DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 6/5/2024 is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
The following is a FINAL Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendments filed on 1/7/2026.
a. Claims 22, 34, 41 are amended
b. Claims 1-21, 23-33, 35-40 are cancelled
Overall, Claims 22, 34, 41 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 USC 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 22, 34, 41 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. an abstract idea, not integrated into a practical application, and without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the multi-step eligibility analysis, claims 22 are directed to a system, claims 34 are directed to a computer implemented method, and claims 41 are directed to a system.
Thus, on its face, each independent claim and the associated dependent claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS]
Per Step 2A.1. Independent claim 22, (which is representative of independent claims 34, 41) is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim is directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of the independent claim 22 (which is representative of independent claims 34, 41) recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] An apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor
[B] receive, from a plurality of client devices, a plurality of transaction signals associated with a plurality of device rendered objects,
wherein the plurality of device rendered objects are associated with a digital content object,
wherein each transaction signal of the plurality of transaction signals represents a completion of a transaction with one or more client devices of the plurality of client devices involving one or more device rendered objects of the plurality of device rendered objects in response to a first rendering of the one or more device rendered objects via an interface of the one or more client devices;
wherein the plurality of transaction signals are associated with a plurality of network time period segments for a respective time period of a plurality of network time periods;
[C] receive, from the plurality of client devices, a plurality of device rendered object interaction signals associated with the plurality of device rendered objects,
wherein each device rendered object interaction signal of the plurality of device rendered object interaction signals represents one or more electronic interactions performed by one or more client devices of the plurality of client devices with content associated with the digital content object in response to a second rendering of the content via the interface of the one or more client devices;
[D] programmatically generate, using a machine learning model, one or more slope values based on a plurality of cumulative transaction values associated with the plurality of transaction signals associated with the plurality of network time period segments;
[E] programmatically generate a plurality of multiplier values, based on the one or
more slope values,
wherein the plurality of night time multiplier values are associated with the plurality of network time period segments.
[F] programmatically adjust an electronic bid value for the digital content object during the respective time period based at least on the plurality of multiplier values.
Independent claim 22 (which is representative of independent claims 34, 41) recites: generating a first and a second night-time conversion rate ([D], [E); generating a night time average conversion rate and a night time multiplier ([F], [G]); and adjust an electronic bid value ([H]), which, based on the claim language and in view of the application disclosure, represents a process aimed at: “calculating and adjusting, based on a series of parameters, an electronic bid value”, which is an essential part of commerce/ecommerce.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, agreements in the form of sales activities or behaviors, business relationships (e-commerce), which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, i.e., Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that independent claim 22 (which is representative of independent claims 34, 41) recites an abstract idea that corresponds to a judicial exception.
[INDEPENDENT CLAIMS – ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS]
Per Step 2A.2. The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the independent claims only amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception to a computer, or are a general link to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f); MPEP 2106.05(h)).
For example, the added elements “a plurality of client devices,” recite computing elements at a high level of generality, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the qualifiers “wherein the plurality of device rendered objects are associated with a digital content object,”; “wherein each transaction signal of the plurality of transaction signals represents …”; “wherein each device rendered object interaction signal of the plurality of device rendered object interaction signals represents …”; “wherein a subset of a plurality of network time period segments for a respective time period of a plurality of network time periods is associated with a night time period”; “wherein the first night time conversion rate is programmatically generated based on …”; “wherein the second night time conversion rate is programmatically generated based on …”; “wherein the night time multiplier value is associated with the night time period and indicates …”, as applied to the devices, the transaction signal, the device rendered interaction signal, the network time period segments, the first night time conversion rate, the second night-time conversion rate, and the night-time multiplier value, are nothing more than (a) descriptive limitations of claim elements, such as describing the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements, or (b) general links to the computing environment, which amount to instructions to “apply it,” or equivalent (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
These qualifiers of the independent claims do not preclude from carrying out the identified abstract idea “calculating and adjusting, based on a series of parameters, an electronic bid value”, and do not serve to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional steps in the independent claims, shown not bolded above, recite: receive, from a plurality of client devices, a plurality of transaction signals associated with a plurality of device rendered objects ([B]), receive, from the plurality of client devices, a plurality of device rendered object interaction signals associated with the plurality of device rendered objects ([C]). When considered individually, they amount to nothing more than receiving data, processing data, storing results or transmitting data that serves merely to implement the abstract idea using computing components for performing computer functions (corresponding to the words “apply it” or an equivalent), or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these claim elements do not integrate the identified abstract idea (“calculating and adjusting, based on a series of parameters, an electronic bid value”) into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Therefore, the additional steps of independent claim 22 (which is representative of independent claims 34, 41) do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application and the claims remain a judicial exception.
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 22 (which is representative of claims independent 34, 41) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 22, 34, 41 are deemed ineligible.
