood. Here, prior probability is the probability to click on a variation before any sample data is collected (this would be the historical average of an experiment, or in the absence of any data, can be equated to a uniform distribution), and likelihood, on the other hand, the probability distribution of the collected sample data.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0253649 to Mikkulainen et al. (hereinafter “Mikkulainen”). Mikkulainen discloses s storing candidate individuals in a candidate pool and evolving the candidate individuals by performing steps including (i) testing each of the candidate individuals to obtain test results, (ii) assigning a performance measure to the tested candidate individuals, (iii) discarding candidate individuals from the candidate pool in dependence upon their assigned performance measure, and (iv) adding, to the candidate pool, a new candidate individual procreated from candidate individuals remaining in the candidate pool. The method further includes selecting, as the winning candidate individual, a candidate individual having a best neighborhood performance measure
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0057975 to Legrand et al. (hereinafter “Legrand”). Legrand discloses finding a best solution to a problem by evolving candidate individuals in a candidate pool by testing each candidate individual of the candidate individuals to obtain test results, assigning a performance measure to each of the tested candidate individuals in dependence upon the test results, discarding candidate individuals from the candidate pool in dependence upon their assigned performance measure, and adding, to the candidate pool, a new candidate individual procreated from parent candidate individuals remaining in the candidate pool, and repeating the evolution steps to evolve the candidate individuals in the candidate pool.
Prior Art
The following is prior art not cited but considered relevant:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0294157 to Miyagi et al. (hereinafter “Miyagi”). Miyagi discloses a natural conjugate prior distribution of the standard deviation σ when a population conforms to a normal distribution is a reverse chi-square distribution and a natural conjugate prior distribution of the mean μ is a normal distribution for a conditional probability given a variance σ2 (the natural conjugate prior distribution is a prior distribution in which forms of probability density distribution expressions are consistent with each other in a prior distribution and a posterior distribution) to repeatedly sample each distribution and propagate influences through the structured method.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rupangini Singh whose telephone number is (571)270-0192. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached on 571-272-5587. 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.
/RUPANGINI SINGH/
Examiner, Art Unit 3628