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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17 (e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/26/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1,11 and 18 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 11/26/2025 have been fully considered and discussed in the next section. Applicant is reminded that the claims must be given its broadest, reasonable interpretation.
With regard to claims 1,8 and 11 objection. Applicant has clarified the claim objection and therefore, the claim objection of claims 1,8 and 11 is withdrawn.
With regard to claims 1-20 rejection under 35 USC §112 first paragraph , as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Applicant has amended and/ or clarified independent claims. Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 1-20 rejection under 35 USC §112 first paragraph , as failing to comply with the written description requirement, is withdrawn.
With regard to claims 1-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101:
Step 2A, Prong 1
Applicant argues that “claim 1 describes a computer-implemented method in which a server performs machine-learning operations prior to a selection request for real-time bidding (RTB) processes that determine how to place web-based content at targeted available webpages, and then at selection request executes the RTB processes using the data generated by the server prior to the request. The server receives a context term from a client device and generates a set of context terms using semantic similarity in a vector space, where the relationship is determined using a vectorization machine-learning model and a threshold indicating semantic similarity. The claim further recites filtering terms based on out-of-context terms, calculating implication scores based on co-occurrence with topic terms, and selecting a topic term based on those scores. These steps are used to identify, prior to the selection request, a set of users based on historical webpage access, and the resulting campaign data is stored for use in an RTB selection operation. At selection request, the server can automatically and conditionally transmit a selection instruction to a content exchange server if the user accessing the webpage is determined to be in the identified set of users. These operations are not mental processes or fundamental economic practices. They are implemented by a server and operate in a specific technological environment involving real-time interactions between a placement server and a content exchange server. The claim does not recite merely automate a conventional advertising or marketing. Instead, the claims include features that describe a specific, computer-implemented process for dynamically defining and activating audiences for content delivery using machine learning-based vectorization, semantic similarity thresholding, and real-time audience activation. As such, the claims do not amount to a fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interaction, or a method of managing personal behavior or relationships. The claims provide a particular sequence of technical operations that improve the functioning of content delivery systems. As such, the claims do not fall within the categories of "methods of organizing human activity" or "mathematical formula" and satisfy Step 2A, Prong 1. Accordingly, the claims do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1, and therefore are patent-eligible (page 3/7)”.
Examiner disagrees. Applicant's argument that the claims overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection under Step 2a, Prong 1 because a computer-implemented method in which a server performs machine-learning operations prior to a selection request for real-time bidding (RTB) processes that determine how to place web-based content at targeted available webpages, and then at selection request executes the RTB processes using the data generated by the server prior to the request. The server receives a context term from a client device and generates a set of context terms using semantic similarity in a vector space, where the relationship is determined using a vectorization machine-learning model and a threshold indicating semantic similarity. The claim further recites filtering terms based on out-of-context terms, calculating implication scores based on co-occurrence with topic terms, and selecting a topic term based on those scores. These steps are used to identify, prior to the selection request, a set of users based on historical webpage access, and the resulting campaign data is stored for use in an RTB selection operation. At selection request, the server can automatically and conditionally transmit a selection instruction to a content exchange server if the user accessing the webpage is determined to be in the identified set of users are not mental processes or fundamental economic practices and/or a specific set of computer-implemented operations that transforms data mined from a corpus into campaign data that instructs the server on RTB determinations and decisions across systems cannot be performed by a human being is not convincing. The only abstract idea bucket in which performance by a human is required is the "Mental Process" bucket which requires that the steps be capable of being performed in the human mind. The claims of the instant invention have not been identified as a "Mental Process".
As stated in the Office Action, the steps of receiving a context term from a client and generates a set of context terms using semantic similarity in a vector space, where the relationship is determined using a vectorization machine-learning model and a threshold indicating semantic similarity and filtering terms based on out-of-context terms, calculating implication scores based on co-occurrence with topic terms, and selecting a topic term based on those scores; to identify, a set of users based on historical webpage access, and the resulting campaign data is stored for use in an RTB selection operation, and automatically and conditionally transmit a selection instruction to a content exchange server if the user accessing the webpage is determined to be in the identified set of users is directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis.