In sum, Claims 22, 34, 41 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon which, however, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20090319371 A1 YOUNG; CHIHSIN STEVEN METHOD OF SHARING REVENUE IN AN INTERNET PRINTING SYSTEM - The present invention shares revenue in an Internet printing system comprising a search engine provider, a host computer capable of browsing the Internet, and an advertisement sponsor. A user of the host computer registers with the search engine provider as a participant in an Internet advertisement revenue sharing system managed by the search engine provider. The user of the host computer conducts a search utilizing a web page of the search engine provider and the search results in a search result page being displayed on a browser of the host computer. The user of the host computer selects an option to print the displayed search result page on a printer connected to the host computer. The host computer generates print data to print out the search result page together with advertisement data and submits the generated print data to the printer for printing. The host computer receives a confirmation message from the printer confirming that the printout of the generated print data, which includes the advertisement data, was successful. The host computer notifies the search engine provider that the printout of the print data, that included the advertisement data, was successful. The search engine provider then charges the advertisement sponsor for the printing of the advertisement data included in the printout. Finally, the search engine provider credits an account of the registered user a portion of the amount charged to the advertisement sponsor for the printing of the advertisement data.
US 20090292599 A1 Rampell; Alastair et al. TRANSACTIONAL ADVERTISING - A method of transactional advertising includes providing a transactional advertising platform for presenting offers to a user who is committed to complete an electronic transaction; selecting an offer to present based on at least two of the following associated with the transaction: a transaction amount, a payment type, a shipment address, and a shopping cart contents; and presenting the offer to the user based on a user level of commitment to complete the electronic transaction and based on the status of the transaction. The user level of commitment includes one of an indication of non-payment, an indication of payment, and an indication of indecision to pay. The transaction status includes one of needs incentive to transact, method of payment provided, payment approved, and payment complete.
US 20220374942 A1 Anand; Rahul et al. METHOD, SYSTEM, AND APPARATUS FOR PROGRAMMATICALLY DETERMINING AND ADJUSTING ELECTRONIC BID VALUES FOR A DIGITAL CONTENT OBJECT BASED ON CONVERSION RATES - Embodiments of the present disclosure provide methods, systems, and apparatuses for programmatically determining and adjusting electronic bid values for a digital content object based on different conversion rates during different network time periods. Selecting electronic bid values for digital content objects so as to improve placement of associated electronic advertisements requires a multitude of considerations. Through applied effort, ingenuity, and innovation, many of these identified problems have been solved by developing solutions that are included in embodiments of the present disclosure, many examples of which are described in detail herein.
US 20060265429 A1 Pendergast; Richard et al. Systems, methods, and computer program products for optimizing communications with selected product providers and users by identifying trends in transactions between product providers and users - A system, method, and computer program product are provided for automatically identifying trends in the number of transactions occuring between selected users and selected product providers in order to determine which product providers and/or users are most productive or least productive over the course of a selected number of time periods such that marketing or communications may be focused on selected product providers and/or users exhibiting the most extreme upward or downward transactional trends. The system of the present invention determines and stores the number of transactions that occur between users (such as individual customers and/or affiliates) and a product provider (such as a hotel) over the course of a selected number of time periods and compares the stored transactional data to the number of transactions determined over the course of a recent number of selected time periods in order to determine a transactional trend.
US 20080154951 A1 Martinez; Ronald et al. Link Retrofitting of Digital Media Objects - A digital media link embedding mechanism for generating one or more links for digital media objects embedded in network resources, such as HyperText Markup Language (HTML) or extensible markup language (XML) pages. Particular implementations of the invention allow network application hosting sites, such as blogging sites and social networking or media sites, to automatically insert revenue generating and/or informational links in proximity to digital media objects embedded by users into personal pages, blog entries, on-line forum posts, and the like. In one implementation, analysis to generate the media links focuses on data surrounding a given digitial content object to improve the relevance, or descriptiveness, of the links. Such media-related ad or search links may be more performant (relative to clickthru rates), since the concepts or keywords used to generate the ad and or search are extracted from data surrounding the digital content.
US 20130073464 A1 Magpayo; Christopher et al. SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO COMMUNICATION VIA A MERCHANT AGGREGATOR - A computing apparatus configured to determine account numbers of account holders, determine merchant identifiers used to identify respective merchants in authorization requests for transactions between the respective merchants and the account holders, monitor transactions processed by a transaction handler to detect first transactions between the merchants and the account holders, and transmit information about each of the first transactions to a remote computing device in real time as the transaction handler processes the authorization of the respective detected transaction.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s submitted remarks and arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant disagrees with the Office Action conclusions and asserts that the presented claims fully comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 regrading judicial exceptions. Further, Applicant is of the opinion that the prior art fails to teach Applicant’s invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees in both regards.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks about the Effective Filing Date of the Application.
The effective filing date of the application is acknowledged to be 12/20/2017, as a result of the claim amendments.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Applicant submits:
a. The pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
b. The identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
c. The pending claims amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that the Office has failed to meet its burden to identify the abstract idea and to establish that the identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and that the pending claims do not amount to significantly more.
Examiner responds – The arguments have been considered in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claims. The arguments ARE NOT PERSUASIVE. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
The pending claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application. This is because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05 (a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05 (b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05 (c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (e) and the Vanda memo).
In addition, the pending claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As such, the pending claims, when considered as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application and not amounting to significantly more.
More specific:
Applicant submits “Applicant submits that the programmatic generation of one or more slope values using a machine learning model and programmatic adjustment of an electronic bid value, along with the preceding features, are not any of: …”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant Office Action has determined at Step 2A1 that the claim limitations are directed to “… a process aimed at: “calculating and adjusting, based on a series of parameters, an electronic bid value”, which is an essential part of commerce/ecommerce.” Creating a bid and adjusting its value based on certain criteria is part of commerce/e-commerce, mainly because bidding is an essential part of concluding transactions.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Even if claim 22 is directed to an abstract idea-which, Applicant submits, it is not- the claim recites a combination of additional elements that improves a technical field such that the claim as a whole integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application that is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 22 includes a number of features that provide improvements to a technical field …”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
MPEP 2106.05(a) discloses that the additional claim elements bring about “improvements to the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field.” Adjusting electronic bid values is a pure BUSINESS problem, rather than a technology or technical field problem. As such, the limitations which have not been deemed as being part of the identified abstract idea, i.e., the “additional limitations,” do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application, as disclosed by MPEP 2106.05(a).
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Improvement to Computing Resource Efficiency in Dynamically Adjusting Electronic Bid Values for Digital Content Objects”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) discloses:
An important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology .... In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art .... Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. (Emphasis added)
That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity. (Emphasis added)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “As explained in the Specification as filed and as discussed above regarding utilizing a machine learning model with dynamic adjustment of electronic bid values, the improved techniques of the claims allow for improved time and computing resource efficiency. Id This is a tangible improvement to any computer utilizing the electronic bid value adjustment techniques of claim 22.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See responses here above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Consequently, claim 22 recites a combination of additional elements that improves a technical field such that the claim as a whole integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Office withdraw the § 101 rejection of claim 22.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) discloses:
An important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology .... In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art .... Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology. the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. (Emphasis added)
That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity. (Emphasis added)
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test focuses on whether the additional elements present in the claim and their combination is unconventional and provides an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05( d)(II). Applicant respectfully submits that the claims recite an unconventional combination of operations and data structures that provides non-routine results in the field of dynamic adjustment of electronic bid values for digital content objects - and thus the claims provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 22 is directed to patent eligible subject matter and requests withdrawal of the rejection.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
The eligibility analysis in the instant Office Action determines at Step 2B:
Per Step 2B. Independent claim 22 (which is representative of claims independent 34, 41) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when the independent claim is reevaluated as a whole, as an ordered combination under the considerations of Step 2B, the outcome is the same like under Step 2A.2.
Overall, it is concluded that independent claims 22, 34, 41 are deemed ineligible.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
Applicant submits “For at least similar reasons as set forth above, Applicant submits that the independent claims 34 and 41 as amended recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and requests withdrawal of the rejection to claims 34 and 41 as well as allowance in due course.”
Examiner has carefully considered, but doesn’t find Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
See responses here above.
Thus, the rejection is proper and has been maintained.
It follows from the above that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 112(a).
The rejection is withdrawn, as a result of the amendments.
With respect to Applicant’s Remarks as to the claims being rejected under 35 USC § 103.
The rejection is withdrawn, as a result of the amendments.
The prior art does not disclose at least following claim limitations:
programmatically generate, using a machine learning model, one or more slope values based on a plurality of cumulative transaction values associated with the plurality of transaction signals associated with the plurality of network time period segments;
programmatically generate a plurality of multiplier values based on the one or more slope values, wherein the plurality of multiplier values are associated with the plurality of network time periods segments; and
programmatically adjust an electronic bid value for the digital content object during the respective time period based at least on the plurality of multiplier values.
Examiner has reviewed and considered all of Applicant’s remarks. The rejection is maintained, necessitated by the fact that the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101 has not been overcome.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Radu Andrei whose telephone number is 313.446.4948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:30am – 5pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patrick McAtee can be reached at 571.272.7575. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
As disclosed in MPEP 502.03, communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center information webpage. Status information for unpublished applications is available to registered users through Patent Center information webpage only.
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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300
/Radu Andrei/
Primary Examiner, AU 3698
Prosecution Insights