Since analyzing data is part of the abstract idea itself, any improvement obtained by automating the analyzing of the data in an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matters (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. 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; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.
As such, the claims as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
The mere recitation of “device and server” is merely a general-purpose computer which is used to merely apply the abstract idea. Thus, while the claims recite the purported improvement, the improvement is rooted solely in the abstract idea which is merely applied using the general-purpose computer as evidenced by Applicant’s specification [79-82]. Improvements of this nature are improvements to an abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matter (see SAP v. Investpic). As such, the claims as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations.
The claims fall within Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities". The Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines indicate that "advertising, marketing or sales related activities" is a subcategory of "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities". There is no requirement that these "advertising, marketing, or sales related activities" be performed by a human being. Therefore, all steps involved in the performance of advertising, marketing or sales related activities are part of the abstract idea itself irrespective of whether they are performed by a computer or performed by a human being. Thus, the applicant's arguments are moot. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Applicant argues that “The Specification describes a system that improves the functioning of a content delivery network by enabling dynamic, context-aware audience definition and conditional content placement. See, e.g., Specification at Abstract; [0012]. The claims provide a specific series of operations for dynamically mining a large corpus of webpage data in order to select and generate relevant bidding constraints (e.g., set of users of an audience), which are stored as campaign data. See id at [0005]-[0008], [0035]-[0038]. The server then uses these bidding constraints in the campaign data to determine whether to send bidding or placement instructions to a content server hosting an RTB operation. See id at [0011], [0078]-[0080]. In this way, the claims describe a specific, computer-implemented improvement that improves the efficiency and accuracy of real-time placement decisions in RTB interactions, by avoiding unnecessary data transmission if the user is or is not in an audience. See id at [0080]. The claims also describe computer-implemented operations that reduce latency in content placement because there are fewer determinations and operations that need to be performed in a massive amount of webpage data at selection request. See id at [0079]-[0080]. For instance, prior to the selection request, the computer has identified users based on behavioral data and semantic relationships in historic webpage data and historic webpage visits, and so the bidding constraints (e.g., audience of users for an available webpage) are determined, allowing the server to perform quicker determinations at selection request about whether the user and/or webpage meet those constraints, and send bid placement instructions. See id. at [0076]-[0080]. The claims reflect these technical solutions. For instance, claim 1 recites generating a set of context terms using semantic similarity in a vector space and filtering based on out-of-context terms, which correspond to the term expansion and filtering described in the Specification. See id at [0075]. These context terms are then used to select a topic term, which is then used to determine users who accessed webpages associated with the selected topic term. See id, [0076]-[0077]. The server uses this computer-generated information derived from the corpus of webpages to then generate and store campaign data for use at selection request in later RTB operations. See id, [0076]-[0078]. At selection request, the claim recites receiving a request for a selection instruction and conditionally transmitting an indication of a content provider selection only if the user is in the audience. See id. at [0078]-[0080]. As such, the claims describe the features that provide the technological improvements discussed in the Specification. Accordingly, the claim integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and is therefore patent-eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two (page 5/7)”.
Examiner disagrees. Examiner notes it has been held that “ Although claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims (In re Van Geuns, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (CA FC 1993)”.
As evident by Applicant’s specification “A general-purpose server computer, a personal computer, or the like [27]can be used for determining users based on databases of webpage corpora for dynamic placement of content on available webpages hosted by third-party webservers processing apparatus 1, and the apparatus 1 can be configured using a generic computers and components recited at a high level of generality and used as tools to perform the abstract idea without improving computers, interfaces or other technologies.
Thus, the use of server fails to (a) improve another technology or technical field and (b) improve the functioning of the computer itself and (c) applies the abstract idea with or by use of, a particular machine, which is a generic computer performing generic computer functions and are not seen to recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Indeed, the identified improvements recited by Applicant are really, at best improvements to the performance of the abstract idea (e.g., improvements made in the underlying business method (operations that reduce latency in content placement because there are fewer determinations and operations that need to be performed in a massive amount of webpage data at selection request to perform quicker determinations at selection request about whether the user and/or webpage meet those constraints, and send bid placement instructions and/ or improves the efficiency and accuracy of real-time placement decisions in RTB interactions, by avoiding unnecessary data transmission if the user is or is not in an audience) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology.
As such, the examiner finds that any improvement obtained by practicing the claimed invention is an improvement to a business process. Second, under Step 2a, Prong 2, the improvement to a technology or technological field must be rooted in the additional element. Additional elements are those elements outside of the identified abstract idea itself. In the instant case the only additional elements are “ database, webpage, device, server”, which are just general-purpose computers with generic computing components upon which the abstract idea is applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 or be considered significantly more under Step 2b. Thus, any improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea, is an improvement obtained by practicing the abstract idea and not rooting in the additional elements upon which the abstract idea is applied. Improvements of this nature are not patent eligible (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because there are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. 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; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.).
Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Step 2B
Applicant argues that “The claims recite additional elements that amount to "significantly more" than any alleged abstract idea, and thus satisfy Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. As explained in the MPEP and the USPTO's eligibility guidance, an inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of elements that provide a technical improvement over the prior art. See MPEP 2106.05. The claims describe specific, non-generic combination of features that include machine learning-based vectorization, semantic similarity thresholding, implication scoring, and real-time audience activation for content delivery. This arrangement of features is not well- understood, routine, or conventional in the field; nor do the features simply describe an automation of a known business process on a generic computer. Rather, the claims provide a concrete technological solution that improves the accuracy of real-time content placement amongst computing components, such as a placement server, content exchange server, and RTB server. See Specification at [0034]-[0038], [0075]-[0080]. The claims do not merely recite generic computer functions or insignificant extra-solution activity but describe a particular sequence of machine- executed technical operations that transform how audiences are defined and selected for online content delivery. Accordingly, the claims recite an inventive concept and are therefore patent- eligible under Step 2B. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 10 (page 6/7)”.
Examiner disagrees. The Alice decision requires the "additional elements" of the claim which must contribute something "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself that is far from routine and conventional. However, the only "additional elements" in the applicant's claims are a general- purpose computer and a standard encoding technique. These "additional elements" are merely used as a tool to apply the abstract idea which is insufficient to be considered "significantly more" than the abstract idea. The argued limitations which the applicant asserts are far from routine and conventional are part of the abstract idea itself and not "additional elements" of the claimed invention. Thus, the argued limitations are not capable of being considered "significantly more" under Step 2b. Instead, the argued limitations that the applicant asserts are far from routine and conventional would be, at best, an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matter. Thus, the applicants' arguments are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained. Accordingly, the claim rejection of claims 1-20 rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
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 subject matter, specifically an abstract idea. The analysis for this determination is explained below:
Step 1, determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claim(s) 1-10 are directed to a process (i.e. a method); claims 11-17 are directed to a machine (i.e. a system); claim (s) 18-20 are directed to a manufacture (i.e. a non-transitory computer medium).
The claimed invention is directed to at least one judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 for instance recite(s) the following abstract idea of: “ prior to a selection request: receiving, , from a client, a context term with which to identify one or more additional terms; generating, a set of context terms including the context term and the one or more additional terms, by selecting from one or more of a plurality of corpus terms having a relationship with the context term, the storing text extracted from a plurality of historic webpages, the relationship including a distance based upon a feature vector of the context term and the feature vector of the corpus terms using a vectorization algorithm that satisfies a threshold indicating a semantic similarity with the context term, and filtering at least one corpus term based on an out-of-context term received from the client device; selecting, a particular topic term from the plurality of topic terms based on the implication score for the particular topic term; determining, an audience representing a set of one or more users having accessed at least one of the set of historic pages associated with the particular topic term; and storing, by the server into a campaign database, campaign data comprising the audience representing the set of one or more users, the set of context terms, and the particular topic term, the campaign data configured for executing a real-time bidding selection operation for an available page being accessed by a user of the audience hosted by one or more third-party servers during the real-time bidding selection operation and at the selection request, according to the real-time bidding selection operation: receiving, from a third-party hosting the available webpage a request for a selection instruction for a content provider; and determining that the user is in the set of one or more users of the audience for the available webpage, and in in response to determining that the user is in the set of one or more users of the audience for the available webpage, transmitting, an indication of a selection of a content provider”.
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, because the merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based upon the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content.
The recitation of calculating, an implication score for a plurality of topic terms based on a co-occurrence between each topic term and one or more of the set of context terms on a set of historic pages associated with the topic term, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to mathematical concepts (relations, equations and/or calculations).
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of “database, webpage, device, server and a machine learning model”. The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong Two=Yes).
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the additional elements of “database, webpage, device, server, and machine learning model ”, to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computers communicating over a general purpose network (as evidenced from paragraphs 79-82); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility. Finally, the following limitations are considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, storing and/or transmitting data:
receiving, by a server, from a client device, a context term with which to identify additional terms;
storing, by the server into a campaign database, campaign data comprising the audience representing the set of one or more users, the set of context terms and ...;
receiving, by the server, from a third-party server hosting the available webpage a request for a selection instruction for a content provider; and
transmitting, by the server, to a content exchange server, an indication of a selection of a content provider;
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e.MPEP Step 2B=No).
For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible. Same Judicial analysis is applied here to independent claims 11 and 18.
The dependent claims 2-7,9-10, 12-17 and 19-20 appears to merely further limit the abstract idea of Certain methods of organizing Human Activity” as it relates to commercial interactions of advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), by adding the additional steps of: determining, by the server, the plurality of topic terms from a plurality of terms on the plurality of historic webpages accessed by a plurality of users (Claims 2 and 12);maintaining, by the server, an association between each user of a plurality of users based on the user having accessed at least one of the plurality of historic webpages associated with the topic term; and wherein determining the audience further comprises identifying the set of one or more users of the audience using the association between each user of the plurality of users with the particular topic term (Claims 3, 13 and 19); ranking, by the server, a plurality of users for the topic term based on a number of times that each user of the plurality of users accessed at least one of the plurality of historic webpages associated with the topic term ( Claims 4 and 14); identifying, by the server, from a request for a selection value, an identifier for the user from the set of one or more users of the audience; and transmitting, by the server, to a content exchange server, the selection value of a content provider in response to identifying the identifier for the user (Claims 5, 15 and 20); receiving, by the server, from the client device, an audience size defining a number of users to be selected from a plurality of the users for the audience; and wherein determining the audience includes identifying the set of one or more users of the audience from a plurality of users based on the audience size (claims 6 and 16); generating, by the server, a plurality of phrases for the topic term using a plurality of terms on the plurality of historic webpages from which the topic term is determined (claims 7 and 14); wherein generating the set of context terms further comprises (i) selecting a first subset of corpus terms from the plurality of corpus terms based on the context term and (ii) removing a second subset of corpus terms from the first subset of corpus terms using an out-of-context term received from the client device (claim 9); transmitting, by the server, the plurality of topic terms for display on a graphical user interface (GUI) of the client device (claims 10 and 17);
Dependent claim 8 appears to merely further limit the abstract idea of Certain methods of organizing Human Activity” as it relates to mathematical concepts (relations, equations and/or calculations), by adding the additional steps of: calculating the implication score further comprises calculating the implication score based on a number of occurrences of at least one of the set of context terms on at least one of the plurality of historic webpages associated with the topic term;
which is considered part of the abstract idea and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. MPEP Step 2B=No).
Thus, the dependent claims further narrows the abstract idea and/or recite additional elements previously rejected in the independent claims 1,11 and 18.
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
The examiner, has been unable to find prior art that discloses the combination of the claimed features of independent claims. Thus, the claims contain subject matter that would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant to be able to overcome the Claim rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 101 above..
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant' s disclosure.
Nair et al, US Pub No: 20160371390 A1, teaches computerized systems and methods for generating a dynamic webpage based on retrieved content.
RAO et al, US Pub No:20150039420A1 teaches audience centric pricing
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Affaf Ahmed whose telephone number is 571-270-1835. The examiner can normally be reached on [M- R 8-6 pm ].
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application 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.
/AFAF OSMAN BILAL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622